Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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

We anarchists tend to get fucked over pretty bad when we work with other major leftist factions. See Kronstadt and Catalonia.

[Esternial]

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

WU WHOT?

Yeah.

Please elaborate?

Simple, my stance on economy is less left than my views on, for example, social policies.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Please elaborate?

Simple, my stance on economy is less left than my views on, for example, social policies.

My guess is you're a generic socdem, yes? Basically center-left all-around?

[The New Dawn Commune]

This is true.



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



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.

I can agree with you on that.

[Zoo Trouble]

Please give me an example of a fully stable Communistic society that has ever existed on which you can base that assertion and give evidence.

see^

edit: out of curiosity do you think we should attempt to establish a communist country again?

going the marxist route to achieve it will just be another authoritarian shithole with stalinist and leninist mentally masturbating about how awesome it was.

[Aramnia]

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.

Yes, because:
1) It's a great idea to start a religious argument on a thread that is secular. /s
2) It's totally rational to accept that there is a mind that somehow affects matter and has wondrous powers. /s
3) It's totally unusual for the followers of an ideology that has a materialistic view of history to reject that there's a mind floating around somewhere that sustains its own existence completely independently of that matter. /s
4) The issues of communism and theology are so totally interwoven that you really needed to make that comment. /s

[Aramnia]

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

No.

[Trotskylvania]

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

We anarchists tend to get fucked over pretty bad when we work with other major leftist factions. See Kronstadt and Catalonia.

Point of order; the sailors at Kronstadt were Bolsheviks; in fact their cadres were among the core of pre-revolution party, and they among the forces that took part in Red October itself.

They were the core of the Bolshevik faithful, and they rebelled in the belief that Bolshevism and soviet government could be returned to its original course now that the Civil War was winding down.

[Lindar]

I suppose I am a Pan-Leftist to some degree. I see validity in nearly every leftist group, even if I prefer some to others. Not every model applies uniformly to every society, so I see no reason we can't try to be a bit pluralist about this.

[Xanama]

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

We anarchists tend to get fucked over pretty bad when we work with other major leftist factions. See Kronstadt and Catalonia.

yeah :/

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We anarchists tend to get fucked over pretty bad when we work with other major leftist factions. See Kronstadt and Catalonia.

Point of order; the sailors at Kronstadt were Bolsheviks; in fact their cadres were among the core of pre-revolution party, and they among the forces that took part in Red October itself.

They were the core of the Bolshevik faithful, and they rebelled in the belief that Bolshevism and soviet government could be returned to its original course now that the Civil War was winding down.

Fair enough. The Makhnovists were, regardless, the "Black Army." They were anarchists and communists, that formed an anarchist communist society, that was promptly crushed by the Bolsheviks when they decided such dissent wasn't acceptable.

I say this as someone who's defended Lenin on plenty of occasions. I don't take that severe an issue with Marxism, or even the original ideal of Leninism; my qualm is with the fact that in practice, these men had no problem with stomping anarchist and communist "comrades" into the ground when they at all threatened Bolshevik dominance.

[Jarvinen]

I'm not even a leftist to begin with, so that's probably my reasoning.

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

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

Because capitalism is the best ideology
Yes communism is a good idea but it will not work look at the USSR and then look at the US which had a shorter run The communist USSR(Marxist) or the thriving capitalist nation(Murica')

[Mike the Progressive]

Well I'm already pansexual, so why the fuck not.

And if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fuck this chair. Because fuck... it's lookin' good.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We anarchists tend to get fucked over pretty bad when we work with other major leftist factions. See Kronstadt and Catalonia.

yeah :/

Unfortunately. Believe me, I'm quite supportive of left unity in theory. I've defended many a Marxist and Leninist in certain circumstances; I sincerely wish the entire far and hard left could put aside their differences to the degree that we wouldn't fucking persecute each other.

But it doesn't seem to be the case - and wariness on our part is more than justified.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because capitalism is the best ideology

No. Private property is unjustifiable. The capitalist hierarchy does not meet its burden of proof. Wage slavery is exploitative. Capitalism is a terrible ideology.

Yes communism is a good idea but it will not work look at the USSR

The USSR never achieved communism. It had quite obviously given up on even trying by the time Stalin rose to power.

the thriving capitalist nation(Murica')

The top one percent is "thriving," at the expense of the lower classes. Capitalism is built on the bloodied and broken backs of the workers. Its premise is inexcusable.

[Aramnia]

Because capitalism is the best ideology

No. Private property is unjustifiable. The capitalist hierarchy does not meet its burden of proof. Wage slavery is exploitative. Capitalism is a terrible ideology.

Yes communism is a good idea but it will not work look at the USSR

The USSR never achieved communism. It had quite obviously given up on even trying by the time Stalin rose to power.

the thriving capitalist nation(Murica')

The top one percent is "thriving," at the expense of the lower classes. Capitalism is built on the bloodied and broken backs of the workers. Its premise is inexcusable.

After seeing some of these responses (like the one to which you've responded, Prussia-Steinbach), I'm on the edge of just giving up on this thread. People are so ill-informed about Communism (and, it appears, left-wing ideologies in general) that it's almost not even worth responding. It'd be most effective to just huddle every single person into a room and have a lecture that details what Communism actually entails, as well as other left-wing ideologies. I live in the U.S. Our problem is that our schools teach essentially nothing about left-wing ideologies, even ones with very important historical backgrounds like anarchism and Communism, which is why you get people running around yelling that the USSR was a "Communist country" and all this other nonsense. If people over here want to actually know anything about them, they have to research them, which would probably be enough to defeat them by itself (as people here are by and large too lazy to do independent research anyway), but they're also told, for example, that Communism is evil, bad, horrible, will never work, etc., so they're automatically dissuaded from actually doing any research on it right off the bat.

Kind of venting here, of course, but you seem to be very good at dealing with the constant stream of ignorance and saying the same things over and over and not getting very impatient. Have any tips for patience you can impart on a fellow leftist?

[Renewed Dissonance]

It hardly lead to any countries collapsing.

Irrelevant, and shifting goalposts.

[Renewed Dissonance]

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.

The statement quoted above conflicts with your other statement that left-libertarianism generally support capitalism with welfare-like additives. Pick one, you cannot have both.

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.

Every worker-owned and operated market-competitive enterprise ever.

Besides which, you've missed my point. Re-read and try again.

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.

This is still distinct from "pro-business" which is generally more in line with what Kevin Carson describes as "vulgar capitalismlibertarianism."

Libertarians are pro-individual autonomy even when it hurts profits. Anyone else is confused or a liar.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The various parties of the left differ from each other significantly in both ideology, reasoning, and goals. We shouldn't expect Anarcho-Communists to unite with Marxists and Social Democrats except when their interest converge, rather than being 'Pan-left', and throwing the entire left, with all its disagreement, into one uneasy, bulky party.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because capitalism is the best ideology

No. Private property is unjustifiable. The capitalist hierarchy does not meet its burden of proof. Wage slavery is exploitative. Capitalism is a terrible ideology.

Yes communism is a good idea but it will not work look at the USSR

The USSR never achieved communism. It had quite obviously given up on even trying by the time Stalin rose to power.

the thriving capitalist nation(Murica')

The top one percent is "thriving," at the expense of the lower classes. Capitalism is built on the bloodied and broken backs of the workers. Its premise is inexcusable.

It is excusable, in that, overall, people do live better than in, say, other forms that we have currently tried out, like State Capitalism of Russia or China, which left everyone equally poor, when we have the poor being not so poor as those in the State Capitalist societies on the whole, and the Rich being richer than Croesus can even imagine.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It is excusable, in that, overall, people do live better than in, say, other forms that we have currently tried out, like State Capitalism of Russia or China, which left everyone equally poor, when we have the poor being not so poor as those in the State Capitalist societies on the whole, and the Rich being richer than Croesus can even imagine.

Feudalism and ecclesiocracy was "better" than tribalism. Absolute, divine-right monarchy was better than feudalism. Capitalism was better than mercantilism. Humanity progresses. We make things better. Just because we're laying in a pile of shit that smells better than previous piles does not mean we should quit looking for a new bed.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So, I think we've come to a final conclusion about why we aren't "pan-leftists": nobody trusts that the Leninists won't fucking kill us.

[Empire of Narnia]

So, I think we've come to a final conclusion about why we aren't "pan-leftists": nobody trusts that the Leninists won't fucking kill us.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So, I think we've come to a final conclusion about why we aren't "pan-leftists": nobody trusts that the Leninists won't fucking kill us.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

Congratulations?