Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Dejanic]

I'm starting to think there aren't any communist parties (in Europe at least) that aren't tankie. I mean, even the KKE stuck to their guns after getting spanked in the Greek civil war.

Most parties titled "Communist party" are in line with Marxist-Leninist, or more rarely, Maoist tradition, and naturally are going to take a "Tankie" line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_In ... nification)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... t_Tendency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee ... ernational

Here's 3 Trotskyist internationals all with differing views, but usually anti "Tankie" at least compared to Stalinoid parties.

If you're from Britain there's the SPGB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... at_Britain
A very strange party that supports voting, opposes reformism, supports Marxism (but takes several anti-Marxian view points), despises Leninism, and believes in instant Communism (classless, stateless moneyless society) with no DOTP that's instituted after a majority of citizens vote for it through parliment. There's other internationals I could link but I cba atm.

[Dejanic]

What kind of Communist party are you looking for anyway? What's your tendency?

[MERIZoC]

HOT (correct) TAKE

Market """"""""""socialism""""""""""

Libertarians, capitalist, ideological—"market" socialism
Me, educated, dialectical—market "socialism"

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Even though you think my definition is baseless, I completely degree with this post. Market "Socialism" is basically the highest stage of Social Democracy and if Social Democracy were to be established and defended I could see it evolving more so into a cooperative society combined with nationalised industries in key areas. Here in Britain for example its been touted as such by Corbyn and co.

Modern market socialism is really just another of the multiple third ways floating around the Western world (especially the UK and the U.S.).

[Crysuko]

Market """"""""""socialism""""""""""

Libertarians, capitalist, ideological—"market" socialism
Me, educated, dialectical—market "socialism"

It saddens me that the word libertarian basically means to become a member of the cult of free market. No matter the problem, no matter the size of the problem just perform the sacred chant of "the free market will fix it" and bam, solved.

[MERIZoC]

I'm starting to think there aren't any communist parties (in Europe at least) that aren't tankie. I mean, even the KKE stuck to their guns after getting spanked in the Greek civil war.

I'd have a hard time calling the traditional communist parties of Spain, France, Portugal, or Czechia "tankie". As someone said, KKE could certainly be considered such, and maybe Moldova's communists, but idk enough about them to say. But other than that...

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Tito didn't have much of a choice due to his disagreements with the general Eastern Bloc, he had to as a result suck up to the US and the IMF causing debt issues, hyperinflation etc (or attempt to build a statist Socialist country with no economic allies). Not to mention the rife unemployment issues. I wouldn't mind a cooperative economy as some sort of brief transition in the same sense that Lenin utilised State Capitalism under the NEP, but only as a transition to a Socialist planned economy not as some sort of end game.

What I liked about Tito: cooperatives, relatively unrestricted travel in Europe, and a willingness to thumb his nose at Stalin (and get away with it).

I have been a communist since 1968 (as a part of the U.S. New Left). However, when I first settled on a tendency, it was Titoism, and I still have a fondness for it. Some of my friends became Trotskyists. Later, I moved toward third-camp socialism and Cliff's international socialism, and, ultimately, Luxemburgism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It saddens me that the word libertarian basically means to become a member of the cult of free market. No matter the problem, no matter the size of the problem just perform the sacred chant of "the free market will fix it" and bam, solved.

Outside the U.S., different libertarianisms are recognized: left, right, and centrist. In the U.S., most libertarians are either right wing (the Libertarian Party, for instance) or left centrist (the American Civil Liberties Union, i.e., civil libertarianism).

[Crysuko]

It saddens me that the word libertarian basically means to become a member of the cult of free market. No matter the problem, no matter the size of the problem just perform the sacred chant of "the free market will fix it" and bam, solved.

Outside the U.S., different libertarianisms are recognized: left, right, and centrist. In the U.S., most libertarians are either right wing (the Libertarian Party, for instance) or left centrist (the American Civil Liberties Union, i.e., civil libertarianism).

American libertarianism is a case of who can fellate the private sector the hardest

[The Liberated Territories]

Libertarians, capitalist, ideological—"market" socialism
Me, educated, dialectical—market "socialism"

It saddens me that the word libertarian basically means to become a member of the cult of free market. No matter the problem, no matter the size of the problem just perform the sacred chant of "the free market will fix it" and bam, solved.

I always found this "argument" to be rather silly. And perhaps a bit reflective of the person's own infallible belief that the government will step in and solve all social ills over what the common man can through simply living his life (which is what we define the free market to be - everything outside the realm of the state.)

Libertarians don't believe the free market will fix anything. In fact, it might make it worse. I don't know if a free market in law might make bad laws. I think it'll be better to what we have now but in no case will, as communism claims, people will stop being hungry and the poor will be clothed and all that nonsense. The point of libertarianism is not to achieve a utopia, which is what socialists believe through government intervention, but to maximize negative liberty.

[The Liberated Territories]

Outside the U.S., different libertarianisms are recognized: left, right, and centrist. In the U.S., most libertarians are either right wing (the Libertarian Party, for instance) or left centrist (the American Civil Liberties Union, i.e., civil libertarianism).

American libertarianism is a case of who can fellate the private sector the hardest

And you my friend love government violence so much that it is almost a form of sexual masochism.

[Crysuko]

It saddens me that the word libertarian basically means to become a member of the cult of free market. No matter the problem, no matter the size of the problem just perform the sacred chant of "the free market will fix it" and bam, solved.

I always found this "argument" to be rather silly. And perhaps a bit reflective of the person's own infallible belief that the government will step in and solve all social ills over what the common man can through simply living his life (which is what we define the free market to be - everything outside the realm of the state.)

Libertarians don't believe the free market will fix anything. In fact, it might make it worse. I don't know if a free market in law might make bad laws. I think it'll be better to what we have now but in no case will, as communism claims, people will stop being hungry and the poor will be clothed and all that nonsense. The point of libertarianism is not to achieve a utopia, which is what socialists believe through government intervention, but to maximize negative liberty.

I'm a syndie though, I want both the "free" market and central government to bugger off with a system put in place which allows people to govern themselves. That argument only works against authoritarians, which I most definitely am not. So maybe don't build your case based on McCarthyist crap.

[The Liberated Territories]

I always found this "argument" to be rather silly. And perhaps a bit reflective of the person's own infallible belief that the government will step in and solve all social ills over what the common man can through simply living his life (which is what we define the free market to be - everything outside the realm of the state.)

Libertarians don't believe the free market will fix anything. In fact, it might make it worse. I don't know if a free market in law might make bad laws. I think it'll be better to what we have now but in no case will, as communism claims, people will stop being hungry and the poor will be clothed and all that nonsense. The point of libertarianism is not to achieve a utopia, which is what socialists believe through government intervention, but to maximize negative liberty.

I'm a syndie though, I want both the "free" market and central government to bugger off with a system put in place which allows people to govern themselves. That argument only works against authoritarians, which I most definitely am not.

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

American libertarianism is a case of who can fellate the private sector the hardest

Yes, well American Libertarianism was started by a bunch of billionaires at the Foundation for Economic Education. The idea was then picked up by the Cato Institute and other useless think tanks.

[Crysuko]

I'm a syndie though, I want both the "free" market and central government to bugger off with a system put in place which allows people to govern themselves. That argument only works against authoritarians, which I most definitely am not.

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

Read Marx. And koprotkin, bachunin. Hell, read them all. You're just making a fool of yourself now.

[Eibenland]

I'm a syndie though, I want both the "free" market and central government to bugger off with a system put in place which allows people to govern themselves. That argument only works against authoritarians, which I most definitely am not.

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

This is not called a communism discussion thread. Syndicalists generally don't support a revolution that would kill scores of people.

[Dejanic]

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

This is not called a communism discussion thread. Syndicalists generally don't support a revolution that would kill scores of people.

You know Anarcho-Syndicalism is a strategy on how to achieve Communism right? It's inherently revolutionary.

I'm not saying Syndicalists want to kill scores of people but they're definitely revolutionary.

[Crysuko]

This is not called a communism discussion thread. Syndicalists generally don't support a revolution that would kill scores of people.

You know Anarcho-Syndicalism is a strategy on how to achieve Communism right? It's inherently revolutionary.

I'm not saying Syndicalists want to kill scores of people but they're definitely revolutionary.

Be that as it may, if violence is required then it must be as decisive as possible to minimise deaths. Plus, a dragging civil war is not something anyone wants.

[Dejanic]

You know Anarcho-Syndicalism is a strategy on how to achieve Communism right? It's inherently revolutionary.

I'm not saying Syndicalists want to kill scores of people but they're definitely revolutionary.

Be that as it may, if violence is required then it must be as decisive as possible to minimise deaths. Plus, a dragging civil war is not something anyone wants.

Obviously, but it's pretty silly when someone denies its connection to communism and revolution.

From the English version of CNT (who literally represent syndicalists).

Anarcho-syndicalists aim to promote solidarity in our workplaces and outside them, encouraging workers to organise independently of government, bosses and bureaucrats to fight for our own interests as a class. Our ultimate goal is a stateless, classless society based on the principle of ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ – a system of free councils made up of recallable delegates from workplaces and communities. This is libertarian communism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Libertarians don't believe the free market will fix anything. In fact, it might make it worse.

Then you don't know some of the academic right-wing libertarians I have debated. They fetishize the free market.

[Arkolon]

All definitions of ideologies are baseless "But Marx said..." is just as valuable as "But Bernstein said...", so socialism means different things to different people. But by finding the common themes between socialist thinkers and comparing them to other ideologies you can find which thinker contributed much and should be there and which thinkers drifted so far off from the conceptual core and so shouldn't be there. Social democrats did that, starting from socialist origins but abandoned so much of it it became closer to the conceptual core of liberalism. Arguments over which thinker's definition is better are endless as they have no correct answer.

That's not really true. When it comes to definitions, what we want from them is coherency. If we counterpose two ideas, capitalism and socialism say, we want our definitions to elucidate what distinguishes one from the other.

The reason why Marx's definition is coherent and others aren't, and thus why I use it is because Marx makes a clear distinction. Capitalism is the value form, implying generalized commodity production, class property, money, etc. Socialism is the negation of captialism, the abolition of the value form and thus private property, money, exploitation and alienation. Production carried out according to a common plan, the distribution of goods according to contribution, need or free access as applicable, the leveling of social conditions. And so forth.

The problem that market socialism has it that it creates distinction without difference. Market socialism retains all the properties of capitalist exchange, it just mediates it through cooperative associations. Social democracy mediates it through the state. Syndicalism through trade unions. But all capitalist exchange is fundamentally mediated through human social institutions, even in the most pure of bourgeois democracies. These definitions effectively say that socialism is just a form of capitalism, and fall into the swamp of "socialism is when the government does things, and the more things it does the more socialist it is."

This approach has two problems. Firstly it creates a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, as if these are the only two economic systems. Both are necessarily industrial, so the false dichotomy glosses over pre-industrial or post-industrial economic systems and ideologies, and defining socialism as the negation of capitalism glosses over the grey area in the middle (consider for example a collective plutocracy reigning over an enslaved underclass; neither capitalist (no markets, wage labour or private property) and not socialism). Secondly it suffers from Marx-centrism, neglecting non-Marxist forms of socialism as 'incoherent' even if they might predate Marx: consider Saint Simon's meritocratic and principally anti-feudal socialism. Others, like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier, were also early socialists whose socialism doesn't fit Marx's peculiar definition, despite being socialists. I would personally define socialism conceptually as (very crudely and inexactly) the practical concerns of left-liberalism – so equality and lack thereof in the political and material senses – but where the unit of analyis is the collective, rather than the individual, with this latter point being the most important characteristic of socialism.

[The Liberated Territories]

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

This is not called a communism discussion thread. Syndicalists generally don't support a revolution that would kill scores of people.

Perhaps not outright but implicitly the idea is that the syndicalists would murder the capitalist in their sleep just to assume control of the means of production. At least this pretty much happened in "Syndicalist" Catalonia (and if you want sources I have a ton.)

Then feel free to buy out the next corporation and install your syndicalism that way. If "syndicalism" is as great as it sounds, than certainly it'll defeat all other options within a free market. However, knowing this thread I think the vast majority of lurkers here would rather install a revolution that'd kill a whole bunch of people instead because their perfect system won't work without violence.

Read Marx. And koprotkin, bachunin. Hell, read them all. You're just making a fool of yourself now.

Funnily enough I know from reading him that Kropotkin would probably be against using the state to achieve any social aim. But Marx definitely would - he specifically advocated for a revolution. You don't need to have read every single page of Das Kapital to understand that, it's written in the history books.

But of course whenever a criticism of socialism is surfaced the socialists just become Mormons and nastily tell everyone to read their literature. And when people point to the violent history of socialism, whether it is the Red Terror in Spain or the killing fields of Cambodia that it wasn't true socialism.

[Crysuko]

Be that as it may, if violence is required then it must be as decisive as possible to minimise deaths. Plus, a dragging civil war is not something anyone wants.

Obviously, but it's pretty silly when someone denies its connection to communism and revolution.

From the English version of CNT (who literally represent syndicalists).

I think that's only really done because communism carries such a stigma, being associated with the USSR et al. That and it makes it easier to sucker in liberals.

[The Liberated Territories]

Libertarians don't believe the free market will fix anything. In fact, it might make it worse.

Then you don't know some of the academic right-wing libertarians I have debated. They fetishize the free market.

In my experience people are much more likely to fetishize social and political violence, whether it be dressing up a la Nazi Chick or the anarcho-communist fascination with obscure revolutionary movements or the massive Stalin fetishism amongst Tankies. The free market - which is all social activities not regulated by the state - is less fapable. But I wouldn't blame them or neoliberals if the object of fascination are GDP growth and quality of living gains in the last 200 years as that is certainly more impressive than any progress the Soviet Union made.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I would personally define socialism conceptually as (very crudely and inexactly) the practical concerns of left-liberalism – so equality and lack thereof in the political and material senses – but where the unit of analyis is the collective, rather than the individual, with this latter point being the most important characteristic of socialism.

Hmm. Many communists, myself included, despise left liberalism. By stroking the false consciousness of the proletariat, left liberalism becomes counter-revolutionary.