Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[The Liberated Territories]

It just shows that leftists despise the individual. They can't stand anyone who dares challenge their narrative, even if that person is on their side.

It's true, individuals are despicable

roflmao

[Collatis]

What ideological labels did people in this thread identify with before now?

I basically when from conservative, to libertarian, to a centre-right liberal, to socialist. Now I'm fairly certain I'm sort of an ML.

I've basically always been vaguely center-left. My beliefs were always essentially those of social democracy, even if I wasn't aware of the ideology at the time.

Basically: american liberal -> social democrat

[Pandeeria]

I'm an unreconstructed Pol Potist

[Grenartia]

What ideological labels did people in this thread identify with before now?

I basically when from conservative, to libertarian, to a centre-right liberal, to socialist. Now I'm fairly certain I'm sort of an ML.

I've basically always been vaguely center-left. My beliefs were always essentially those of social democracy, even if I wasn't aware of the ideology at the time.

Basically: american liberal -> social democrat

See, I went from religious conservative to flirting with right libertarianism, to some sort of leftist (I knew I was no longer on the right, I just didn't know what branch of leftism) straight to classical social democrat.

[Nature-Spirits]

What do people here think about communist political parties?

Personally, I think that working within the bounds of liberal democracy is a valuable contribution to the leftist cause, although I reject it as the only/major way to bring about change. I do support the dismantling of the state (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region), and I oppose vanguardism, but I also believe that the new society needs to be set up within the shell of the old to maintain order, and using the parliamentary system to gain influence and effect change (in concurrence with other methods) is one way of accomplishing that.

Additionally, they're a good way to express one's political leanings during elections.

Does my analysis lack nuance? What do other libsocs think?

[Wulfenia]

(i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region),

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

[Mattopilos]

It just shows that leftists despise the individual. They can't stand anyone who dares challenge their narrative, even if that person is on their side.

The fuck are you smoking?

I believe its called being right-wing after being left-wing for a short-ass time and thinking he knows what the left represents.

[Mattopilos]

(i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region),

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

Who maintain law? You act like the state is able to do that even with a monopoly on violence, not to mention their rather differing views on human rights. A monopoly on violence assumes that a few having monopoly on violence will stop the many using it. I don't see that being the case, and it has its limits.

[Nature-Spirits]

(i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region),

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

Strong communities will police their own. And as a general trend, society becomes more progressive over time, and equality is a basic tenet of any truly socialist society, so human rights will be a non-issue for the most part.

[Grenartia]

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

Who maintain law? You act like the state is able to do that even with a monopoly on violence, not to mention their rather differing views on human rights. A monopoly on violence assumes that a few having monopoly on violence will stop the many using it. I don't see that being the case, and it has its limits.

To be fair, crime has been decreasing since 92.

Also, without a monopoly on legitimate violence, how do rules against unjustified violence get enforced?

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

Strong communities will police their own. And as a general trend, society becomes more progressive over time, and equality is a basic tenet of any truly socialist society, so human rights will be a non-issue for the most part.

Every time I hear this "community policing" shtick, it constantly makes me think of mobs with torches and pitchforks going after some otherwise innocent group or individual whose only crime was to somehow not fit in with the group. Like black people in Mississippi in the 50s. Or queer people. Etc.

By all means, reform the criminal justice system. But it shouldn't be devolved into something out of a bad Frankenstein adaptation.

[Mattopilos]

Who maintain law? You act like the state is able to do that even with a monopoly on violence, not to mention their rather differing views on human rights. A monopoly on violence assumes that a few having monopoly on violence will stop the many using it. I don't see that being the case, and it has its limits.

To be fair, crime has been decreasing since 92.

Also, without a monopoly on legitimate violence, how do rules against unjustified violence get enforced?

Strong communities will police their own. And as a general trend, society becomes more progressive over time, and equality is a basic tenet of any truly socialist society, so human rights will be a non-issue for the most part.

Every time I hear this "community policing" shtick, it constantly makes me think of mobs with torches and pitchforks going after some otherwise innocent group or individual whose only crime was to somehow not fit in with the group. Like black people in Mississippi in the 50s. Or queer people. Etc.

By all means, reform the criminal justice system. But it shouldn't be devolved into something out of a bad Frankenstein adaptation.

- Sure it has. To be fair, that is because society as a whole has developed - we tend toward civility (usually).
- No, Anarchism is not mob rule. Anarchism kinda tries to avoid the idea of mob rule by enforcing very few things, such as individual rights. Trying to enforce things based on a general level while having no state could lead to mob rule, yes. Man, how many people seem to think that is the case, but mob rule kinda requires some centralized system of which the mob uses to enforce things...
Also, community policing is actually something the police do, and it is quite effective. If you have a well-organized neighborhood with strong ties in the community and autonomy, I could see the 'policing' being done by the citizens themselves. Anarchism tends to not try and force people to 'fit in', so that is another strange thing to say.

[Nature-Spirits]

Who maintain law? You act like the state is able to do that even with a monopoly on violence, not to mention their rather differing views on human rights. A monopoly on violence assumes that a few having monopoly on violence will stop the many using it. I don't see that being the case, and it has its limits.

To be fair, crime has been decreasing since 92.

Also, without a monopoly on legitimate violence, how do rules against unjustified violence get enforced?

Strong communities will police their own. And as a general trend, society becomes more progressive over time, and equality is a basic tenet of any truly socialist society, so human rights will be a non-issue for the most part.

Every time I hear this "community policing" shtick, it constantly makes me think of mobs with torches and pitchforks going after some otherwise innocent group or individual whose only crime was to somehow not fit in with the group. Like black people in Mississippi in the 50s. Or queer people. Etc.

By all means, reform the criminal justice system. But it shouldn't be devolved into something out of a bad Frankenstein adaptation.

I feel like that's a strawman, in all honesty. I see no reason why councils at the local level can't advocate for the rights of marginalised peoples and ensure that their wellbeing is not infringed upon.

And when you talk about "legitimate violence", I can't help but think about police beating up black people, and queer people, and other people they don't like. I've seen police harassing indigenous people at festivals while they ignore people shouting queerphobic abuse at passersby. This is all legitimised by the state. And you have to recognise that a major function of the police is protecting private property. They have never been on the side of the marginalised in society.

By all means, members of the community should guard against violence and abuse, and if that means forming a (horizontally organised) police force of sorts, so be it. But the state apparatus that is the police is not, in its current form, effective.

[World Anarchic Union]

What do people here think about communist political parties?

Personally, I think that working within the bounds of liberal democracy is a valuable contribution to the leftist cause, although I reject it as the only/major way to bring about change. I do support the dismantling of the state (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region), and I oppose vanguardism, but I also believe that the new society needs to be set up within the shell of the old to maintain order, and using the parliamentary system to gain influence and effect change (in concurrence with other methods) is one way of accomplishing that.

Additionally, they're a good way to express one's political leanings during elections.

Does my analysis lack nuance? What do other libsocs think?

I believe that, perhaps, having communist parties brings some of our ideas to light and to the public. However, most cases of communist parties have resulted in them siding with the Parliamentary way always and rejecting any sort of thinking outside this road. Which leads to them eventually accepting the status quo and even becoming, sometimes, an enemy of the left that chooses other ways.
In other cases, more traditional communist parties have become very conservative, both socially and in the things they preach and how they support them. So, they have fallen more and more in support and they have become a party that while it has the potential to be in the Parliament, will never lead a government. These parties also rejected other ways of achieving their goals. Being politically irrelevant and a supporter of the status quo, directly or indirectly, is something that has to be avoided, I think.

[Communist Xomaniax]

I think Makhno is turning me into an ancom.


Also, does anybody have any info on the German communists handed over to Germany by the USSR?

[United Marxist Nations]

To be fair, crime has been decreasing since 92.

Also, without a monopoly on legitimate violence, how do rules against unjustified violence get enforced?



Every time I hear this "community policing" shtick, it constantly makes me think of mobs with torches and pitchforks going after some otherwise innocent group or individual whose only crime was to somehow not fit in with the group. Like black people in Mississippi in the 50s. Or queer people. Etc.

By all means, reform the criminal justice system. But it shouldn't be devolved into something out of a bad Frankenstein adaptation.

- Sure it has. To be fair, that is because society as a whole has developed - we tend toward civility (usually).
- No, Anarchism is not mob rule. Anarchism kinda tries to avoid the idea of mob rule by enforcing very few things, such as individual rights. Trying to enforce things based on a general level while having no state could lead to mob rule, yes. Man, how many people seem to think that is the case, but mob rule kinda requires some centralized system of which the mob uses to enforce things...
Also, community policing is actually something the police do, and it is quite effective. If you have a well-organized neighborhood with strong ties in the community and autonomy, I could see the 'policing' being done by the citizens themselves. Anarchism tends to not try and force people to 'fit in', so that is another strange thing to say.

Every anarchist experiment has had mob violence, though.

[Conscentia]

I think Makhno is turning me into an ancom.

Makhno is very overrated, if this article is accurate.

[Conscentia]

[...] but mob rule kinda requires some centralized system of which the mob uses to enforce things...[...]

Not necessarily. Vigilantes and lynch mobs.

[Autonomous Titoists]

I think Makhno is turning me into an ancom.

Makhno is very overrated, if this article is accurate.

That article sounds a lot like an apologetic of the USSR, and in particular very Marxist Leninist bordering on Tankie with undertones of anti-anarchist sentiments.

[Conscentia]

Makhno is very overrated, if this article is accurate.

That article sounds a lot like an apologetic of the USSR, and in particular very Marxist Leninist bordering on Tankie

I don't see how. I didn't get that impression, and the ISR advocates "socialism from below" according to it's about page.

with undertones of anti-anarchist sentiments.

It wasn't written by an anarchist, so that would be why.

[Autonomous Titoists]

That article sounds a lot like an apologetic of the USSR, and in particular very Marxist Leninist bordering on Tankie

I don't see how. I didn't get that impression, and the ISR isn't a advocates "socialism from below" according to it's about page.

with undertones of anti-anarchist sentiments.

It wasn't written by an anarchist, so that would be why.

-Idk about the ISR, but the author at least sounds pretty vangaurdist
-You can write from a perspective without being a complete douche. He openly says anarchist policy is bullshit.

[Conscentia]

-Idk about the ISR, but the author at least sounds pretty vangaurdist

Author is certainly a Marxist. I don't recall anything indicating that they're a Marxist–Leninist/tankie.

-You can write from a perspective without being a complete douche. He openly says anarchist policy is bullshit.

Criticising anarchism is being a complete douche?

[United Marxist Nations]

Makhno is very overrated, if this article is accurate.

That article sounds a lot like an apologetic of the USSR, and in particular very Marxist Leninist bordering on Tankie with undertones of anti-anarchist sentiments.

All he's saying is that we shouldn't take Makhno as an unbiased portrayer of his own state.

[Trotskylvania]

(i.e. an institution with a monopoly on violence in a given geographic region),

Without a monopoly on violence, how will you maintain law and human rights?

The revolutionary project isn't about getting rid of orderly administration. It is, as Marx described it in Critique of the Gotha Programme, "converting the state from an institution imposed upon society into one wholly subordinate to it."

Real world anarchist movements reflected this rather than a more simplistic notion of "abolishing the state". Various institutions continued to exercise the power to enforce order, and they did so in strict institutional limits. Deputies to governing bodies were selected for short terms, with the right of immediate recall. Policing still occurred in anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia, enforced by detachments from the militia

[Mattopilos]

[...] but mob rule kinda requires some centralized system of which the mob uses to enforce things...[...]

Not necessarily. Vigilantes and lynch mobs.

I was speaking more on the system level, not a small organizational level.

[Mattopilos]

Every anarchist experiment has had mob violence, though.

...And? You have to kind of place yourself in that situation to realize why that was the case. It wasn't exactly a time of peace. And as I said above, mob violence doesn't necessarily mean Mob rule.