What am I?

[gorillafuck]

I am not sure what branch of Marxism I am, and I need some help figuring it out (I take influence from various writings). Here's a very vague outline of my views.........

1. I believe in forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois class and capitalist state (though I would gladly accept non-violent means if possible)
2. I believe in democracy for the working class.
3. I believe in a party
4. I am opposed to state capitalism, I want workers democracy
5. I am opposed to democratic centralism kind of (but not totally)
6. I think that the proletariat is capable as class of doing the revolution. The party is class organization.

edit: c a m p f i r e s o n g song

[#FF0000]

Left Communism, maybe? Maybe Trotskyism, but I don't know how they feel about democratic centralism.

[Black Sheep]

There is no need to put a name tag on you (unless you want to see what party/organization you are going to support, so to have some reference on your judgement)

[zimmerwald1915]

gopherthegreat: what is your opinion on the Second World War? Should Communists have supported their countries' participation in it?

Apparently this is a litmus test for something or other.

[ZeroNowhere]

You could be one of us De Leonists. Do you believe in Socialist Industrial Unionism as a method of organizing the working class in order to streamline the change from capitalism to dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism before it is international), and eventually a means for organization in socialism?


1. I believe in forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois class and capitalist state (though I would gladly accept non-violent means if possible)
Yup, certainly. Both parts of it.

2. I believe in democracy for the working class as a whole
Yup.

3. I believe in a party
Yup.

4. I am opposed to state capitalism, I want workers democracy
Yup.

5. I am opposed to democratic centralism
The SLP does seem to follow democratic centralism, but this has nothing to do with De Leonism. De Leon did advocate some degree of discipline in terms of who joined a Party, but this was pretty much keeping out reformists (also known as 'social democrats' currently)
[quote]6. I think that the proletariat is capable as class of doing the revolution. The party is class organization[quote]
Yup, though we also believe in Socialist Industrial Unionism (an international union where workers are organized by industrial rather than geographic industries, and it is democratic) in order to prepare the workers to immediately get things running after a revolution, with all decisions made (new managers elected, etc) so that we can make an immediate transition without the economy suffering.

[Bilan]

Left communist, by the sounds of it.

Check out the ICC (http://internationalism.org/500/)and see what you think.

[Tower of Bebel]

I am not sure what branch of Marxism I am, and I need some help figuring it out (I take influence from various writings). Here's a very vague outline of my views.........

1. I believe in forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois class and capitalist state (though I would gladly accept non-violent means if possible)
2. I believe in democracy for the working class as a whole
3. I believe in a party
4. I am opposed to state capitalism, I want workers democracy
5. I am opposed to democratic centralism
6. I think that the proletariat is capable as class of doing the revolution. The party is class organization

You can ask me more questions about my views to help determine what branch of Marxism I might be.
What do you mean by democratic centralism and democracy for the working class as a whole (workers democracy)?

[gorillafuck]

You could be one of us De Leonists. Do you believe in Socialist Industrial Unionism as a method of organizing the working class in order to streamline the change from capitalism to dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism before it is international), and eventually a means for organization in socialism?
Yup.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, basically the political victory is the shield, and industrial victory the sword. Political victory's purpose is primarily to hold back the coercive forces of the political state, as well as earlier for political agitation, which was described as being of 'immeasurable' value. The ballot is to be used as a destructive force, that is, it is to be captured and immediately destroyed, while the constructive force is that of the SIU. Of course, there may be slight alterations in places where the ballot is silenced, and thus the bullet must speak.
De Leon criticized those craft-based union leaders (called 'labor fakirs', or intentionally misspelt 'labor fakers') who assert that capital and labour have common interests, and claimed that the true purpose of unionism was to unite the workers into one force for the "dethronement of the capitalist class" and to "take and hold" the industries. Basically, he was for the uniting of the workers into 'One Big Union' (as the IWW call it). Within this union, there would be councils going from the plant level to the shop level to an All-Industrial Union, in which things such as the distribution of created wealth, co-operation of industries, etc, would be determined by democratically elected delegates who are also workers with ordinary wages, subject to recall at any time by the workers of their plant/shop/industry/etc. It means that things will be determined before the revolution takes place, and thus right after the revolution, the workers will already be organized, and changes shall take place immediately, thus meaning that production and such would not suffer, new managers could take place immediately, etc. Changes would also probably include some changes in, to quote the IWW, "what part of that work might better be left undone, or replaced by work that would do working people more good." This could be planned before the revolution took place, for immediate execution. They would then serve as the basis for the new social order (how social issues would be decided on differs greatly, and isn't much of a fixed aspect of De Leonism).
It also organizes the workers into a revolutionary force capable of ignoring the capitalists, for example, if they tried a capital strike when a labour party was gaining power. Members would also be required not to scab (members who promote the union fighting for improvements say that this is a good way to prevent them from scabbing).
It would be international, thus uniting workers everywhere so that international production could be streamlined, and workers within each industry could co-operate as part of the international economy, as well as to mean that wealth (meaning the stuff produced) would be distributed towards places suffering from natural disasters as necessary, etc. This would also help with the internationalism of the socialist movement as well.
Whether or not the SIU would go for immediate demands (higher wages, etc) is debated, with some (eg. the SLP) saying that it should fight for them, but make it clear that it is simply biding its time ("At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with the effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady." -Marx) while others (eg. the De Leonist Society of Canada) say that it should be a purely revolutionary organization, and anything else would be a descent into reformism. Certainly, De Leon was strongly against any form of populism or reformism (though I doubt a union fighting for higher wages while making it clear that this is not enough would count as reformism), saying, "Give up a single principle or a single particle of a principle, whether for votes or for ease, and you are gone, irretrievably gone." The SPUSA probably don't like that pronouncement. :D
The SIU would probably only accept socialists (generally anarcho-syndicalists and De Leonists, perhaps the occasional council commie would wish to join). Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Edit: Awesome, welcome aboard. ;)

[zimmerwald1915]

My question hasn't been answered :glare:

[gorillafuck]

That pretty sums up my views, and based on what I read today by De Leon I certainly agree with what he has to contribute.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

You strike me as definitely a workerist. That is, one who supports the whole notion of a "workers' state", in opposition to the proletarian dictatorship (which is a class alliance organized on the basis of a proletarian political line). With all due respect, such outlooks strike me as on the narrow side, basically oriented toward the thinking of "The first shall be last and the last shall be first" rather than oriented toward the liberation of all of humanity. Workerists tail after the movements of the working class, rather than trying to lead them, let alone all positive factors from all social strata, forward (hence your preference for liberalism over democratic centralism, for example). Menshevik might be the single most accurate descriptive term.

[zimmerwald1915]

You strike me as definitely a workerist. That is, one who supports the whole notion of a "workers' state", in opposition to the proletarian dictatorship (which is a class alliance organized on the basis of a proletarian political line). With all due respect, such outlooks strike me as on the narrow side, basically oriented toward the thinking of "The first shall be last and the last shall be first" rather than oriented toward the liberation of all of humanity. Workerists tail after the movements of the working class, rather than trying to lead them, let alone all positive factors from all social strata, forward (hence your preference for liberalism over democratic centralism, for example). Menshevik might be the single most accurate descriptive term.
Except that both "workerist" and "menshevik" are pejoritives and we don't like to insult people ;)

You still haven't answered my question, gopher.

[gorillafuck]

You still haven't answered my question, gopher.
I think that US involvement in trying to defeat the Nazis was might have been justified (though I don't know much about it). As for our conflict with Japan, I don't know anything about it.

[zimmerwald1915]

All the people calling you a left communist are wrong. I wish they weren't, but there you go.:crying:

[gorillafuck]

Fine by me.

To be honest, I don't know much about the background of our conflict with the Nazis either.

[zimmerwald1915]

Fine by me.

To be honest, I don't know much about the background of our conflict with the Nazis either.
Well, IIRC, one of the fundamental ways groups of the communist left identify each other is by their attitude towards world imperialist war. In this paradigm, groups that support antifascism and/or national liberation (the two major justifications raised by Trotskyists, Stalinists, Social Democrats, etc. for participation in WWII) are located outside the tradition of the communist left, and in practice, groups of the communist left really like to have members that agree with their programmes.

[gorillafuck]

I'm aware of that. I was more interested in what ZeroNowhere was saying.

I'm still learning different complexities and details of different branches of Marxism. That's one reason I joined this site.

[Annie K.]

1. I believe
2. I believe
3. I believeYou believe too much. You're a christian leftist.

[gorillafuck]

You believe too much. You're a christian leftist.
That I do.

And I used to be, not anymore though (though I am not an atheist).

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I guess this is veering off a bit from the main subject of this thread, but I simply can't resist the temptation to get into this whole aside topic of World War 2. Forgive me!

What shall we say of hastening forward while awaiting the arrival of a revolutionary situation? The Chinese Communist Party adopted this as its when Japan invaded China. The whole "Great Patriotic War" concept was definitely a wrong framework, methinks, but fighting against occupying forces in order to hasten forward revolution clearly worked in China. Is this too a wrong approach, Zimmerwald? (The difference in these examples is line: revolutionary or patriotic?)