Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Communism's never been achieved on a large scale, for us to know that. Stop lying.

Do you believe we should attempt to create a new communist society?

edit: its just a yes or no question

No. I'm not a communist, why would I?

[Trollgaard]

I am not a pan-leftist because I'm not a leftist.

[Renewed Dissonance]

The leftist aspect of libertarianism merely supports a decent welfare state, sometimes only based off of donations.

This might be true of Steiner-Vallentyne, Georgist, or similar individualist left-libertarianisms.

This is almost certainly not true of left-wing market anarchism, libertarian socialism, or similar social/collectivist libertarianisms which will more likely support direct ownership and control of the means of production instead of "welfare" of any sort.

The problem is that there is no "left" libertarianism, but rather a vast array of differentiated anti-state/authoritarian ideologies that range all the way from capitalist to socialist economics.

And before someone is confused, let me state it clearly:

Stones, glass houses, etc.

[Kubra]

Yea.. I think that's why you have been banned twice....

Socially, I am a moderate-conservative, and to be honest, we still don't have overlapping political ideas.

For me, it goes to show how immature liberals are when handed power. I'm a big freedom of speech fan so I would never ban someone just for being a communist or any of the various political identities I disagree with....

Yeah, you'd just fund contra's to do that sort of thing mirite

[Renewed Dissonance]

...and the few people I've met who identify as some form of "leftist-libertarian" all are pro-business.

Any "libertarian" who claims to be anything other than pro-individual autonomy* is either confused or a liar. Or a Republican in disguise.

(* please carefully note that social/collectivist endeavors are neither naturally, nor inherently, contrary to individual autonomy. Such endeavors are, in fact, frequently vital.)

[Trotskylvania]

United fronts have not worked out so well in the past, especially when they did not choose their membership wisely.

Invariably, non-sectarian leftist groups are ruined by some group, usually good old-fashioned Leninist cadres of some kind, tries to take over the organization. That's why the classic SDS imploded, it's why pan-left electoral coalitions in Britain always self-destruct.

The simple problem is that certain groups are not going to play well with others. I'm a left communist; our groups take a dim view on national liberation struggles. How are we going to coexist in the same organiation as Maoist third-worldists, who believe that the labor aristocracy in the West means that the only way forward is pretty much uncritical support for any "anti-imperialist" force?

[Renewed Dissonance]

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

Their goals, anyway.

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

That is a fair conclusion.

Only in the sense that we can fairly conclude that water is wet. Unless someone wants to point out a social/political movement that hasn't be hijacked by an authoritarian.

The point here is not to excuse the failings of "communism," but rather to simply note that pointing out the evils of "communism" in particular is kind of silly. Unless we're willing to agree that I get to disown Stalin, since the Chicago Boys get to disown Pinochet.

A liberal is just a commie with commitment issues.

So a conservative is a fascist, etc?

[Ararat Mountain]

That's frequently the outcome.

Communism's never been achieved on a large scale, for us to know that. Stop lying.

See, "muh real communism never tried out"

[Renewed Dissonance]

Communism's never been achieved on a large scale, for us to know that. Stop lying.

See, "muh real communism never tried out"

The funny thing is the folk claiming that the 2008 subprime disaster doesn't indite capitalism because "that's not really a free market."

[The Serbian Empire]

Because I am a market anarchist. In other words, I still believe in capitalism being necessary in some aspects of society and encourage co-ops.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Because I am a market anarchist. In other words, I still believe in capitalism being necessary in some aspects of society and encourage co-ops.

Markets are not necessarily tied, or exclusive to, capitalism. Significant degrees of individual autonomy is necessary, but neither capitalism nor socialism (in their major varieties) really have much to do with that.

[The New Dawn Commune]

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

I appropriated the last phrase from revleft. I should've given the group credit, but the idea of Pan-Leftism .... no.

[Alvecia]

A better question would be why am I a pan-lefti...
Wait....

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

That bickering will have to come at some point, since many left and particularly far-left positions are just as (if not more) incompatible than many right and far-right positions.

[The New Dawn Commune]

United fronts have not worked out so well in the past, especially when they did not choose their membership wisely.

This is true.

Invariably, non-sectarian leftist groups are ruined by some group, usually good old-fashioned Leninist cadres of some kind, tries to take over the organization. That's why the classic SDS imploded, it's why pan-left electoral coalitions in Britain always self-destruct.

I largely recognize that my own have been at fault for the destruction of otherwise promising working class movements.

The simple problem is that certain groups are not going to play well with others. I'm a left communist; our groups take a dim view on national liberation struggles. How are we going to coexist in the same organiation as Maoist third-worldists, who believe that the labor aristocracy in the West means that the only way forward is pretty much uncritical support for any "anti-imperialist" force?

We will have to lay our differences aside for the immediate overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of working class power in a given geographical region. That may take retheorizing some aspects of our ideology and changing how we go about doing things.

[The New Dawn Commune]

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.

That bickering will have to come at some point, since many left and particularly far-left positions are just as (if not more) incompatible than many right and far-right positions.

I would never want no bickering, as that means there is no more (self)criticism, which is what communist theorizing is based on. We just have to put some of our differences aside for the emancipation of the working class.

[The New Dawn Commune]

Communism's never been achieved on a large scale, for us to know that. Stop lying.

See, "muh real communism never tried out"

I wouldn't say that. I would just say it has been defeated for some reason or another.

[Imperializt Russia]

That bickering will have to come at some point, since many left and particularly far-left positions are just as (if not more) incompatible than many right and far-right positions.

I would never want no bickering, as that means there is no more (self)criticism, which is what communist theorizing is based on. We just have to put some of our differences aside for the emancipation of the working class.

But there is no agreement within the left of how to achieve that. The difference in approaches is irreconcilably vast.

[Frank Zipper]

Okay I've got the goat leggings, what next?

[Old Tyrannia]

Because I am not a Leftist, nor am I a large kitchen utensil used for cooking things in.

[Novus America]

See, "muh real communism never tried out"

The funny thing is the folk claiming that the 2008 subprime disaster doesn't indite capitalism because "that's not really a free market."

It hardly lead to any countries collapsing. Now basically no capitalists (besides Ancaps) say capitalism is perfect. Few capitalists believe in pure capitalism and actually support mixed market.

Here is the difference. All systems are flawed. But mixed market works. Most of the time. Not all of the time. And has infinite variations, some better than others. Unlike Communism it is not utopian.

Utopianism ALWAYS fails. Apes do not and cannot create Utopias. We can however creat systems that work ok most of the time.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Communism's never been achieved on a large scale, for us to know that. Stop lying.

See, "muh real communism never tried out"

The USSR never even claimed to have achieved communism. Neither did Cuba, or any other state formed under the Marxist-Leninist banner. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Because I am a market anarchist. In other words, I still believe in capitalism being necessary in some aspects of society and encourage co-ops.

Markets have nothing to do with capitalism. Market anarchists don't think capitalism is okay or necessary in any way. You aren't one if you're okay with capitalism.

[Conscentia]

I appropriated the last phrase from revleft. I should've given the group credit, but the idea of Pan-Leftism .... no.

You could still give credit if you want. The OP has an edit button like all your posts.

[The New Dawn Commune]

]
See, "muh real communism never tried out"

The USSR never even claimed to have achieved communism. Neither did Cuba, or any other state formed under the Marxist-Leninist banner. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Because I am a market anarchist. In other words, I still believe in capitalism being necessary in some aspects of society and encourage co-ops.

Markets have nothing to do with capitalism. Market anarchists don't think capitalism is okay or necessary in any way. You aren't one if you're okay with capitalism.

Well, I think the existence of markets does have a bit to do with capitalism. To quote Simon Clarke:

Although Marx did indeed describe the market as the realm within which the essence of capital manifested itself, the relationship between essence and appearance was not that of a deterministic reductionism. For Marx, the appearance is the form of existence of the essence: the essence of capital is only realised in the interaction of particular capitals in the sphere of exchange. ‘Conceptually, competition is nothing but the inner nature of capital, its essential character, manifested and realised as the reciprocal action of many capitals upon each other; immanent tendency realised as external necessity.)(Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals; hence its own character appears as their reciprocal action on each other.)’ ‘A universal capital, not confronted by alien capitals with which it exchanges ... is ... an impossibility. The mutual repulsion of capitalists is already inherent in capital as realised exchange value’ (CW28, 350).

Can capitalism exist without a market? No. Can markets exist without capitalism, sure; however, they retain some of their repressive characteristics which is why I have problems with market socialists.

[Pandeeria]

The leftist aspect of libertarianism merely supports a decent welfare state, sometimes only based off of donations.

This might be true of Steiner-Vallentyne, Georgist, or similar individualist left-libertarianisms.

This is almost certainly not true of left-wing market anarchism, libertarian socialism, or similar social/collectivist libertarianisms which will more likely support direct ownership and control of the means of production instead of "welfare" of any sort.

The problem is that there is no "left" libertarianism, but rather a vast array of differentiated anti-state/authoritarian ideologies that range all the way from capitalist to socialist economics.

Hence what I said here:

Left-libertarianism is more than one ideology, it's an umbrella term for dozens of ideologies, some socialist and some capitalist.

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

Their goals, anyway.

That is a fair conclusion.

Only in the sense that we can fairly conclude that water is wet. Unless someone wants to point out a social/political movement that hasn't be hijacked by an authoritarian.

The point here is not to excuse the failings of "communism," but rather to simply note that pointing out the evils of "communism" in particular is kind of silly. Unless we're willing to agree that I get to disown Stalin, since the Chicago Boys get to disown Pinochet.

I would like a few examples of attempts in Communism that didn't end in an authoritarian state. And something that was long term. Not a petty few-months lived Commune that no one knows about.

...and the few people I've met who identify as some form of "leftist-libertarian" all are pro-business.

Any "libertarian" who claims to be anything other than pro-individual autonomy* is either confused or a liar. Or a Republican in disguise.

(* please carefully note that social/collectivist endeavors are neither naturally, nor inherently, contrary to individual autonomy. Such endeavors are, in fact, frequently vital.)

pro-individual autonomy can mean making your own business, and it also means being able not to have to work at said business if you don't find the owner giving good enough pay/conditions.