Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[West Leas Oros]

Exactly. We are pure evil because we don't like doing immoral things in the name of extreme ideologies.

Moralism is a disease. Good to see you are happy embracing life-denying ideas :^)

You're welcome. Now go commit assault and arson like a good little anarchist.

[El Hamidah]

Moralism is a disease. Good to see you are happy embracing life-denying ideas :^)

You're welcome. Now go commit assault and arson like a good little anarchist.

Marxists would do the same thing to the bourgeoise.

The caricature of Anarchists as people who commit terrorism for the sake of chaos itself is inaccurate. The end goal is communism. Same as Marxists.

[Aillyria]

In other words, you do nothing more than protect the status quo? Good for you.

Exactly. We are pure evil because we don't like doing immoral things in the name of extreme ideologies.

Not willing to be extreme when it is called for is a weakness.

[West Leas Oros]

Exactly. We are pure evil because we don't like doing immoral things in the name of extreme ideologies.

Not willing to be extreme when it is called for it a weakness.

When is it called for?

[Aillyria]

Not willing to be extreme when it is called for it a weakness.

When is it called for?

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Revolution is going to involve crimes against the state.

Yes, if there is a state left. I am not too sure these days.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

The caricature of Anarchists as people who commit terrorism for the sake of chaos itself is inaccurate. The end goal is communism. Same as Marxists.

Well, in fairness, there has been a debate among Anarchists over that very issue: chaos for its own sake and chaos in pursuit of a larger objective. I realize that the trend is now moving in the second direction.

[Aillyria]

Revolution is going to involve crimes against the state.

Yes, if there is a state left. I am not too sure these days.

Hopefully the state will still be there, opposition to it would be a great rallying point to direct revolutionary action against.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

That is somewhat close to what Rosa said, but she wasn't so optimistic about the success of reforms (which gets into her long-standing debate with Eduard Bernstein).

[West Leas Oros]

When is it called for?

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

Which is why we can't let it get to the point where reform is unaccepted. We tried revolution before, and we got stalin, we tried it again and got Mao, whenever we tried revolution, it ended terribly. Are we gonna make that mistake again?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Hopefully the state will still be there, opposition to it would be a great rallying point to direct revolutionary action against.

It would make life easier, yes.

[The New Sea Territory]

What does "bad" mean?

If it means it's illegal, your argument is circular. If it means, based on some objective standard for morality (God, etc), a criminal is essentially bad, I disagree with your basis fundamentally and challenge your epistemology. If it means you don't like it, I don't really care.

It is based on kantian moral intuitionism. If you can't will that in all circumstances, at all places and times, that an action is morally good, then it is not the right thing to do. This is called the categorical imperative.

Simply self-mutilation and surplus-enjoyment, I Kant say more.

[Aillyria]

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

That is somewhat close to what Rosa said, but she wasn't so optimistic about the success of reforms (which gets into her long-standing debate with Eduard Bernstein).

Interesting, considering I've never read anything by Luxemburgists........

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

Which is why we can't let it get to the point where reform is unaccepted. We tried revolution before, and we got stalin, we tried it again and got Mao, whenever we tried revolution, it ended terribly. Are we gonna make that mistake again?

It will get to that point, revolution is an inevitablity. A question of when, not if.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Which is why we can't let it get to the point where reform is unaccepted. We tried revolution before, and we got stalin, we tried it again and got Mao, whenever we tried revolution, it ended terribly. Are we gonna make that mistake again?

As Hal Draper said, socialism needs to be from below.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Interesting, considering I've never read anything by Luxemburgists........

Her booklet, Social Reform or Revolution.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Which is why we can't let it get to the point where reform is unaccepted. We tried revolution before, and we got stalin, we tried it again and got Mao, whenever we tried revolution, it ended terribly. Are we gonna make that mistake again?

As Hal Draper said, socialism needs to be from below.

>not being a Proletarian Bonapartiste Blanquist

[Mattopilos II]

It is based on kantian moral intuitionism. If you can't will that in all circumstances, at all places and times, that an action is morally good, then it is not the right thing to do. This is called the categorical imperative.

Simply self-mutilation and surplus-enjoyment, I Kant say more.

I think I understand why he hates NIetzsche now - he is a Kant fanboy.

[Nature-Spirits]

I liked it when the LWDT was filled with people who knew what fascism, anarchism, and socialism meant. Apparently I was away too long.

I agree. It's impossible to have any meaningful discourse with these types of ignorant arguments being thrown all over the place.

In other words, you do nothing more than protect the status quo? Good for you.

Exactly. We are pure evil because we don't like doing immoral things in the name of extreme ideologies.

Hot take: Neoliberalism is an "extreme" ideology that commits immoral acts every day.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Tbf Marxism is and has always been a jihad religion. The most successful (in a Darwinian sense) Marxist sects have always been tankie Salafists rather than any sort of "moderate" denomination.

The (literally) holier than thou RWDT cretins dominate that thread, while the big womyn/myn here are usually lefter than thou and talk a big game because on the steppes of the internet you gotta look like genghis khan

[Trotskylvania]

Tbf Marxism is and has always been a jihad religion. The most successful (in a Darwinian sense) Marxist sects have always been tankie Salafists rather than any sort of "moderate" denomination.

The (literally) holier than thou RWDT cretins dominate that thread, while the big womyn/myn here are usually lefter than thou and talk a big game because on the steppes of the internet you gotta look like genghis khan

Impressive. Everything you just said is wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Whenever reform within the current system isn't a realistic option. I think reform should be used to put pressure on capitalism, and when pushed to breaking point and it refuses reform, revolution is required.

Which is why we can't let it get to the point where reform is unaccepted. We tried revolution before, and we got stalin, we tried it again and got Mao, whenever we tried revolution, it ended terribly. Are we gonna make that mistake again?

Reform hasn't gotten much at all.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbf Marxism is and has always been a jihad religion. The most successful (in a Darwinian sense) Marxist sects have always been tankie Salafists rather than any sort of "moderate" denomination.

The (literally) holier than thou RWDT cretins dominate that thread, while the big womyn/myn here are usually lefter than thou and talk a big game because on the steppes of the internet you gotta look like genghis khan

What does this even mean?

[Taihei Tengoku]

It's a radical Abrahamic religion without an Abrahamic god, inspiring holy wars by its adherents

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a radical Abrahamic religion without an Abrahamic god, inspiring holy wars by its adherents

All ideologies have wars fought for them, anon.

[Dagashi Shoujo]

Why are we supposed to care about moderates?

Because any political movement which wants to succeed thinks in the long term.

I care about the apolitical (those members of the working class who haven't taken an extreme stance)

Goodbye most of the South. :|

Further, exposing centrists for what they are, those who rationalize and defend fascism every step of way towards their dictatorship,

Taking Trotsky as a historical reference is not a good idea.