Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Bourgeois national independence movements are a major step in Proletarian revolution.

To some Marxists, not to Luxemburgists.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Bourgeois national independence movements are a major step in Proletarian revolution.

To some Marxists, not to Luxemburgists.

It has to be for Luxembourgists too, otherwise you'd be trying to transition to socialism from a pre-capitalist society. Bourgeois revolution is necessary for proletarian revolution.

[The Parkus Empire]

Its due to the neocons fucking with the spectrum and lazy partisanship.

Ex-trotskyites and leftists disillusioned with the left joined the right wing (Hence neo-con.) and brought with them the platform of interventionism and a modified version of world revolution (World Democratic Revolution.)

Bush was surrounded by neocons who kept pushing that idea, hence the war on terror, war in iraq, etc.
Paleocons at the time were in hysterics that the left wing had co-opted the right wing.

A few years later, people come to associate interventionism with the right wing, and adopt the right wings old bollocks of defending traditional culture and religiosity despite its negative effects, but only for foreigners. They assume that because the "Right wing" looks at Islamic culture and says "This is regressive, we need to intervene and make it better." that it must be "Left wing" to say "Nuh uh, we should keep it as it is, traditional cultural values!" rather than acknowledge the left wing won the argument on international interventionism and is now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not recognizing the neoconservatives as being conservatives with some socialistic values.

The Neocons began in the 60s over leftists who were pissed the democrats weren't hawkish about Soviet style communism, hence the number of trotskyites in it.
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.

But modern left wingers rarely acknowledge the intellectual origins of the neocons.

In negative terms, it also neatly explains why the Bush administration and the modern republicans didn't give a fuck about massive state intervention in the economy to fix it, and did the bailouts.
Because they aren't really conservatives in a lot of senses, and have origins in the far-left.

OK but this might come off as a shock, but as someone who isn't quite familiar with American politics, particularly the weirdness of the spectrum here, what exactly is a paleocon? or a neocon? I mean, i get that they're conservatives, but what do each of these ideologies entail?

Paleoconservative is Russell Kirk and Rod Dreher.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditi ... nservatism

John Adams is considered to be the defining example of a conservative Founding Father. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay are also examples.

Paleoconservatives are less enthusiastic about capitalism than neoconservatives, and tend to stress private property as the foundation of freedom, and are concerned capitalism doesn't ensure freedom for all.

Paleocons are very anti hawk, seeing American imperialism as morally wrong, see for example:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... or-empire/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... om-cotton/

Paleocons are much more opposed to immigration, ranging from nativist to wanting a Swiss style policy. Paleocons see America as a land and a people, whereas neocons see America as an ideology.

Paleocons support conservationism (Nixon created the EPA) and are more sympathetic to animal rights. Neocons oppose environmental protection.

Paleocons favor cutting military spending as fundamental to fiscal responsibility. Neocons favor more military spending.

Paleocons think the war on drugs, except for the border, is not a Federal concern. Neocons think the Fed should be used to fight the war on drugs domestically.

These are a few things

[Communist Xomaniax]

Anyone else a union member sweating the big Janus v AFSCME case? The SC is pretty right leaning right now and this will represent another serious blow to labor.

[The Parkus Empire]

Anyone else a union member sweating the big Janus v AFSCME case? The SC is pretty right leaning right now and this will represent another serious blow to labor.

It's not really leaning right, it's just sensible interpretation of the Constitution that the state can't force you to donate money to a political party. This just would mean public sector unions (not even private sector) can't donate to the Democrats if they want to require contributions from state employees

[Trotskylvania]

To some Marxists, not to Luxemburgists.

It has to be for Luxembourgists too, otherwise you'd be trying to transition to socialism from a pre-capitalist society. Bourgeois revolution is necessary for proletarian revolution.

This is an entirely moot point though, because the bourgeois transition has been completed. Most Marxist writings about liberatory nationalism have not aged well, having been written during the age of classic imperialism, they were generally too optimistic about the ability of anti-imperialist struggles to dove-tail into proletarian internationalism.

Historically, national liberation struggles have proven to be entirely of no consequence to proletarians. They've only resulted in the elevation of the national bourgeoisie while keeping the population still herded and disciplined by the same international market forces.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Historically, national liberation struggles have proven to be entirely of no consequence to proletarians. They've only resulted in the elevation of the national bourgeoisie while keeping the population still herded and disciplined by the same international market forces.

Yes, Rosa proved to be accurate on that issue.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It has to be for Luxembourgists too, otherwise you'd be trying to transition to socialism from a pre-capitalist society. Bourgeois revolution is necessary for proletarian revolution.

My point, my only point, is that Rosa opposed nationalism.

[Aillyria]

Historically, national liberation struggles have proven to be entirely of no consequence to proletarians. They've only resulted in the elevation of the national bourgeoisie while keeping the population still herded and disciplined by the same international market forces.

Yes, Rosa proved to be accurate on that issue.

I still think the international capitalist paradigm is heading relatively in the expected direction. Their debt fueled economy, linked to imaginary profit, is having increasingly difficulty maintaining itself, and the façade of liberal democracy's supposed liberties will become more apparent. The march towards international totalitarianism continues.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I still think the international capitalist paradigm is heading relatively in the expected direction. Their debt fueled economy, linked to imaginary profit, is having increasingly difficulty maintaining itself, and the façade of liberal democracy's supposed liberties will become more apparent. The march towards international totalitarianism continues.

I agree on the diagnosis. Now socialists and communists need to provide the solution.

[Ostroeuropa]

I still think the international capitalist paradigm is heading relatively in the expected direction. Their debt fueled economy, linked to imaginary profit, is having increasingly difficulty maintaining itself, and the façade of liberal democracy's supposed liberties will become more apparent. The march towards international totalitarianism continues.

I agree on the diagnosis. Now socialists and communists need to provide the solution.

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

[Aillyria]

I agree on the diagnosis. Now socialists and communists need to provide the solution.

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

I think physical infighting between different socialist tendencies should be postponed til after a successful revolution.

[Cekoviu]

I agree on the diagnosis. Now socialists and communists need to provide the solution.

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

Isn't the point of socialism to eventually get to communism?

[Aillyria]

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

Isn't the point of socialism to eventually get to communism?

For communists, yes, but not inherently.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

I think physical infighting between different socialist tendencies should be postponed til after a successful revolution.

Let's be fair. You're all going in the canal unless you permanently postpone the revolution and join with the socdems under the flag of reform, nation, and order :^)

[Bakery Hill]

Yeah Lenin disagreed with Rose Luxemburg on the national question, and he knew quite a bit about Marxism. You're a condescending elitist who knows far less about Marxism than a fair few regulars to this thread. Debate or go away, stop whinging and bignoting yourself.

What a convenient posting: Using an ad hominem attack to cover up your own lack of knowledge.

You accused me of not being a true Marxist because I did not accept liberatory nationalism.

First, you know I am a Luxemburgist. Second, you were obviously unaware, despite whatever you may now claim, that Rosa vigorously opposed nationalism.

No, you just literally do not seem capable of stringing together a coherent argument to save your life. I said that opposition to nationalism on a moral basis is not Marxism, Lenin and Luxemburg's disagreement on the national question (which funnily enough I have previously looked at) was based on whether nationalisms were practical and lead to the emancipation of people from capitalism or hindered it.

The ad hominem attacks are your own. Rather than let your words speak for themselves, you continually puff yourself up by proclaiming yourself a great intellect, trying to borrow credibility from your position of authority. At the same time you imply everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, anti-intellectual, populist etc. You should probably stop this, it is not conducive to discourse and quite frankly makes you look pathetic.

[Bakery Hill]

Mate I don't give a fuck who you are, when you're wrong you're wrong.

What you believe is your business. What you say to me becomes my business.

What are you even talking about now?

[The New California Republic]

Many people in this thread claim to be communists or socialists. Yet, they don't even know the basics.

How condescending. And I suppose you class yourself as an authority on the matter, since you are looking down your nose at everyone from on high? It is exactly this kind of dogmatic book-bashing that gives the left at large a bad name, and alienates the working class.

[Aillyria]

I think physical infighting between different socialist tendencies should be postponed til after a successful revolution.

Let's be fair. You're all going in the canal unless you permanently postpone the revolution and join with the socdems under the flag of reform, nation, and order :^)

Over my cold dead heart.

[Bakery Hill]

Many people in this thread claim to be communists or socialists. Yet, they don't even know the basics.

How condescending. And I suppose you class yourself as an authority on the matter, since you are looking down your nose at everyone from on high? It is exactly this kind of dogmatic book-bashing that gives the left at large a bad name, and alienates the working class.

Looking at some of these posts I realise why many rank and file unionists in your country are so right wing.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Let's be fair. You're all going in the canal unless you permanently postpone the revolution and join with the socdems under the flag of reform, nation, and order :^)

Over my cold dead heart.

Good grief. I suppose it can be arranged. Do we need arcane blood sacrifice to summon the Freikorps nowadays?

[Ostroeuropa]

Communists are an albatross around the neck of the socialist movement. We're better off without them and denouncing them, as well as state socialists.

Isn't the point of socialism to eventually get to communism?

No.
Workplace democracy isn't always a communist plot, even though both many communists and the far-right claim it is.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think physical infighting between different socialist tendencies should be postponed til after a successful revolution.

Let's be fair. You're all going in the canal unless you permanently postpone the revolution and join with the socdems under the flag of reform, nation, and order :^)

Social democracy is also desirable, and is my preferred government arrangement. The social democrats should put some frameworks in law for syndicates and cooperatives to flourish, but even shy of that, it's an improvement on the status quo.

National social democracy is even better. If I ran i'd keep my socialism on the down low and be a nationalist social democrat, secular, pro-equality etc.
"Oh and also, here's some tweaks to inheritance tax law that gives you the option to pay half as much... in stock. To your workers union, which it can't ever sell, and is obliged to share the profits of. Whats a syndicalist? Sounds handsome. Oh look, more social democratic reforms that look suspiciously like transitions to syndicalism. Anyway, let's raise the amount the government is investing in education. no no, move on quickly please, it's time to discuss welfare."

[Telconi]

How condescending. And I suppose you class yourself as an authority on the matter, since you are looking down your nose at everyone from on high? It is exactly this kind of dogmatic book-bashing that gives the left at large a bad name, and alienates the working class.

Looking at some of these posts I realise why many rank and file unionists in your country are so right wing.

It's almost like folks don't like having their interests dictated from on high by uppity "intellectuals"...

Naw, that can't be it...

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Anyone else a union member sweating the big Janus v AFSCME case? The SC is pretty right leaning right now and this will represent another serious blow to labor.

Sadly, I live in the open-shop state of Kansas. My union, the National Education Association (the largest union in the U.S. for those who do not know), already has minimal power. We negotiate, through the NEA, our salaries, but there is no binding arbitration, and striking is illegal (not that it would necessarily stop me).