Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Celseon]

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

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.

These. I don't trust a Marxist-Leninist offering a helping hand as far as I can throw him.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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

We aren't the only ones who are anti-capitalists, though we're obviously the majority. I would maintain we're the only ones who fight for the workers, that labor is entitled to all it creates, etc, because that's socialism.

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.

They are against capitalism. Fascists, quite obviously, have no problem with hierarchy, or the capitalism form of it. They just find the materialism and individualist profit-seeking to be distasteful, when everything in a nation should be done for the glory and strengthening of the State.

And that's a cute attempt at making Fascism look good and heroic. Good thing most modern people can see through that particular bullshit rhetoric.

And of course sharing the leftist's concern for the worker in the fight against exploitation.

Fascists don't give a shit about the workers. Not in practice, and not in theory.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

What his generation is isn't relevant. If he thinks that Sander's supporters are all consisting of "overexcited", "rebellious" and "young" he can, and I would personally agree with him, but that's just me

Such a belief or even statement is outright irrational.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

What his generation is isn't relevant. If he thinks that Sander's supporters are all consisting of "overexcited", "rebellious" and "young" he can, and I would personally agree with him, but that's just me

Such a belief or even statement is outright irrational.

Don't worry, people that say that are just young, impressionable, sophomoric followers, simply parroting their parents and primary source of media.

[Kegars]

Once you defeat capitalism, won't you guys just fight over which system to put in place?

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Once you defeat capitalism, won't you guys just fight over which system to put in place?

Probably. I mean, political conflict is never going to end. I don't think there will ever be an "end of history" like Fukuyama claimed.

[Kubra]

Once you defeat capitalism, won't you guys just fight over which system to put in place?

oh yeah, it'll be a civil war with dope ass battletrains
You think I'm joking, but battletrains in the Russian civil war was the coolest thing ever.

[Of Leben]

China never claimed to have achieved communism

That may be so. But China has definitely been ruled- or at least been influenced heavily by Communism/Socialism. A harsh reality that you must accept is that wherever communists dirty little grubby hands have smeared its hands over, civil rights, political freedoms, and over all quality of life have decreased. Although this has happened everywhere communists have been in power, I will list China as an example.

China's form of government is a communist state known as a People's Republic. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the leading political party in China. Unlike parties in Western democracies, CCP is a tightly organized political force that controls and leads society at all levels. The party sets policy and controls its execution through government officials who are required to be CCP members. It is organized as a hierarchy, with power concentrated at the top. Above the local units, or cells, is a pyramid-like structure of party congresses and committees at various levels, culminating in the National Party Congress.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/China-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-AND-TAXATION.html

China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of 1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the Communists in 1949. The unicameral legislature is the National People's Congress (NPC), consisting of deputies who are indirectly elected to terms of five years. The NPC decides on national economic strategy, elects or removes high officeholders, and can change China's constitution; it normally follows the directives of the Communist party's politburo. The executive branch consists of the president, who is head of state, and the premier, who is head of government. The president is elected by the NPC for a five-year term and and is eligible for reelection. The premier is nominated by the president and approved by the NPC. Administratively, the country is divided into 22 provinces, five autonomous regions, and four municipalities. Despite the concentration of power in the Communist party, the central government's control over the provinces and local governments is limited, and they are often able to act with relative impunity in many areas.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/china-government.html

Rapid socio-economic change in China has been accompanied by relaxation of some restrictions on basic rights, but the government remains an authoritarian one-party state. It places arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion; prohibits independent labor unions and human rights organizations; and maintains Party control over all judicial institutions.

The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve “social stability.” It carries out involuntary population relocation and rehousing on a massive scale, and enforces highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. Though primary school enrollment and basic literacy rates are high, China’s education system discriminates against children and young people with disabilities. The government obstructs domestic and international scrutiny of its human rights record, insisting it is an attempt to destabilize the country.

At the same time, citizens are increasingly prepared to challenge authorities over volatile livelihood issues, such as land seizures, forced evictions, environmental degradation, miscarriages of justice, abuse of power by corrupt cadres, discrimination, and economic inequality. Official and scholarly statistics, based on law enforcement reports, suggest there are 300-500 protests each day, with anywhere from ten to tens of thousands of participants. Despite the risks, Internet users and reform-oriented media are aggressively pushing censorship boundaries by advocating for the rule of law and transparency, exposing official wrongdoing, and calling for political reforms.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/china-and-tibet
The problem with Communism herein lies with its very nature. Our friends on the left would point out Fascism as a failed experiment, lasting only 20-13 years before being completely eradicated. But what they so hypocritically ignore is that Communism has never took off where as Fascsim or better yet, Capitalism actually got started and ran for a times sucsessfuly (in the case of capatalism it still does) communism has never worked. It inherently challenges human nature and the current world system. In order for communism to sucsess they need to do 1 or both of 2 things
1) Change human nature

2) change the current worlds socio-economic system

While it may seem dandy to try to change these things, it's a fruitless endeavor. The fact is that the idea of a classless stateless society where everybody loves in collective harmony is a false fantasy, an unobtanable fantasy dreamt up by a man who lived off someone else's lively hood his whole life. Possibly due to his inability to sucseed or make a change in his life, he came to the conclusion that he was not at fault for his situation, but the system was to blame. This inherent childishness only comes from people who cannot, for one reason or another, come to terms that they themselves are lacking the ability improve themselves in a meaningful way.

I always find it hilarious when a communist says he rejects the belief of God. I find it so mind numbingly hypocritical of someone to believe in a classless stateless society but reject the idea of an all powerful being that mysteriously works in many ways.

Capitalism has exacerbated the problem. Places like South Korea and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the world;

Although Asia has made incredible leaps in cultural advancement, the fact still remains, that in Japan (especially true in more rural areas), suicide is an accepted form of redemption. Reinforced by Japanese media, suicide is just simply acceptable in Japan as a valid form of self punishment. It has been for centuries. Your erroneous assertion that Capatalism is to blame for high suited rates is not only disingenuous and ignorant, but highly deceitful as well.

they've gotten there through the introduction of dog-eat-dog economics into East Asian culture.

Unless you are familiar with the system of life for the past 1.2 billion years, life has always been 'dog eats dog'. If you don't sucseed, you fail, and if you fail, someone else with sucseed. You sucseed by whatever means necessary, whether it be adapting to changing climates and enviorments, changing your tactics and strategies, or levying advantages over your openents, That's how it's always been. Even in medival Japan was like this. Every society that has ever existed is like this. That's just the cruel reality of life that you fail to grasp.

Every parent expects their kid to become a CEO,

I'm not sure who's saying that. Do you have a study or a poll that says every asian kids father want them to be a CEO?

I think what your trying to say is that parents are setting unrealistic standards for their kids. But that problem isn't caused by capatalism. That happens everywhere. So again, you attributing a flaw solely on capatalism, which is ridiculous.

and that just isn't possible. The combination of traditional Asian culture and Western capitalism has been horrific.

South Eastern Asia is the most populous region in the world, and has coincidentally experienced the greatest economic booms the world has ever seen. The quality of life in China, Japan, south east Asia and other south Easter Asian countries has increased dramatically. Coincedentally I might add, after the fall of communism. I'm not sure what 'horrific' means to you, but clearly you don't understand what it means.

[Haritopia]

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

We aren't the only ones who are anti-capitalists, though we're obviously the majority. I would maintain we're the only ones who fight for the workers, that labor is entitled to all it creates, etc, because that's socialism.

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.

They are against capitalism. Fascists, quite obviously, have no problem with hierarchy, or the capitalism form of it. They just find the materialism and individualist profit-seeking to be distasteful, when everything in a nation should be done for the glory and strengthening of the State.

And that's a cute attempt at making Fascism look good and heroic. Good thing most modern people can see through that particular bullshit rhetoric.

And of course sharing the leftist's concern for the worker in the fight against exploitation.

Fascists don't give a shit about the workers. Not in practice, and not in theory.

Ah yes, the modern people, the poor masses fed lies by both left and right about Fascism. The word fascist has become something in constant use of mostly left-leaning people to describe a thing they do not like. But that is a different topic.

Your claims are shallow, for the very nature and origins of Fascism make it concerned about the working citizen. Fascism strives for a healthy and joyful daily life within a nation, and a system where the hardworking and intellectual can prosper and be rewarded, thus presenting a good atmosphere for labour.
Fascism would not allow jobs to be outsourced and citizens left jobless, nor would it let the will of private corporations ruin life for anyone.
As said, it's origins begin from the left, from socialism, neosocialism and national syndicalism.
Also, you can take the example of Jose Antonio, founder of the Falangist movement, who openly said that he agreed with much of what Marx had written down. Other movements layed down the ideological basis in their own framework for a shift of the capital towards the worker.

Further more, fascist hierarchy is based on noble values, while capitalist hierarchy is based on harshness, greed and material wealth. To claim that fascists agree with the capitalist hierarchy is wrong.

[Esternial]

I'm leftist but not anti-capitalist, though.

WU WHOT?

Yeah.

[Reagan-land]

What his generation is isn't relevant. If he thinks that Sander's supporters are all consisting of "overexcited", "rebellious" and "young" he can, and I would personally agree with him, but that's just me

Such a belief or even statement is outright irrational.

First off, look at the stats for who votes democrat. Mostly young people, democrats are always trying to appeal the young people, any democrat will tell you that. No candidate has promised as much free shit as Bernie Sanders, so it actually has a lot of proof to back it up.

[Napkiraly]

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.

Well then I guess for myself, it has to be that I'm not anti-capitalist.

[Reagan-land]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OZWq4WTcYZM/U ... 012PEW.png

this has been the proven case for the past two elections

http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/upl ... ge_map.jpg

as seen in this map, the younger age groups go democratic, for example in the first one, those are all democratic states.

edit: Bernie Sanders will likely be carried by young democrats, young liberals, and young socialists

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

I'm leftist but not anti-capitalist, though.

WU WHOT?

Yeah.

Please elaborate?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

i'm sorry

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Ah yes, the modern people, the poor masses fed lies by both left and right about Fascism. The word fascist has become something in constant use of mostly left-leaning people to describe a thing they do not like. But that is a different topic.

I know what fascism is. I used to follow it, in my younger, more naive years.

Your claims are shallow, for the very nature and origins of Fascism make it concerned about the working citizen. Fascism strives for a healthy and joyful daily life within a nation, and a system where the hardworking and intellectual can prosper and be rewarded, thus presenting a good atmosphere for labour.

Meritocracy is even more silly and utopian than utopian socialism. Fascism is totalitarian subservience to State and Nation.

Fascism would not allow jobs to be outsourced and citizens left jobless, nor would it let the will of private corporations ruin life for anyone.

Sure. I can agree with that. It's protectionist, and it wouldn't be the private sector doing the majority of the oppressing.

As said, it's origins begin from the left, from socialism, neosocialism and national syndicalism.

Fascism did have influences from national syndicalism, though I think pronouncing it in any way identifiable with any significant strain of leftism is silly and inaccurate.

Also, you can take the example of Jose Antonio, founder of the Falangist movement, who openly said that he agreed with much of what Marx had written down. Other movements layed down the ideological basis in their own framework for a shift of the capital towards the worker.

Mussolini once said "the national flag is a rag to be planted on a dunghill." The origins of Fascism were much more labor-friendly, though still authoritarian and hierarchical. By the time the ideology started gaining traction and power, and began implementing policy, it was much friendlier with capital and capitalists.

Also, the Falange went totally capitalist under Franco. They lost their original ideological footing quite quickly and effectively.

Further more, fascist hierarchy is based on noble values, while capitalist hierarchy is based on harshness, greed and material wealth. To claim that fascists agree with the capitalist hierarchy is wrong.

Hierarchy and domination are undesirable no matter the "values" they're based upon. No man at the top of any fascist hierarchy has ever been one of outstanding moral character, from the view of anyone that finds mass murder and such distasteful.

[Reagan-land]

Perhaps we can come to the conclusion as a whole that Communism and Fascism are both not the way to go?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

First off, look at the stats for who votes democrat. Mostly young people, democrats are always trying to appeal the young people, any democrat will tell you that.

It's the young people's future. What's wrong with that?

No candidate has promised as much free shit as Bernie Sanders, so it actually has a lot of proof to back it up.

Most of us are fully aware taxes are a thing. We're also willing to pay them.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Perhaps we can come to the conclusion as a whole that Communism and Fascism are both not the way to go?

Yes. Though I know which I'd choose, at a fork in the ideological road with a gun to my head.

[Of Leben]

Perhaps we can come to the conclusion as a whole that Communism and Fascism are both not the way to go?

Yes. Though I know which I'd choose, at a fork in the ideological road with a gun to my head.

I know what I would choose as well. Tisk Tisk.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes. Though I know which I'd choose, at a fork in the ideological road with a gun to my head.

I know what I would choose as well. Tisk Tisk.

Hey, at least I'd choose the bastards that have come out on top most frequently.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

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?

Edit: credit goes to revleft for the final phrase of the OP

I guess...but some of the goals are, in the long term, nigh irreconcilable. It was only inevitable that division should occur.

[Of Leben]

I know what I would choose as well. Tisk Tisk.

Hey, at least I'd choose the bastards that have come out on top most frequently.

History is not a set path. For all you know, it's us that could make the whole difference...

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Hey, at least I'd choose the bastards that have come out on top most frequently.

History is not a set path. For all you know, it's us that could make the whole difference...

Oh, I'm not folding up my black flag yet.

[Xanama]

Seeing the definition, I think i am, As an anarchist