Some have good intentions. Some are definitely careerist and cynics...
Results 1 to 20 of 72
What's the far-left views on the left wing
As you know, it's well known in the far-left that the central-left are utter bullshiter free market loving shitheads
Such as social democrats
But what about democratic socialists, the most adverdage ass of the Intire left wing
They seek through democratic means to ban the private sector, put in a welfare state, ban all managers/CEOs in factory's.
Are they seen as merely doomed to fail with good ambitions/ or seen in the same light as social democrats?
Some have good intentions. Some are definitely careerist and cynics...
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth."
I like democratic socialists, I would call them my comrades. I don't dislike social-democrats, it is just that I don't agree with all of their views, but they are far better than anything further right.
Economic Left/Right: -10 (<- That means I am left wing)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -9.08 (<- That means I am libertarian
From: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
"If you saw my real picture, you might wet yourself....with laughter, I might add." - Comrade Dodger
Hey, I don't like social democrats myself, but to call them "central-left are utter bullshiter free market loving shitheads" is just lazy. Social democrats are very much against the free market and you often see them everywhere at anti-privatization protests. But I guess you do have a point ever since Third Way became mainstream in "socialist" parties
Democratic socialists aren't all bad. George Orwell is a great example. If anything they at least serve to remind us that the goal is not revolution for revolution's sake, but for socialism.
Social Democrats, however, can be relied on to defend the capitalist system when the going gets tough. They try to change the system on its own terms, using its own class system as a backdrop that's taken for granted. At worst they consciously try to rescue capitalism by putting a "human face" on it. At best, they honestly believe that it's the best "realistic" option available, so they fail to challenge the ideology and class system of capitalism, but frame their reforms on its terms.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Engels' view:
As for me, I consider self-proclaimed democratic socialists naive and idealistic, or badly read and incoherent.
George Orwell was an informer and propagandist for British capitalism. He neatly shows the worst aspects of 'democratic socialism'.
The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!
- Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Democratic socialists sometimes have interesting criticisms, despite they being fundamentally wrong.
What you described, OP, is a social-democrat.
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
The left right divide is bourgeois. Communists have "transcended" that spectrum: we are not on it.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
Left-wingers are good I think, just not left enough. I like people like George Galloway, Hugo Chavez & Dennis Skinner, they are only dem-socialists but are still comrades in my eyes.
People on "the Left" tend to be completely adrift from the real world.
“All that a well-organized secret society can do is, first, to assist in the birth of the revolution by spreading among the masses ideas corresponding to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the revolution—the army must always be the people [—] but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic, intelligent and above all sincere friends of the people, who are not ambitious or vain, and who are capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts.” - Bakunin the Leninist
No no no, what I described was a democratic socialist
A social democrats wants a mixed ecomony, will allow managers and shit in factory's, and uses new-shit-that's-hated-by-conservatives as it's main base of operations
Democratic Socialism is a word American left-liberals use to describe themselves when they want to be edgy but aren't familiar with the term Social Democrat because it's not used often here.
But "[those who] seek through democratic means to ban the private sector, put in a welfare state, ban all managers/CEOs in factory's." are not socialists in any way. DemSocialists that I know, seek to surpass capital through democracy (I'm looking at a certain read of Gramsci here).
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
Scab, the kind of socialism your talking I revolutionary socialism.
Socialism means communinal ownership of the ecomony, through things like co-opts, state enterprises, self managed ecomony, all sorts.
hmmmmm how about absolutely not
I am sorry.
But what the fuck can socialism possibly be then?
I mean if it has nothing to do with communal management of the ecomony then what it is it good sir?
Socialism, oddly enough, implies the socialization of the means of production under the control of the proletariat (not that complete socialization of the m. o. p. is possible otherwise, but try telling that to most "democratic socialists" - "socialists" who want a revolution without a revolution) - state enterprises can and do appear in bourgeois states, and co-ops are just a way for the proletariat to manage their own exploitation.
the bolded things are what's not revolutionary
Co-opt businesses, even when non-for profit, are still governed by market forces and are largely a liberal yuppie privilege that reeks of snobbery. There are some exceptions to the horrible special snowflake richkid syndrome co-opts tend to have, such as worker run factories in post-68 France, but still these things do nothing to escape Capital.
Nationalization is not socialism because history has shown us that centralizing the MoP into the hands of a state does nothing to end generalized commodity production or worker exploitation. States like the Mao's PRC and Stalin's Russia are not fucked up socialism, they just aren't socialism in the revolutionary sense of the term at all.
I am for all things being held in common. I don't need the state to hold everything for me. Those are two entirely different things.
Agreed.
Right -- the key word there is 'through democratic means'. That belies an approach of parliamentarism, which is 100% fantastical.
Yes.
[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
There is no such thing as left wing in America.
There is right and then there is ultra right.
The Democrats of America are not "left wing" whatsoever. They do not support us. They are far too concerned about how the gays feel to even think about us. When it's not about that, they are too busy letting the ultra right wing screw with them and they bend over every single time and take it. They sold their souls a long long time ago for money and haven't looked back ever since.
Liberals are as reactionary as ever in America, sure they mean well but they don't get it. That's ultimately why I don't support the gay rights movement. It would be nice if we all were getting a slice of human rights, and not just one group, but that's how liberals do it in America. They might as well become nationalists because that's the idea of it, fighting for one group to get rights and then making a huge deal out of anyone that says anything bad about gays, when they could easily be fighting for all people to get human rights.
I have nothing against gays or anything and it's not about that, it's the joke that has turned into the movement and how they control it. Instead of fighting for one minority or one specific group to get rights, why not fight for everyone gaining equal rights? That's what I would rather see instead of hopping on the gay rights bandwagon of "equality" which gives them human rights but not everyone else.
It's like Lenin said, they are useful idiots. They are useful in the long term cause a few of them really do want to see Socialism rise and eventually Communism, but they are so reactionary and don't understand most things they are doing.
When it comes to the class war, the Democrats look the other way 99% of the time unless it's something about the gay crowd. It's the end of the fucking world if someone says something against gay rights, but meanwhile we can still treat the poor, women, black people, Latinos, and everything else like shit and it's just another day in 'Murica.
