Why aren't you a Pan-Leftist?

[Kxcd]

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.

I find capitalism, like preindustrial agriculture, inefficient and immoral.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

But aren't you a sort of Anarcho-Communist, whose view is very much opposed to Marxism, and its claim to need the power of a state and a military, even for an interim period.

[Empire of Narnia]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

Congratulations?

Thanks.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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

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

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.

I find capitalism, like preindustrial agriculture, inefficient and immoral.

I'm not sure how preindustrial agriculture and capitalism are inefficient and immoral, they are just systems of production.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

It's not hypocritical to say communism never took off... because... it just didn't. No-one ever achieved communism.

Socialism took off. Socialism is a transitional state to communism over, potentially, very long timescales. Like, centuries possibly.
You say that the standard of living and personal freedom in these socialist states is quite poor, but it's not like it was anything but poor before. Socialist revolutions occurred in countries that were ruled by empires or by other oppressive forms of government. In many of them, people were mostly agrarian peasants in poorly-industrialised countries. Which is why the revolutions happened at all.

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.

Young people prefer Sanders, therefore all young people are overexcited, rebellious and young and therefore their opinions should be disregarded.

That statement is outright irrational.

[Esternial]

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?

Possibly. Frankly my opinions vary from topic to topic and I don't like to identify myself as a "socdem" or anything like that because it's a bit stupid.

If people want to know what my political stance is they should ask me about concrete topics. I'm a bit leftist. A bit right. A bit of everything depending on which subject.

[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.

But aren't you a sort of Anarcho-Communist, whose view is very much opposed to Marxism, and its claim to need the power of a state and a military, even for an interim period.

I'm not a communist. Economically, I'm a collectivist. But yes, I'm an anarchist. How does this affect what I said..?

[Chestaan]

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.

Pan-leftism without the MLs then?

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

A better question.

Why aren't you a pan?

[Shamhnan Insir]

A better question.

Why aren't you a pan?

Because they are obviously a pot.

I for one am neither a pot or a pan, nor am I a saucepan. I consider myself the most dependable of cooking utensils, the humble kettle, a kettle that generally ignores communist things.

[New confederate ramenia]

A better question.

Why aren't you a pan?

Because they are obviously a pot.

I for one am neither a pot or a pan, nor am I a saucepan. I consider myself the most dependable of cooking utensils, the humble kettle, a kettle that generally ignores communist things.

Pol Pots?

[Aramnia]

New Dawn seems to have only agreed with Trotskylvania and restricted his pan-leftism to a select number of leftist groups, and I am in agreement with him. Anyone have any other good objections to pan-leftism?

[Kubra]

New Dawn seems to have only agreed with Trotskylvania and restricted his pan-leftism to a select number of leftist groups, and I am in agreement with him. Anyone have any other good objections to pan-leftism?

i don't want solidarity if it means having to have a pint with half the local lefty loonies in town
most are cool tho, long as they're not running on the CPC-ML ticket, those guys got this creepy wide-eye quality to them

[Socialist Tera]

It's because we look far into the future. I'd rather not ally myself with liberals or anarchists. Historically parties like the cpusa have become more liberal, even going as far to say, voting for Hillary, is to support revolution. If you disagree with the cpusa you must be an ultra leftist. I'm just a hardliner Maoist, quite comparable to Molotov. I'd rather not deal with liberals, trots, anarchists or revisionists.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's because we look far into the future. I'd rather not ally myself with liberals or anarchists. Historically parties like the cpusa have become more liberal, even going as far to say, voting for Hillary, is to support revolution. If you disagree with the cpusa you must be an ultra leftist. I'm just a hardliner Maoist, quite comparable to Molotov. I'd rather not deal with liberals, trots, anarchists or revisionists.

Well, I guess that's fine, because pretty much anyone who isn't a hardline antirev ML doesn't want to work with you either.

[Kubra]

It's because we look far into the future. I'd rather not ally myself with liberals or anarchists. Historically parties like the cpusa have become more liberal, even going as far to say, voting for Hillary, is to support revolution. If you disagree with the cpusa you must be an ultra leftist. I'm just a hardliner Maoist, quite comparable to Molotov. I'd rather not deal with liberals, trots, anarchists or revisionists.

Well, I guess that's fine, because pretty much anyone who isn't a hardline antirev ML doesn't want to work with you either.

and even that lot mostly prefer hoxha

[Jochistan]

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.

thought you were a Christian fundamentalist that also supported ISIS because they were "common allies against the secular world".

[Jochistan]

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.

You think they're the most dangerous of Leftists?

[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.

You think they're the most dangerous of Leftists?

I think they're the ones with a well-demonstrated habit of using other leftists to achieve their own goals and promptly stabbing them in the back once their usefulness has run its course.

[The Grim Reaper]

It's because we look far into the future. I'd rather not ally myself with liberals or anarchists. Historically parties like the cpusa have become more liberal, even going as far to say, voting for Hillary, is to support revolution. If you disagree with the cpusa you must be an ultra leftist. I'm just a hardliner Maoist, quite comparable to Molotov. I'd rather not deal with liberals, trots, anarchists or revisionists.

Ha, CPUSA. What communist policies do they support, universal healthcare?

Wait, let me guess, free university access? Oh my God, no, not...non-interventionism? The average pre-teen has more radical parties than the CPUSA.

And yeah, as an anarcho-pacifist syndicalist, I concur with Prussia-Steinbach. Pan-leftism is the hijacking of post-Marxism and democratic socialism and libertarian/anarcho-socialism/leftist to further the goals of Marxist-Leninists. It's the fucking First Internationale-lite, and we all know how that ended up, courtesy of our main man Marx. I know Prussia is probably guaranteed to disagree with me here, but I'd absolutely rather have a Libertarian to dinner than a Marxist-Leninist.

Edit: Big L Libertarian, as in the USA's Libertarian Party, and related political entities (i.e. LibDems, the right-leaning Pirate Parties, etc.)

[Kubra]

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.

You think they're the most dangerous of Leftists?

as far as the locals go, they have even less scruples in the act of dumpster diving than the actual crust punks
what they serve up at gatherings is genuinely worrying

[Trotskylvania]

It's because we look far into the future. I'd rather not ally myself with liberals or anarchists. Historically parties like the cpusa have become more liberal, even going as far to say, voting for Hillary, is to support revolution. If you disagree with the cpusa you must be an ultra leftist. I'm just a hardliner Maoist, quite comparable to Molotov. I'd rather not deal with liberals, trots, anarchists or revisionists.

Ha, CPUSA. What communist policies do they support, universal healthcare?

Wait, let me guess, free university access? Oh my God, no, not...non-interventionism? The average pre-teen has more radical parties than the CPUSA.

And yeah, as an anarcho-pacifist syndicalist, I concur with Prussia-Steinbach. Pan-leftism is the hijacking of post-Marxism and democratic socialism and libertarian/anarcho-socialism/leftist to further the goals of Marxist-Leninists. It's the fucking First Internationale-lite, and we all know how that ended up, courtesy of our main man Marx. I know Prussia is probably guaranteed to disagree with me here, but I'd absolutely rather have a Libertarian to dinner than a Marxist-Leninist.

Edit: Big L Libertarian, as in the USA's Libertarian Party, and related political entities (i.e. LibDems, the right-leaning Pirate Parties, etc.)

The history of the First Internationale didn't end with liquidationism. It was organization that was torn apart because the two biggest personalities, Marx and Bakunin, were talking past each other, and making baseless personal accusations against one another and their supporters, including appeals to racism and antisemitism.

[Jochistan]

You think they're the most dangerous of Leftists?

as far as the locals go, they have even less scruples in the act of dumpster diving than the actual crust punks
what they serve up at gatherings is genuinely worrying

...what's that supposed to mean.

[Kubra]

as far as the locals go, they have even less scruples in the act of dumpster diving than the actual crust punks
what they serve up at gatherings is genuinely worrying

...what's that supposed to mean.

crust punks refer to dudes of the punk subculture who are most of the time actually homeless, they don't actually listen to crust punk anymore but some folks still like the whole train hopping schtick
dumpster diving is the act of taking food of a dumpster for consumption.
CPC-ML refers to the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist Leninist). They have tops like 8 people in the party locally as far as I know and they're all barking mad, but everyone seems totally ok with that for some reason. true story, they used to hoxhaists, and now you're even more confused because you have no idea what a hoxhaist is, and explaining will only make everything even less explainable.
Anyways, these guys own their houses and day jobs and shit but someone when there's some sort of political gathering in town that they get involved in the food they bring is wee bit farther past date than even crust punks dare grab.
I hope this clarifies things.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...what's that supposed to mean.

crust punks refer to dudes of the punk subculture who are most of the time actually homeless, they don't actually listen to crust punk anymore but some folks still like the whole train hopping schtick
dumpster diving is the act of taking food of a dumpster for consumption.
CPC-ML refers to the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist Leninist). They have tops like 8 people in the party locally as far as I know and they're all barking mad, but everyone seems totally ok with that for some reason. true story, they used to hoxhaists, and now you're even more confused because you have no idea what a hoxhaist is, and explaining will only make everything even less explainable.
Anyways, these guys own their houses and day jobs and shit but someone when there's some sort of political gathering in town that they get involved in the food they bring is wee bit farther past date than even crust punks dare grab.
I hope this clarifies things.

An excellent elaboration on the dietary practices of the Canadian far-left. Quite enlightening.