LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Northern Davincia]

If "left unity" means selling out to the tankies like "right unity" did with right-libs to the fascists, I want no fucking part of it.

Everyone knows left unity is when the balls touch.

But, to be serious, the reason the befabled "Left Unity" doesn't exist is because a united left will be unified in action, not in ideas.

Yet ideological differences will have to be sorted out in one way or another, eventually.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If "left unity" means selling out to the tankies like "right unity" did with right-libs to the fascists, I want no fucking part of it.

Everyone knows left unity is when the balls touch.

But, to be serious, the reason the befabled "Left Unity" doesn't exist is because a united left will be unified in action, not in ideas.

And once the action is over, libertarian leftists will have to work very hard to win out over the authoritarians.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Right-libertarianism has not sold out to fascists.

Some right-libertarians haven't, but the movement as a whole has.
Presumably you don't think that libertarians and authoritarians could work together, and that any self-proclaimed libertarian who does so must not be a real libertarian. Which is admittedly a fair line of reasoning, but then again, if a lot of the most prominent right-libs start selling out to fascists and they bring their supporters with them, isn't it just semantics at that point?

The libertarian movement is, aside from a few paleolibs on the internet, and some idiotic rally goers who don't know what the libertarian right or authoritarian right is, not at all associated with the far-right.

[Bojikami]

Everyone knows left unity is when the balls touch.

But, to be serious, the reason the befabled "Left Unity" doesn't exist is because a united left will be unified in action, not in ideas.

And once the action is over, libertarian leftists will have to work very hard to win out over the authoritarians.

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

And once the action is over, libertarian leftists will have to work very hard to win out over the authoritarians.

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

Are you a tankie?

[Bojikami]

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

Are you a tankie?

No. I just view this whole "libertarian v authoritarian" left debate to be useless in the context of who the real enemy of the working class is.

[Proctopeo]

Are you a tankie?

No. I just view this whole "libertarian v authoritarian" left debate to be useless in the context of who the real enemy of the working class is.

Spooky moon men?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Ugh. Just kill me.

*shoots the dumbbells*

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

And once the action is over, libertarian leftists will have to work very hard to win out over the authoritarians.

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

[Torrocca]

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Revolutionary action is a direct way to improve democracy.

[Bojikami]

I mean not really. The whole idea that we should view a revolutionary left as divided between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is pretty foolish. Revolution is an action in which one group within society projects it's will upon another. In this case, the working class and the bourgeoisie. It's an authoritarian action. Infact, one could even conclude that politics in general is authoritarian in that one political group will seek to impose it's will upon others. There's never going to be a situation where we all come together and completely agree.

But regardless, who "wins" in the end is irrelevant. The workers have won once world communism is established. What happens afterwards is up to those who reside in the post revolutionary period.

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

Okay? But these 'other areas' are irrelevant in a directly revolutionary situation wherein the primary goal of the movement is the overthrow of capitalist society. What comes after the revolution will be what the revolutionaries of tomorrow and those who live after the revolution decide.

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

That implies we currently live in a democracy.

[Proctopeo]

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

That implies we currently live in a democracy.

You live in Russia, yes? Then you're right, "we" (you) don't live in a democracy, but the pretense of one.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Revolutionary action is a direct way to improve democracy.

Or sweep democracy away.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That implies we currently live in a democracy.

You live in Russia, yes? Then you're right, "we" (you) don't live in a democracy, but the pretense of one.

Russia's culture is authoritarian. Democracy and Liberty will not work there.

[Torrocca]

Revolutionary action is a direct way to improve democracy.

Or sweep democracy away.

Only if you fail to prevent authoritarian dickwads from subverting the revolution for their own gain, of course. America managed to make something of a (very atrociously aristocratic (at first)) democracy through revolutionary action, while Russia went from a Tsar to a Stalin.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Or sweep democracy away.

Only if you fail to prevent authoritarian dickwads from subverting the revolution for their own gain, of course. America managed to make something of a (very atrociously aristocratic (at first)) democracy through revolutionary action, while Russia went from a Tsar to a Stalin.

The Thirteen Colonies were already democratic.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Revolutionary action is a direct way to improve democracy.

I was suggesting that some things can be solved without violence.

[Pasong Tirad]

or factories built on child labor

The West has largely outsourced its child labor, though, so that's still a pretty big problem.

Not caring about authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a great way to end up in the former. Yes, a revolution is an inherently authoritarian thing, but you can still be libertarian in other areas despite it.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Participating in bourgeois democracy only works to an extent. If voting is able to better the everyday lives of the lower classes, then cool. But unless the vote is somehow going to be able to transfer the means of production into the democratic control of the workers then there's very little it can actually do.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

or factories built on child labor

The West has largely outsourced its child labor, though, so that's still a pretty big problem.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Participating in bourgeois democracy only works to an extent. If voting is able to better the everyday lives of the lower classes, then cool. But unless the vote is somehow going to be able to transfer the means of production into the democratic control of the workers then there's very little it can actually do.

Democracy bad unless I win!

[Pasong Tirad]

The West has largely outsourced its child labor, though, so that's still a pretty big problem.


Participating in bourgeois democracy only works to an extent. If voting is able to better the everyday lives of the lower classes, then cool. But unless the vote is somehow going to be able to transfer the means of production into the democratic control of the workers then there's very little it can actually do.

Democracy bad unless I win!

Yes, clearly an understanding that current liberal democratic models of society aren't going to hand over control of the means of production to the working class means "democracy bad."

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Democracy bad unless I win!

Yes, clearly an understanding that current liberal democratic models of society aren't going to hand over control of the means of production to the working class means "democracy bad."

So democracy is liberal bourgeois falsehood unless a very unpopular idea is enforced? Makes sense.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yes, clearly an understanding that current liberal democratic models of society aren't going to hand over control of the means of production to the working class means "democracy bad."

So democracy is liberal bourgeois falsehood unless a very unpopular idea is enforced? Makes sense.

I do like getting my words twisted.

[Nova Cyberia]

or factories built on child labor

The West has largely outsourced its child labor, though, so that's still a pretty big problem.

Or you could try to participate in and improve democracy.

Participating in bourgeois democracy only works to an extent. If voting is able to better the everyday lives of the lower classes, then cool. But unless the vote is somehow going to be able to transfer the means of production into the democratic control of the workers then there's very little it can actually do.

How terrible.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

So democracy is liberal bourgeois falsehood unless a very unpopular idea is enforced? Makes sense.

I do like getting my words twisted.

Not so much twisted but rearranged to accurately portray your anti-democratic sentiment.