Liberalism

[Hanevet]

I consider myself a liberal. I don't believe in communism, nor capitalism, but in a middle ground. I am an atheist, so I'm far-left on social issues, as I have no religion to restrain me.

My question is: am I considered a leftist, a centrist, or what?

[GPDP]

I'd say you're considered soon-to-be-restricted.

Before that happens, though, tell us what your objection is with socialism/communism, because I get the feeling you're not very informed in the subject.

[Poison]

I don't recognize the avvy, I'm curious, why's it fascist?

[ZeroNowhere]

I consider myself a liberal.

I only consider anarchists to deserve that name.

I don't believe in [...] capitalism

Yes, you do.

but in a middle ground.

There is none.

I am an atheist, so I'm far-left on social issues, as I have no religion to restrain me.

Reminds me of myself at 13. Also, apparently 'liberalism' is a mental disease, according to some top psychologist.

My question is: am I considered a leftist, a centrist, or what?

You're considered a centrist, pretty much. Perhaps center-left, if you're a Kucinich-Nader-eque welfare capitalism supporter. Center-right if you're an Obamaite.

[apathy maybe]

Silly kiddies, read a few paragraphs on the internet and thinking their views are 'original', 'profound', or 'individual. In reality you support the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or you support replacing that dictatorship with that of the working masses.

No middle ground.

*Yawn*
I support neither.

I support no dictatorship, and think that even if you say it isn't a real dictatorship because it's the majority of the people, that you are still laying the stones for a real dictatorship by a minority.

Yeah, I'm a kiddie who's only just found the Internet ... (Umm, I think I've been around here six years now, fuck that's a long time.)

----

To the OP, I hope you don't get restricted just yet. Because I have a feeling you don't know what you are, but you could easily be a socialist if you think about it.

Now, think about it, is it good that millions of people in the USA (and other countries) work for a pittance, even though they work 12 hours a day? If you have a problem with that, you maybe a socialist.

Do you think that it might be a good idea to have a universal health system that is not user-pays? If yes, you maybe a socialist.

Do you think that the "free market" isn't the answer to all of lifes questions? If yes, you maybe a socialist.

Do you think that government is a bad thing, and that it shouldn't exist? If yes, you maybe an anarchist (anarchists are also socialists).

[ZeroNowhere]

More liberal kiddie 'freedom' garbage no doubt

That was slightly unnecessary.

you fail to realize of course that 'freedom' isn't an objective term like your ivory tower suggests it is.

'Freedom' is a subjective term, you cannot instate the power and freedom of the proletariat without being equally repressive against the bourgeoisie.

Engels himself said that socialism isn't 'freedom', it's the working class holding down it's adversaries so it can stay in power.

[FONT=Verdana]Revolutions, Engels also once wrote, are the most authoritarian of acts. One class imposes its will upon another class. The question is not whether socialism is harsh or repressive in the abstract. The real question is a class question.[/FONT] Who was this harshness and repression directed against?

Yes, it is one class imposing its will upon another, thus a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' while the bourgeoisie still exist. However, of course socialism isn't the working class holding power, in socialism there are no classes.

I support no dictatorship, and think that even if you say it isn't a real dictatorship because it's the majority of the people, that you are still laying the stones for a real dictatorship by a minority.

And if we're using the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in order to differentiate from Blanquists who want the dictatorship of a minority, and to express that it is class rule, that is, the imposition of one class' interests over another?

Do you think that it might be a good idea to have a universal health system that is not user-pays? If yes, you maybe a socialist.

May be, probably not.

Do you think that government is a bad thing, and that it shouldn't exist? If yes, you maybe an anarchist

'Government' is an incredibly vague term. 'State' is worse, though, since some define it as the enforcement of one class' interests over another, while others see it as being, well, the police, current government, and such. The 'anarcho'-capitalists? I have no idea, even with the Weberian definition they're statists.

Silly kiddies, read a few paragraphs on the internet and thinking their views are 'original', 'profound', or 'individual. In reality you support the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or you support replacing that dictatorship with that of the working masses.

No middle ground.

No middle ground, yes. However, there are still primmos, and the petit-bourgeois ideologues who wish to turn the clock back, reminiscent of the 'smash the trust' guys from the early 1900s.

[#FF0000]

No, I was simply noting that people like apathy maybe have been captured by 'progressive' bourgeoisie rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'human rights', as if these are the universal values which the bourgeoisie promote them as.

As Dickens said of the American press in his trip to NYC, 'it is but the freedom for a class'...

Mmm. I trust you'd be as quick to denounce the concepts of freedom and human rights as bourgeois rhetoric in the event that yours would happen to compromised, right?

Apathy seems to think that people who don't support absolute capitalism and support UHC are somehow 'socialists', which is ludicrous, even the bourgeoisie support such things because it curbs the excessive damage of capital upon the working class, and thus strengthens their rule in a comparative sense.

What the hell is it with some of our recent new members and their tendency to just take a flying fucking leap at conclusions without knowing anything? Apathy Maybe is an anarchist. How the hell can you imply that she is also a social-democrat or reformist at the same time!?

[ZeroNowhere]

No, I was simply noting that people like apathy maybe have been captured by 'progressive' bourgeoisie rhetoric of 'freedom' and 'human rights', as if these are the universal values which the bourgeoisie promote them as.[/I]...

...Wait, so anarchists who promote freedom and such (it's subjective, but...) are thus somehow being mislead by bourgeois 'freedom for the ruling class'?

Mmm. I trust you'd be as quick to denounce the concepts of freedom and human rights as bourgeois rhetoric in the event that yours would happen to compromised, right?

Well, technically, most 'bourgeois' human rights are incompatible with capitalism. Yeah, most libertarian socialists would actually probably agree with many of the 'bourgeois human rights' in the UDHR (though not all).

[ZeroNowhere]

Take the anti-bureaucratic platform, the flowery rhetoric against 'the state', anarchists are no different from libertarians how I see it.

Anarchists are libertarians, the current laissez-faire idiots just stole the name. It's still far more appropriate for anarchists, though.

Apathy seems to think that people who don't support absolute capitalism and support UHC are somehow 'socialists', which is ludicrous, even the bourgeoisie support such things because it curbs the excessive damage of capital upon the working class, and thus strengthens their rule in a comparative sense.

He said they 'may be' socialists. Well, duh, of course they may be socialists. We generally do support free healthcare under socialism, and we're against the bad conditions of many members of the working class, which probably won't get fixed much under capitalism.

I'd say you could put anarchists in that list with no problems.

Like Marx, you mean? I don't see the justification for this at all.

Edit: Sorry for the double post.

[#FF0000]

Well, technically, most 'bourgeois' human rights are incompatible with capitalism. Yeah, most libertarian socialists would actually probably agree with many of the 'bourgeois human rights' in the UDHR (though not all).

Oh I know. I was just saying that people who rail on freedom as "abstract bourgeois rhetoric" would probably change their tune if they had theirs completely taken from them.

It's very early in the morning where I am. I want to make sure we're still on the same page (and that I'm still coherent)

[apathy maybe]

Dear Egwe25,

This is an open letter to you from me. I note that you've only just joined RevLeft, and are thus still getting in to the vibe of how things operate (actually, I suspect you are a sock puppet, but we'll put that behind us for now). I've been around since November 2002, you say it's a pity I haven't learnt anything. Well, I have. I've learnt that people like you are unable to debate in a meaningful sense, and that I therefore shouldn't try and debate with you.

It looks to me like you are a classic "Stalin kiddie", though I haven't notice you use the word "Stalin" once (or anti-revisionist, or Leninist even). You piss on the idea of "freedom" and "human rights" as "'progressive' bourgeoisie rhetoric". You use the term "ivory tower" as an insult, even though you know nothing about me or my background (unless you are a sock puppet, in which case you may know a tiny bit, but still not enough to justify "ivory tower", a term typically used regarding those in academia).

Heck, I didn't even use the word "freedom", and you are jumping to conclusions because I dare to attack the term dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, I'm a humanist, I support equal rights, freedom etc. for all humans. I'm a liberal. And you know what? I'm fucking proud to be the result of enlightenment thinking. You, on the otherhand, by rejecting "freedom" and "human rights" (regardless of their origin), show that you are a backwards fucker.

Socialism (in the broad sense, of which anarchists, communists, Marxists etc. can all be grouped) is about freedom for all. The fact that you, talking about Engels as if it means something, reject freedom, suggests that you aren't a socialist.

If you were a socialist, you would realise that the "dicatorship of the proletariat" is meant to be temporary, that after this, there would be no classes, no proletariat, no bourgeois. That in this "communist" system, there would be freedom for all, and human rights. These "bourgeois" ideas would actually be a reality (rather than the myth they are now).

So, to conclude my letter, I suggest you fuck off and die, because you offer nothing to the movement. What you have has already been offered by countless others before, and the good parts accepted and the bad parts rejected.

Sincerely (but not yours),

apathy maybe.

(Petit-bourgeois, liberal, and anarchist. Only the last one actually means anything, the other two are meaningless insults.)

[ZeroNowhere]

It looks to me like you are a classic "Stalin kiddie", though I haven't notice you use the word "Stalin" once (or anti-revisionist, or Leninist even).

He just did, actually.

The fact that you, talking about Engels as if it means something, reject freedom, suggests that you aren't a socialist.

I'm not sure about Engels completely (Marx was an anarchist, I think Engels differed a bit), but certainly he was hardly saying anything against 'freedom' there. If he were around today, he would certainly not be ranting about 'bourgeois human rights'.

If you were a socialist, you would realise that the "dicatorship of the proletariat" is meant to be temporary, that after this, there would be no classes, no proletariat, no bourgeois.

Well, not necessarily. It could go back to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as it did in the Spanish Communes.

(Petit-bourgeois, liberal, and anarchist. Only the last one actually means anything, the other two are meaningless insults.)

Well, technically, a lot of the petit-bourgeoisie have been responsible for the whole 'constitutionalism' bull, as with the 'smash the trusts' thing back when the trusts were forming. However, when quoting Engels, it's fairly hypocritical to use 'petit-bourgeois' as an insult in itself.

Oh I know. I was just saying that people who rail on freedom as "abstract bourgeois rhetoric" would probably change their tune if they had theirs completely taken from them.

Yes, that's true. Oh, wait, I forgot, if you try to get it back, you're a bunch of reactionaries like the Kronstadt and anarchists in Russia.

[#FF0000]

Yes, that's true. Oh, wait, I forgot, if you try to get it back, you're a bunch of reactionaries like the Kronstadt and anarchists in Russia.

Now you're getting it!

[PostAnarchy]

I consider myself a liberal. I don't believe in communism, nor capitalism, but in a middle ground. I am an atheist, so I'm far-left on social issues, as I have no religion to restrain me.

Being an athest does not mean far left there are many atheist and agnostic right wingers and reactionaries. Rumor has it that Karl Rove, Bush's strategist is actually one of these.

[PostAnarchy]

On Liberalism:Historically liberalism was once a positive thing at least comparably so over the monarchies and feudalist economic superstructure that had preceded it. The word liberal back in say the 1700s was used to describe one that was in favor of bourgeois liberty, bourgeois democracy, and free markets. The likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin took up this label to differentiate themselves from the restrictions the monarchy enforced in Great Britain.

[FONT=Verdana]The good news is that we advance! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Humanity advances past the rights of the bourgeoisie a small section of humanity into for the first time, a society for the majority being managed by the majority for the benefit of said majority. Liberalism on the other hand has transformed from a once relatively progressive phenomena to a completely reactionary one that has kept back progress and the role of the working class. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Bourgeois democracy, liberal democracy is in reality only democracy for the few. [/FONT]

[Comrade_Ceaucescu]

Liberalism bad bad thing

Liberalism mean people need work for capitalist gain

Liberalism mean do what you wants, not do what you needs

Liberalism scourage on society, glad Romania have no liberals, only communist, fake communist, and nazi capitalist pig

[Liberte ou la Mort]

I wholeheartedly agree with Apathy Maybe. Some of the opinions on offer on this forum are so entrenched in the belief systems of old dead guys that you fail to actually have any original thoughts of your own.

I was told in another thread that post-revolution "I might have a place in the communes if I wasn't a complete bastard." - This is social control on par with that of Nazi Germany.

People espousing the virtues of the Soviet system makes me cringe.

Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.
George Bernard Shaw

When arguments fail ad hominem attacks step in; Reformist, anti-revolutionary, petit bourgeois.... etc etc etc.

"You'll get restricted if you aren't careful..." For a group of people that rage against fascism you sure do sup from the same cup of boot in the throat social control as the fascists themselves.

[Dimentio]

I consider myself a liberal. I don't believe in communism, nor capitalism, but in a middle ground. I am an atheist, so I'm far-left on social issues, as I have no religion to restrain me.

My question is: am I considered a leftist, a centrist, or what?

In Sweden, you would be seen as a right-winger probably. Atheism vs religion is not really a left-vs-right issue in large parts of Europe.

In Sweden, the Swedish Church is rather left-wing, while some of the most pro-free market types are atheists.

[GPDP]

Atheism and the rejection of religion is not, by any means, a left-wing trait exclusively. Though the most staunch proponents of religion do tend to be those on the conservative far right, there are many who can still be classified as far-right that do reject religion, such as libertarians, Objectivists, and even some fascists, I imagine.

Similarly, though most leftists tend to be strong proponents of atheism, there are some on the far-left that are quite religious. Look up Leo Tolstoy and liberation theology. Even MLK himself, religious as he was, was moving towards increasingly radical leftist conclusions before his assassination.

There is much more to the left than whether or not you are convinced that there is an invisible man in the clouds guiding us all.

[LOLseph Stalin]

My question is: am I considered a leftist, a centrist, or what?

I would say you're either centre-left or Social Democrat. Do you believe in social programs such as universal health care, etc.?