Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Unnamed island state]

In practice as in "hey lets try and be communist". As we all know, it failed

Lenin's rule was fairly successful, in terms of moving into a socialist transition state, considering the lot Russia had been dealt at that point in their economic history. I seriously doubt Stalin had achieving communism in his main interests by the time he rose to power.

What's your idea of a transition state like?

[Calimera II]

The 80s had some good aspects.. but... Good luck reading cold war propaganda. Which book are you reading now? ''Hitler was a communist'' or ''Betty the 3vil wh0re cuz she commie?''

At least you are laughing, it is something.

[New Reagan-land]

...yes, of course I'm a socialist. You can't be an anarchist and not a socialist lol

Well, you could, you'd just be extremely naïve.

Then we can come to the conclusion communism fails every time because it is inevitably hijacked by a authoritarian

If I roll a six-sided die ten times and it lands on either one or two every time, that doesn't mean that I've proven that all dice always either land on one or two.

Ok so whats the idea here, keep trying it until it gets perfect? How many people need to die before we get it right?

[Aramnia]

That's because the USSR had to trade goods with others nations. It wasn't self-sustaining and so had to generate revenue somehow. In that respect, it was not a Communist country. In fact, the term "Communist country" is kind of an oxymoron when one actually looks at what Communism is trying to achieve. It was just an intermediary step leading to Communism, but as I just said, it didn't surrender money (because it couldn't). People aren't forced to sell their labor power because they are essentially self-employed. They are their own masters, and it is ultimately up to them what they want to do with their lives. Without having to worry about wages, people can maximize their own potential. Capitalism, on the other hand, forces people to either work or die, which isn't really a choice at all. People also have to factor in wages if they want to live at a decent standard, whereas Communism is a much more open system that allows self-fulfillment. Capitalism views people in terms of wages and essentially commodifies their labor, whereas Communism recognizes people as human beings.

No, it isn't a sham. I believe you're under a misapprehension of what equality means in Communism. It does not mean equality of outcome, nor does it mean equality of wages. (How could it mean equality of wages, after all, when wages don't even exist in full Communism?) People are all inherently different, and they will all produce labor that is more or less socially valuable. The difference is that employer and employee, proletarian and bourgeois don't exist, and people aren't rich or poor. They do what they find personally fulfilling.

I honestly think your a capitalist and don't even know it.... the bolded part is where we admitted that communist Russia was doomed to fail... you like the idea of being your own master and doing what you enjoy... Is that not the America dream? that is capitalism, man.

No. Ultimately, Russia fell because the world wasn't ready to get off the capitalist bandwagon, not because capitalism is ideologically superior to Communism. If everyone around you is using money and you need those countries' resources, you have to use money. It's non-negotiable. If the world were without money, there could be a free, need-based exchange and allocation of resources. And no, I can't be my own master and do what I enjoy, as my personal interests—what I'm passionate about—don't generate a lot of revenue, and even if I think they're important, capitalism doesn't regard them as such. Regardless of that, do you honestly think the fry cooks at McDonald's, for example, are really eager about their jobs? Passionate, ready to burst at the seams with joy every time they walk in the doors? Of course not. It's just a job; they don't feel attached to it or care about it in any way except for the money it brings them. That's just one example of many hateable jobs that capitalism spawns, and it makes essentially all of the people doing them miserable. Why have a system that makes people miserable?

Think about this. I had this conversation with someone a while ago, and this came up. Say instead of working for someone else and having to sell my labor power, I started my own business. Now let's say others don't want to just sell their labor power either, and they start their own businesses. If there are no laborers—employer-employee relations—capitalism falls. Why? Because then everyone owns the means of production. You pretty much have Communism at that point anyway.

[Pandeeria]

That is a fair conclusion.

Have you picked up a history book to understand what happens when fellows with good intentions try to hijack the system and achieve communism? As we can see, it failed every time and fell under authoritarian rule

Have you ever actually read up on Communism and what it's core tenants are?

Or do you just look at your outdated high school text book and take what's written without a second thought?

"It was pretty close"? Hardly. Every historian worth his salt would agree that Barbarossa was a logistically impossibility even if it was pulled off correctly, which it wasn't.
WWII would have been a little longer, sure, and a lot more people would have died, sure, but it's extremely unlikely that Germany was going to win that war.

The real 'branching point' to look at is if Japan would have moved forward with their planned invasion of Siberia, but that's hardly relevant to this thread.

This isn't a WW2 thread

It may not, but it is still relevant to Socialism and Pan-leftism.

You would be correct. Without Stalin's industrial reform, something which neither Lenin nor Trotsky would've done since it would've resulted in a mass loss of life, Germany in the second world war would've kicked the ever-living shit out of the USSR. Due to Stalin's rapid industrialization could the USSR produce enough stuff and mine out enough natural resources to fend off Germany, and even then it was pretty close.

"It was pretty close"? Hardly. Every historian worth his salt would agree that Barbarossa was a logistically impossibility even if it was pulled off correctly, which it wasn't.
WWII would have been a little longer, sure, and a lot more people would have died, sure, but it's extremely unlikely that Germany was going to win that war.

The real 'branching point' to look at is if Japan would have moved forward with their planned invasion of Siberia, but that's hardly relevant to this thread.

Whether Germany could've pulled off Barbarossa is an entirely different thread, one which I'd happily join in on if someone made a thread about it.

Regardless, without Stalin's rapid industrialization there was no hope it could've mounted a proper counter-offensive, and no hope the USSR could've won the Cold War.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...yes, of course I'm a socialist. You can't be an anarchist and not a socialist lol

Well, you could, you'd just be extremely naïve.

In the same sense that you could be both a Makhnovist and a capitalist. You can claim it, but according to reality, logic, political theory, etc, your claim is bullshit.

Anyway, I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would ever think socialism and anarchism are mutually exclusive.

[New Reagan-land]

At least you are laughing, it is something.

tbh I'm laughing at my ass of rn

[Conscentia]

For all those leftists out there who are not Pan-Leftist, why are you not? It seems to me that much of the reason for the theoretical and practical stagnation of the past is that we, as leftists and anti-capitalists, are stuck in anti-revisionist sentiments (I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am speaking to largely to my own here). Should we not, as critics of capitalism, seek to emulate the system in terms of its dynamism and flexibility in developing new critiques and cooperating theoretically and practically with one another? Marx said for the workers of the world to unite. Shouldn't that apply to us as well?

Did you get this idea from RevLeft?

Pan-leftism is an ideology, or the lack there of one, which promotes the notion that Anti-Capitalist Leftists of all shades should cooperate instead of constantly bickering amongst themselves.
Pan-leftists welcome all Anti-Capitalists be they Anarchist; Communists of all shades including Maoists, Trotskyists; Religious Socialists (Such as Liberation Theologists or Islamic Socialists); Democratic Socialists (of the sort who don't support the Capitalist means of production); Syndicalists or any other ideology which supports the working class against Capitalism and Fascism.
Marx is famously quotes as saying "workers of the world, unite!"
Shouldn't that last word apply to us as well?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=598

[Benomia 3]

Well, you could, you'd just be extremely naïve.



If I roll a six-sided die ten times and it lands on either one or two every time, that doesn't mean that I've proven that all dice always either land on one or two.

Ok so whats the idea here, keep trying it until it gets perfect? How many people need to die before we get it right?

I could say the same thing about capitalism.

[Ashmoria]

A Pan-Leftist is someone who believes that anti-capitalists, including Anarchists, Marxists, and so on, should coordinate and cooperate for the furtherance of revolutionary struggle rather than bicker between themselves in theoretical debate.

Less bickering? Doesn't sound like my pan of fish.

what kind of dream world do they live in where leftists don't fight tooth and nail over the minute details of ....everything?

[Benomia 3]

Less bickering? Doesn't sound like my pan of fish.

what kind of dream world do they live in where leftists don't fight tooth and nail over the minute details of ....everything?

A world in which leftists are fish would probably lead to such a world.

[Novus America]

As an anarchist, it sure as hell isn't our fault. Every time we cooperate with you guys, you use us to your ends, then promptly stab us in the back when the goal is achieved.

#RememberKronstadt

And Catalonia...

Pan leftism is jumping in a tank of starving sharks. It is killed or be killed in the end. One group of Marxists ends up slaughtering everyone else. Why ally with those who simply want to use you then will kill you? Get a bunch of radicals with uncompromising but different views who believe the ends justify the means. Surely anyone can see why this is a bad idea. Unless you think you can come out on top of the bloodbath.

Now not all Marxists will murder all rivals to take power. But enough will. Pan leftism means you throw all the apples, even the most rotten ones into one basket.

The end is only mold and rot survives.

[New Reagan-land]

I honestly think your a capitalist and don't even know it.... the bolded part is where we admitted that communist Russia was doomed to fail... you like the idea of being your own master and doing what you enjoy... Is that not the America dream? that is capitalism, man.

No. Ultimately, Russia fell because the world wasn't ready to get off the capitalist bandwagon, not because capitalism is ideologically superior to Communism. If everyone around you is using money and you need those countries' resources, you have to use money. It's non-negotiable. If the world were without money, there could be a free, need-based exchange and allocation of resources. And no, I can't be my own master and do what I enjoy, as my personal interests—what I'm passionate about—don't generate a lot of revenue, and even if I think they're important, capitalism doesn't regard them as such. Regardless of that, do you honestly think the fry cooks at McDonald's, for example, are really eager about their jobs? Passionate, ready to burst at the seams with joy every time they walk in the doors? Of course not. It's just a job; they don't feel attached to it or care about it in any way except for the money it brings them. That's just one example of many hateable jobs that capitalism spawns, and it makes essentially all of the people doing them miserable. Why have a system that makes people miserable?

Think about this. I had this conversation with someone a while ago, and this came up. Say instead of working for someone else and having to sell my labor power, I started my own business. Now let's say others don't want to just sell their labor power either, and they start their own businesses. If there are no laborers—employer-employee relations—capitalism falls. Why? Because then everyone owns the means of production. You pretty much have Communism at that point anyway.

Firstly, not everyone is going to own a small business. If EVERYONE had the SAME career what country wouldn't collapse from that? there is never a shortage of young adults who need some money at a simple job to start with, and elderly who need a simply job with simply pay, and if there was, specialists would be highered from abroad to do it, and if that didn't work then robotics and one man crews would rule business. Secondly, communism provides no incentive to do anything in life, and if people can just do what they want and receive what they need to survive, who is supplying those basic needs?

Workers of course. But wait, I thought you could do what you want in communism? apparently not. After we all relize this in the perfect "communist society" the workers supplying the people who "are their own masters" -which defies the collectivist ideas of Marx- need to have incentive to work. With this, money comes in...

and oops, we just made inequality by giving incentive to provide people who are there own masters with things. The sad truth is that sometimes your going to be in a job or situation you don't llike, as nothing is perfect

[New Reagan-land]

Ok so whats the idea here, keep trying it until it gets perfect? How many people need to die before we get it right?

I could say the same thing about capitalism.

The funny thing about capitalism is that it kinda won the cold war, and still operates to this day

[Ashmoria]

what kind of dream world do they live in where leftists don't fight tooth and nail over the minute details of ....everything?

A world in which leftists are fish would probably lead to such a world.

lol

don't some fish have teeth?

[New confederate ramenia]

Well for one I don't know what a pan-leftist is.

A Pan-Leftist is someone who believes that anti-capitalists, including Anarchists, Marxists, and so on, should coordinate and cooperate for the furtherance of revolutionary struggle rather than bicker between themselves in theoretical debate.

To an extent I'd consider myself pan-leftist because I oppose capitalism and dislike the way so much of leftism is just wealthy intellectuals talking about theory and hypotheticals. But I'm worried this could become "You disagree with me! You are destroying the leftist unity, counter-revolutionary revisionist!"

[Pandeeria]

I could say the same thing about capitalism.

The funny thing about capitalism is that it kinda won the cold war, and still operates to this day

What does it matter if it won the Cold War? Plenty of shitty countries have won wars, plenty of evil ideologies have won civil wars, that doesn't mean they should be embraced just because they managed to defeat opposition.

[New confederate ramenia]

A world in which leftists are fish would probably lead to such a world.

lol

don't some fish have teeth?

Also, most large fish eat other fish.

[Ararat Mountain]

Same as wanting Nazis and Jews to "work together on a united front". No, doesn't work like that

[Novus America]

A world in which leftists are fish would probably lead to such a world.

lol

don't some fish have teeth?

Sharks are fish. So are barracuda. And those hideous things that look like rocks until their prey gets close enough.

This is why you do not mix all types fish in one tank... Only certain fish are compatible with certain other ones.

[Conscentia]

A world in which leftists are fish would probably lead to such a world.

lol
don't some fish have teeth?

Piranhas definitely have teeth.

[Benomia 3]

I could say the same thing about capitalism.

The funny thing about capitalism is that it kinda won the cold war, and still operates to this day

That's hardly how it happened. The Soviet Union's abortive state capitalism failed when the people benefiting from said state capitalism decided that they weren't benefiting enough. Cue wealth rushing upwards at exponentially increasing rates. The country got too top heavy and then fell over.
The same thing is starting to happen to America, albeit much slower.

[Ararat Mountain]

The funny thing about capitalism is that it kinda won the cold war, and still operates to this day

What does it matter if it won the Cold War? Plenty of shitty countries have won wars, plenty of evil ideologies have won civil wars, that doesn't mean they should be embraced just because they managed to defeat opposition.

The point is, people hate communism in REAL life, it NEVER works. Deal with it. Look at China (Mao period, now they have private corporations and stuff), Cuba, and past shitty countries. Then you'll say, "muh embargo", "thats not muh real commie", "real commienism was never tried 0out" Oh it has, and it was terrible for the people, the nations around it, and the world.

[Novus America]

The funny thing about capitalism is that it kinda won the cold war, and still operates to this day

What does it matter if it won the Cold War? Plenty of shitty countries have won wars, plenty of evil ideologies have won civil wars, that doesn't mean they should be embraced just because they managed to defeat opposition.

It does show Marx was totally wrong when he said the late 1800s was the height of capitalism.
What if the whole socialism is right, but capitalism still has a thousand years to go before the transition can be done?

[Benomia 3]

What does it matter if it won the Cold War? Plenty of shitty countries have won wars, plenty of evil ideologies have won civil wars, that doesn't mean they should be embraced just because they managed to defeat opposition.

The point is, people hate communism in REAL life, it NEVER works. Deal with it. Look at China (Mao period, now they have private corporations and stuff), Cuba, and past shitty countries. Then you'll say, "muh embargo", "thats not muh real commie", "real commienism was never tried 0out" Oh it has, and it was terrible for the people, the nations around it, and the world.

Literally every political system and economic system that has ever been tried has been terrible for the people. There hasn't been a single polity with any actual significance in Human history that was problem-free.