Left Wing Classifications.

[ComradeJunichi]

Liberal, Communist, Anarcho-Communist, Socialist...but whats a democratic socialist and ...ahh I forgot the name of the other ones...What stand do you take?

[Xvall]

I'm an Anarcho-Communist...
I'm just like a Normal communist, because Marx said that the state was eventually supposed to dissolve. (Probably not for a long time though.) Anarcho-Communists are just a lot more Anti-Authoritarian and more 'anarchistic'. As far as the 'anarchism' goes it's basically more rebellious, and most anarcho-communists push for violent revolution.

[ComradeJunichi]

So what do you think about Socialism if your sort-of an Anarchist.

[Xvall]

I have no problem with it... As long as it follows 'Da Path'. You know? Socialism is supposed to become Communism, which would then slowly shift into semi-anarchy. Get it? Most socialists here are left-wingers, and therefore are my friends.

[RedCeltic]

The Red Encyclopedia should help.

[Lefty]

im an evanist. I think it would be valid to point out that all classifications of any sort, suck. The only true communist that believed everything that marx said was marx. With the exception of the people on the ends of the spectrum that are completely anti-other end of the spectrum, everyone has some beliefs that would be considered right wing. For example, i dont believe in class society (communism, etc) but i like personal belongings (not communism)

[libereco]

Quote: from Lefty on 2:47 am on July 31, 2002
For example, i dont believe in class society (communism, etc) but i like personal belongings (not communism)

I think many people misunderstand the idea of private property.

I don't mind private posessions, noone should take away your toothbrush from you - or the field you plow.

What I do mind is private property: owning a factory and having others work for you, owning an apartment but not living in it and making money off of others without working.

[kidicarus20]

Well then you aren't payin attention to history. The nazi's were socialists and they were right-wing at the sam etime. At the start of the twentith century there were two forms of socialism, a left one and a right one, the left was peaceful the right was violent.

Hitler had a lot of great policies, he was also a genius. He could see that the Right-wing couldn't communicate with the people the way the left did. He belonged to a pan german party, i think during his time in Vienna, and realized that they lacked effecitive public speakers. That's why he began to insist that the way to have a strong political party is with effective oratory communication.

"The power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time immemorial been the magic power of the spoken word, and that alone.
The broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech. All great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or by the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses; they are not the lemonade-like outpourings of the literary aesthetes and drawing-room heros." --Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Also in the rise and fall of the third reich it talks about his association with Christian Socialists, who had great speakers but weren't racist enough for him. He like took the best from both parties (according to him) and combined them. He had some good policies.


He was also the most popular President Germany ever had.

And it's not "right winged" socialists, it's right-wing sociaists lol.


(Edited by kidicarus20 at 9:56 am on July 31, 2002)

[libereco]

Quote: from kidicarus20 on 9:54 am on July 31, 2002
Well then you aren't payin attention to history. The nazi's were socialists and they were right-wing at the sam etime. At the start of the twentith century there were two forms of socialism, a left one and a right one, the left was peaceful the right was violent.

The Nazis were not socialists.
Calling yourself a "National Socialist" doesn't make you a socialist. Hitler may have used some socialist ideas to appeal to the masses - but he was never about equality or any of the other ideals of socialism. So calling him a socialist is just wrong. He was a fascist - Period.

[Weidt]

Semantically speaking, "National Socialist" would mean a Socialist who is a Nationalist, whereas your typical Socialist is an Internationalist. As such, Stalin and his "socialism in one country" idea would be an example of "national socialism". Of course that term is so connected with Nazism, that my above reasoning is overridden.

Fascists have always used Left-labels in regard to themselves, with the sole aim of bring the working class to their side. I like Benito Mussolini's remark, ""Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

All of the labels given are primarily based on semantics and word-playing. For example, I consider 'democratic socialism' to be redundant, as Frederick Engels said, "Socialism without democracy is not socialism at all." I would consider myself a Communist, but many people would presume I am authoritarian and support Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or others. As with many people, I have come to use the label 'Anarcho-Communist' to seperate myself from authoritarian forms of Communism.

An Anarchist is one who opposes Karl Marx completely and rejects all Communist thought, whereas an Anarcho-Communist takes from both threads of thinking: Anarchism and Communism.

[man in the red suit]

fascism is a completely backwards form of socialism. Technically both of you are correct. Hitler was and was not a socialist. Fascism blames their economic problems on a group of people other than the burgeoisie. On top of that, who do you think wore the red stars in his concentration camps? COMMUNISTS. when you put someone in a concentration camp for being a communist, that just comes to show that you are probably not very socialistic.

[PunkRawker677]

"Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under Communist states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers. "

Thats from the U.S. Socialist Party. Its in response to MITRS who said socialists wouldnt hate communists. Hitler was a national socialist, just like i am a carnivorus vegetarian. National Socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism is about Internationalism.

[abstractmentality]

i was reading a book the other day called I Confess, and it was a guy (sorry, cant remember his name) who ran as VP for the communist party back in the day. anyway, he was describing the way the communist party was formed out of the socialist party. He didnt have many good things to say about the socialist (where he started out), and even less about the anarchist of the time.

[Reuben]

I am a marxist. Ibelieve in the abolition o private property, that History is driven forward through contradictions, and that capitalist profit is baded on unpaid work or exploitation, and thus the interests of wage labour an d capital are in reconcialable, and in the absolute abolition of private property.

I am starting to believe however that revolution may mnot always be snecessary. I understand the tradiotional marxist/leninist argument that the state arises out of the capitalist system and show why the state will necessarily under all circumstances support bourgoir interests rather than those of an elected government.

Thereforemy commitment in all cases to armed struggle is questionable.

[Ian]

In response to kidicarus, I think you flew too close to the sun when you called Hitler a 'genius' a 'socialist' and other things and your wings are now on fire. (I am trying to make a funny pun by the way I know I didn't suceed)
I think other people have rebuked your 'socialist' comment but I don't think anyone has rebuked sufficiently (or at all) you calling Hitler a 'genius'.
I find it outragous that a leftist called Hitler a 'genius', somebody whose war-mongering and death camps resulted in the deaths of many, many leftists in Germany and 26 million Russians (a significant percentage of which would have been of the left).
Plus, I refuse to call a person who once called New Zealanders "Animals, who walk on all fours and live in trees" a genius. (I am Aussie with many NZ friends, I don't really know MJM but he's a NZ I believe, and as far as I know he doesn't live in a tree)

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Nateddi on 10:43 pm on Aug. 25, 2002
reuben:

"hope for the best, prepare for the worst"

there will be a revolution to acheive socialism, not necessary a violent one, yes, but it will not be an evolution or an election. I see that as too idealistic. Perhaps a non-violent through non-cooperation, general strikes, and dissobedience; but it will not be a slow parlimentary evolution from capitalism to socialism, thats for sure.

I agree. The upper class/Government will not relinquish its power that readily.

Come on Ian, we all know about New Zealanders

[Ian]

DAMMIT I'M NOT A BUNYIP!
.
.
.
... Did I say that? I meant Mac OS Revolutionary, you are a bludger, come on msn dammit!

[Conghaileach]

I don't think socialism could be achieved throgh the parliamentary route. It would require too much reformism and would be opposed too strongly by the bourgeois parties.