Explain why you view your tendency as the best/most rational

But the abolition of capital isn't an end into itself. It is driven by a desire to liberate humanity and create a better society. Many forms of direct action focus on the latter, creating anti-/post-capitalist infrastructure and relations.

it's driven by a variety of things, i don't think that's very important in this case, except inasmuch as i don't think anarchism is about a "desire to liberate humanity" but for humanity to liberate itself (or however malatesta put it).

and i don't think it's possible to create "anti-/post-capitalist infrastructure and relations" in capitalist society, but that is another can of worms entirely.

Wait, who "chooses" their tendency in a careful rational manner?
Haven't y'all ever been swept up in something? Drawn to people? Lived in the midst of a struggle?

Probably if you read through the books and picked the most "rational" tendency, you picked wrong.

Oh you! :blushing:

Because I view authoritarianism as entirely contrary to real socialism - Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism are completely abhorrent to me. At the same time I find anarchism to be very hard to put into practice in a modern society. Thus, I came to the conclusion that Luxemburgism best represents my views.

I am anti-reform in the sense I oppose reforms that hurt the working class and poor -- increasing retirement age, lowering minimum wage, privatization of healthcare, etc.

The attitude of "I'd rather sit in my house and whine" rather then be out educating the proletariat and fighting side by side to defend reforms or achieve reforms, is stupid.

Marxism - it's not too libertarian to be impossible, but not too authoriarian to become a party dictatorship.

I am an Anarchist because I believe that no coercive hierarchies should have control over peoples' lives. I believe that hierarchies are parasitic to the world, and will exploit anybody they want in order to get more wealth and power. You can look at Capitalism, corporate industries are destroying our planet, and abusing workers in foreign countries, for what? Bigger profits, more power, less costs. What does the state do? They invade other countries, bomb the shit out of people trying to fight back the invasion, and establish puppet governments, for what? More power, more influence, and bigger profits from imperialist ventures.

Hierarchies ultimately lead to abuse, and we've seen where that ends up. That's why I'm for abolishing all hierarchies, it ultimately leads to death, destruction, and abuses for the ruling class.

I'm very interested in your explanation of how the Soviet Union or its satellites were stateless and classless societies.

Because my tendency is the most successful in implementing its theory and expanding revolution through class war.

It was even successful in creating one of the world's greatest capitalist superpowers, where workers are beaten to death by the party/business owners if they so much as ask for a 1$ raise to their 4$ living wage!

As if any other tendency hasn't either failed to produce a revolution or led a revolution that degenerated? This really isn't a fair standard to judge any tendency by.

I agree with this, and it's one of the chief reasons that I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist.

Also - existential Marxism, because it refuses to surrender human will to purely deterministic factors, and encourages man to soberly make his own future and stresses free will.

Don't forget about instigating reactionary, nationalist, pro-capitalist peasant movements!

What YABM said. And let's not forget that the capitalist power has openly abandoned my tendency, while thousands of militant strikes that take place there each year gather under our banners from the 60s.

That is really a pro-imperialist stand. If you don't flamebait more cleverly, you will easily be identified as the right-wing troll that you are, and banned.

Uh, no. Support for capitalism is support for imperialism, which is what Maoists thrive on. When you run around supporting New Democracy and Al-Asad, that's pro-imperialism.

I'm going to presume you are accusing my tendency of being revisionist because we believe that the peasantry is capable of having a communist consciousness.

You know who else was a revisionist? That Karl Marx guy

http://understandingsociety.blogspot...on-russia.html

Well then you're assuming too much. I never said anything about peasants not being able to achieve "communist consciousness," all I said was that Maoist groups are made up of reactionary peasants wanting to institute state capitalism.

Substansate this claim or I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.

None of us support Assad, well no MLM folks anyway. Shitty ML-MZT and Maoist third worldist might but noone cares about them