Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Reagan-land]

Still ad hominem, and it's not even my generation.

Oh, right. You can't vote. Never mind, then. You win this round. Back to honing my rebellious, immature, ideological edge that I'll surely lose once I come to my senses, whatever day that happens.

It is irrelevant if he cant vote, he can still have an opinion

[Novus America]

Well when he says he wants democratic socialism like the Nordics he is either ignorant or lying. Why not try to sell social democracy instead? Yeah maybe he is lying about socialism to make it look better but that is not a good thing.

You think Americans will give a shit about his differentiation between social democracy and socialism? He'll look like a cop-out, a weakling, and a liar. Better for him and politics if he just embraces the title.

Until someone with half a brain calls him out on it in a debate. And he is a liar. Or just ignorant. As one of his key statements is just incorrect.

I am not sure why somebody has not made him look like a total idiot by saying "Democratic socialism and social democracy sound similar but are in fact very different. But my opponent is apparently not familiar with economic systems as he does not seem to know this."

[Of Leben]

I can name some countries that have a population that lives in filth yet has a small ruling class living like kings.

Soviet union (deceased)
North Korea
Cuba
Vietnam (no longer as communist)
Communist Germany (deceased)

Let us destroy the evil greed of capitalism! oh wait.....

well shit

I can name some more:

Singapore
British Empire
United States
China
India

Last time I checked, the US and UK don't have 99% of people living in absolute squalor. There are elite classes, but the common American and the Brit live easy lives. So I'm not exactly what exactly your trying to say about them. As for China, China adhered to Communist ideals, but once it gained some sense it turned to capitalism because it's in reality, far more effective. A Chinese man lives in better conditions under capitalism now that he did 40 years ago under communism.

As for India and Singapore, you cannot attribute their class system solely on economics. That is disengenuous and false. Cultural, religions, and traditional class systems have existed in Singapore and India for thousands of years, long before communism or Capatilism even became a concept.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

I don't think we can set aside those issues. What is needed, and you've hinted at it here, is that it's going to have to take a lot of us just plain changing our minds to come together around an agreeable minimum program, as a lot of the issues of activism and organization cannot simply be put off til after the workers seize power.

I agree that this is necessary. But the thing is, it won't really be a "Pan-Leftism". Some are going to have to be excluded from the table; the unreconstructed Stalinists, the United $nakes of AmeriKKKa spewing Maoist third-worldists, and others of their ilk come to mind. I won't join a party that makes any part of its platform, program or propaganda the fellation of living or dead tyrants. They're a dead end for organization, and even if it weren't, that kind of ideology is poisonous for any group that actually takes power.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You think Americans will give a shit about his differentiation between social democracy and socialism? He'll look like a cop-out, a weakling, and a liar. Better for him and politics if he just embraces the title.

Until someone with half a brain calls him out on it in a debate. And he is a liar. Or just ignorant. As one of his key statements is just incorrect.

I am not sure why somebody has not made him look like a total idiot by saying "Democratic socialism and social democracy sound similar but are in fact very different. But my opponent is apparently not familiar with economic systems as he does not seem to know this."

Because the American public will do a collective "wut", start calling the speaker a Red agitator, Marxist intellectual, and a variety of other names, eventually shouting him out of politics and any socially-relevant circles forever.

[Susria]

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.

Anti-capitalists.

So what, leftism includes all third-position-ists and National Socialists now?

Interesting.

[Reagan-land]

I can name some more:

Singapore
British Empire
United States
China
India

Last time I checked, the US and UK don't have 99% of people living in absolute squalor. There are elite classes, but the common American and the Brit live easy lives. So I'm not exactly what exactly your trying to say about them. As for China, China adhered to Communist ideals, but once it gained some sense it turned to capitalism because it's in reality, far more effective. A Chinese man lives in better conditions under capitalism now that he did 40 years ago under communism.

As for India and Singapore, you cannot attribute their class system solely on economics. That is disengenuous and false. Cultural, religions, and traditional class systems have existed in Singapore and India for thousands of years, long before communism or Capatilism even became a concept.

Don't question him, he's a hardcore communist. He's high on Soviet propaganda that he perceives as fact

[Prussia-Steinbach]

As for China, China adhered to Communist ideals, but once it gained some sense it turned to capitalism because it's in reality, far more effective. A Chinese man lives in better conditions under capitalism now that he did 40 years ago under communism.

China never claimed to have achieved communism.

As for India and Singapore, you cannot attribute their class system solely on economics. That is disengenuous and false. Cultural, religions, and traditional class systems have existed in Singapore and India for thousands of years, long before communism or Capatilism even became a concept.

Capitalism has exacerbated the problem. Places like South Korea and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the world; they've gotten there through the introduction of dog-eat-dog economics into East Asian culture. Every parent expects their kid to become a CEO, and that just isn't possible. The combination of traditional Asian culture and Western capitalism has been horrific.

[Reagan-land]

As for China, China adhered to Communist ideals, but once it gained some sense it turned to capitalism because it's in reality, far more effective. A Chinese man lives in better conditions under capitalism now that he did 40 years ago under communism.

China never claimed to have achieved communism.

As for India and Singapore, you cannot attribute their class system solely on economics. That is disengenuous and false. Cultural, religions, and traditional class systems have existed in Singapore and India for thousands of years, long before communism or Capatilism even became a concept.

Capitalism has exacerbated the problem. Places like South Korea and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the world; they've gotten there through the introduction of dog-eat-dog economics into East Asian culture. Every parent expects their kid to become a CEO, and that just isn't possible. The combination of traditional Asian culture and Western capitalism has been horrific.

Mao had officially branded China as communist

edit: South Korea is actually successful, compare to the GDP and standard of living to North Korea. I don't like high expectations and high stress enviorments but its better than living in a hell hole where you cant succeed in life no matter how hard you tried

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Don't question him, he's a hardcore communist. He's high on Soviet propaganda that he perceives as fact

Lol. Wallenburg's a socdem.

[Novus America]

Until someone with half a brain calls him out on it in a debate. And he is a liar. Or just ignorant. As one of his key statements is just incorrect.

I am not sure why somebody has not made him look like a total idiot by saying "Democratic socialism and social democracy sound similar but are in fact very different. But my opponent is apparently not familiar with economic systems as he does not seem to know this."

Because the American public will do a collective "wut", start calling the speaker a Red agitator, Marxist intellectual, and a variety of other names, eventually shouting him out of politics and any socially-relevant circles forever.

Maybe. The American public can be pretty fucking stupid.

[Reagan-land]

Don't question him, he's a hardcore communist. He's high on Soviet propaganda that he perceives as fact

Lol. Wallenburg's a socdem.

Do you mean syndrome?

[Trotskylvania]

China never claimed to have achieved communism.

Capitalism has exacerbated the problem. Places like South Korea and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the world; they've gotten there through the introduction of dog-eat-dog economics into East Asian culture. Every parent expects their kid to become a CEO, and that just isn't possible. The combination of traditional Asian culture and Western capitalism has been horrific.

Mao had officially branded China as communist

No, Mao's term for describing the Chinese political-economic system was "New Democracy."

It encompassed a broad alliance between the petit-bourgeois, the workers, the peasants and the nationalist capitalists, under the leadership of the Communist Party, that would serve to thwart imperialism, preserve independence, and advance the development of productive forces towards the goal of realizing socialism and eventually higher-stage communism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Mao had officially branded China as communist

Source. Because I seriously doubt Mao proclaimed China had achieved full communism. I seriously doubt it.

edit: South Korea is actually successful, compare to the GDP and standard of living to North Korea.

That's a very, very, very low bar.

I don't like high expectations and high stress enviorments but its better than living in a hell hole where you cant succeed in life no matter how hard you tried

People can't succeed in capitalism through strength of will or putting in the work. That's not how it works. You have to get lucky.

Factories need workers, but that's not up to snuff for East Asia. It's so fucking bad that they're offing themselves in droves, jumping out of windows so often that companies have to put up suicide nets. That's not okay.

[Reagan-land]

Mao had officially branded China as communist

No, Mao's term for describing the Chinese political-economic system was "New Democracy."

It encompassed a broad alliance between the petit-bourgeois, the workers, the peasants and the nationalist capitalists, under the leadership of the Communist Party, that would serve to thwart imperialism, preserve independence, and advance the development of productive forces towards the goal of realizing socialism and eventually higher-stage communism.

And went on to kill millions of people. Great, it looks like they got really far with their idea.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Lol. Wallenburg's a socdem.

Do you mean syndrome?

No? What would that even mean?

Wallenburg's not even a socialist, much less a "hardcore communist high on Soviet propaganda." He's just a socdem.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No, Mao's term for describing the Chinese political-economic system was "New Democracy."

It encompassed a broad alliance between the petit-bourgeois, the workers, the peasants and the nationalist capitalists, under the leadership of the Communist Party, that would serve to thwart imperialism, preserve independence, and advance the development of productive forces towards the goal of realizing socialism and eventually higher-stage communism.

And went on to kill millions of people. Great, it looks like they got really far with their idea.

*grabs binoculars*

*is too late*

*goalposts are long gone*

[Reagan-land]

Do you mean syndrome?

No? What would that even mean?

Wallenburg's not even a socialist, much less a "hardcore communist high on Soviet propaganda." He's just a socdem.

I mistakenly thought you claimed I had wallenburgs syndrome, a medical disorder

[Trotskylvania]

Mao had officially branded China as communist

Source. Because I seriously doubt Mao proclaimed China had achieved full communism. I seriously doubt it.

edit: South Korea is actually successful, compare to the GDP and standard of living to North Korea.

That's a very, very, very low bar.

I don't like high expectations and high stress enviorments but its better than living in a hell hole where you cant succeed in life no matter how hard you tried

People can't succeed in capitalism through strength of will or putting in the work. That's not how it works. You have to get lucky.

Factories need workers, but that's not up to snuff for East Asia. It's so fucking bad that they're offing themselves in droves, jumping out of windows so often that companies have to put up suicide nets. That's not okay.

Shoot, even in Japan, which has reached Western Europe in terms of development levels, the whole social arrangement is Kafka meets Taylorism.

Outside of the traditional industrial trades, which are defended by highly militant communist aligned unions, a lot of the Japanese economy essentially a labor camp with shiny neon lights. The institutional culture is seriously fucked. Most people are salaried, and aren't comped for overtime. With their emphasis on seniority and the ruthless internal competition, this leads to a lethal cocktail where people are working themselves into an early grave.

Being a low level salaryman basically means putting your life on hold and working obscenely long work weeks. That's the real culprit in the obliteration of dating, cuz no one has any time for it. And if you're a woman, it's very hard to have a career and be married, let alone have children. They'll try to drum you out, because their institutions are still so arthritic and conservative, they haven't gotten used to the idea of women being fully actualized people.

This is a place where sleeping on the job is lauded, so long as it can be construed as a sign you're working too hard and spending too much time at the office.

[Trotskylvania]

No, Mao's term for describing the Chinese political-economic system was "New Democracy."

It encompassed a broad alliance between the petit-bourgeois, the workers, the peasants and the nationalist capitalists, under the leadership of the Communist Party, that would serve to thwart imperialism, preserve independence, and advance the development of productive forces towards the goal of realizing socialism and eventually higher-stage communism.

And went on to kill millions of people. Great, it looks like they got really far with their idea.

Deng's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is Mao's New Democracy minus the cult of personality. So far, they're the number one economy in the world by purchasing power parity, and continue to have robust growth.

According to bourgeois values, it's a success story.

[Reagan-land]

Source. Because I seriously doubt Mao proclaimed China had achieved full communism. I seriously doubt it.

That's a very, very, very low bar.

People can't succeed in capitalism through strength of will or putting in the work. That's not how it works. You have to get lucky.

Factories need workers, but that's not up to snuff for East Asia. It's so fucking bad that they're offing themselves in droves, jumping out of windows so often that companies have to put up suicide nets. That's not okay.

Shoot, even in Japan, which has reached Western Europe in terms of development levels, the whole social arrangement is Kafka meets Taylorism.

Outside of the traditional industrial trades, which are defended by highly militant communist aligned unions, a lot of the Japanese economy essentially a labor camp with shiny neon lights. The institutional culture is seriously fucked. Most people are salaried, and aren't comped for overtime. With their emphasis on seniority and the ruthless internal competition, this leads to a lethal cocktail where people are working themselves into an early grave.

Being a low level salaryman basically means putting your life on hold and working obscenely long work weeks. That's the real culprit in the obliteration of dating, cuz no one has any time for it. And if you're a woman, it's very hard to have a career and be married, let alone have children. They'll try to drum you out, because their institutions are still so arthritic and conservative, they haven't gotten used to the idea of women being fully actualized people.

This is a place where sleeping on the job is lauded, so long as it can be construed as a sign you're working too hard and spending too much time at the office.

While it is not perfect (nothing is perfect), and Japan has its own customs, its still better than the alternative -socialism- and it works well as it is -once again, it isn't perfect-. The point is, you can still make a good living rather than suffering from a life where you can't be who you want because a government is stealing from you and distributing. Japan could support a Sweden-esque format, if it wasn't such a compact nation. It has a population of 100 million making it unsuitable for distributing because, well, 100 million isn't a sustainable number

[Reagan-land]

And went on to kill millions of people. Great, it looks like they got really far with their idea.

Deng's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is Mao's New Democracy minus the cult of personality. So far, they're the number one economy in the world by purchasing power parity, and continue to have robust growth.

According to bourgeois values, it's a success story.

Hong Kong is heavily capitalist, and china has been adopting more pro market attitudes. Plus, China has that 'high stress level" you were talking about earlier. In China, you can also run a small business without too much trouble

[Novus America]

And went on to kill millions of people. Great, it looks like they got really far with their idea.

Deng's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is Mao's New Democracy minus the cult of personality. So far, they're the number one economy in the world by purchasing power parity, and continue to have robust growth.

According to bourgeois values, it's a success story.

"Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is very capitalist. Businesses have little taxation or regulation. It really resembles Western Europe and the US in the late 1800s. While it has lead to dramatic economic growth it is not a model I would want to emulate. Though it has lead to decreasing poverty, huge improvements in living standards an helped the middle class. Again within the mixed market mostly capitalist systems there are an infinite number of permutations, some better than others. Of course better is subjective. What is more important? GDP growth? The environment? Workers rights? Living standards?

Se the world is not black and white.

[Haritopia]

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.

Anti-capitalists.

So what, leftism includes all third-position-ists and National Socialists now?

Interesting.

My thought exactly when I read the thread. As if the leftists were the only ones that fight against capitalism and for the workers.

Fascists, and third possitionist in general, are against the capitalist hierarchy, tho unlike communists for instance, fascism strives for the preservation of a hierarchy, just unlike the capitalist system, that hierarchy is based on higher values, like decency, loyalty, honor, intellect and labour. And of course sharing the leftist's concern for the worker in the fight against exploitation.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Working together with Stalinists and Maoists?

No.

Why not? We share the concern for the immediate emancipation of the working class with them.

Because I don't want to end up in a Gulag for being a filthy revisionist social fascist.