PDA

View Full Version : Political persuasion,


Worker&Parasite
12-27-2006, 12:13 PM
As I have a meagre 3 posts, and havent visited their site for about 3 years, im interested to see how lonely I am here...

How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?

Jimbo Gomez
12-27-2006, 01:00 PM
Watch the tumbleweed blow past... :D

Geist
12-27-2006, 01:12 PM
I actually think you are the only one.

tempus fugit
12-27-2006, 01:32 PM
What is a Libertarian-Socialist? What does Libertarian-Socialism look like?

Jimbo Gomez
12-27-2006, 01:36 PM
I think he means to tell us he's an anarchist.

MrAngry
12-27-2006, 01:52 PM
As I have a meagre 3 posts, and havent visited their site for about 3 years, im interested to see how lonely I am here...

How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?


I've been labeled as a Libertarian lefty, does that count? I am predominantly libertarian in my views, but my political views are left of centre.

Tragic
12-27-2006, 04:28 PM
As I have a meagre 3 posts, and havent visited their site for about 3 years, im interested to see how lonely I am here...

How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?


I'm a libertarian-marxist-leninist so yes! :p


The workers state is a permissive, libertarian state. Marx, Lenin, the Castros and Chavez were/are social libertarians (unlike, it should be pointed out, Prince Bakunin who was a white supremist anti-semetic rightwing extremist).

Marxism-Leninism is a position of socio-political liberation for the masses and as such prioritizes their personal liberty just as bourgeois liberalism prioritizes the personal liberty of the bourgeois.

There is simply no such thing as a socialist who is not also libertarian (for the working class) so "libertarian socialism" is a redundency (of course there are people who call themselves 'national socialists' or 'christian socialists' and what not but they aren't socialists at all).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, the way you're using the term is different, because you mean to imply that there are socialists who are not libertarian, meaning the entirety of the politically relevant left, as you're an anarchist. So...you're also in the catagory of socialist-in-name-only.

| I, CWAS
12-27-2006, 04:36 PM
As I have a meagre 3 posts, and havent visited their site for about 3 years, im interested to see how lonely I am here...

How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?


The new member Konulu is a Libertarian Socialist

Heavens to Betsy
12-27-2006, 05:56 PM
Some days I'm a libertarian, other days not so much.

Geist
12-27-2006, 06:00 PM
Marxism-Leninism is a position of socio-political liberation for the masses and as such prioritizes their personal liberty just as bourgeois liberalism prioritizes the personal liberty of the bourgeois.



Truly the language of the working-class!

Worker&Parasite
12-27-2006, 09:23 PM
There is simply no such thing as a socialist who is not also libertarian

How did you get into communism without possibly hearing about that split in the 1st international, it has been fairly important to the political geograpgy of our movement for the past 100 years. Can you really not distinguish between the International Workingmen's Association, and the International workers association?

Whereas you may see both traditions as inherantly libertarian, the fact remains that there are two quite clearly defined traditions within our movement. One refered to as 'Libertarian' and one as 'authorotarian' this fact is neither bad, nor good, it just is.

So whereas I appreciate your point, it's largeley irrelivant.

I actually think you are the only one.

cest la vie.

What is a Libertarian-Socialist? What does Libertarian-Socialism look like?

A form of Socialism that rejects the idea of a Dictatorship (see quote in my signature), any form of state, or even, centralisation. Consiquently it focuses more of decenteralisation, autonomy, individualism, and community self-determination. It was a strong force in Russia and Ukraine in the early 1900s, but was stamped out by the Bolsheviks, despite these factions fighting alongside them. Libertarian socialists were kicked out of the 1st international for their opposition to Marx. Libertarian commies played an important part in the spainish revolution aswell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism

Janus
12-27-2006, 09:36 PM
I was under the impression that "libertarianism" and "socialism" were contradictory.

Johnson
12-27-2006, 10:04 PM
Libertarianism and Socialism are in many ways polar opposites.

I think this guy reads way too much Che-Lives.

Boleslaw
12-27-2006, 10:22 PM
How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?

Im somewhat of a Catholic variation of one, does that count?

My former screenname was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Boleslaw
12-27-2006, 10:23 PM
I was under the impression that "libertarianism" and "socialism" were contradictory.

Only if you interpret socialism in a statist manner.

Daniel Shays
12-27-2006, 10:31 PM
Hi Worker&Parasite. I'm a Marxist-Leninist and Boleslaw is a Bourgeois Socialist (Proudhonist).

tempus fugit
12-27-2006, 10:33 PM
A form of Socialism that rejects the idea of a Dictatorship (see quote in my signature), any form of state, or even, centralisation. Consiquently it focuses more of decenteralisation, autonomy, individualism, and community self-determination. It was a strong force in Russia and Ukraine in the early 1900s, but was stamped out by the Bolsheviks, despite these factions fighting alongside them. Libertarian socialists were kicked out of the 1st international for their opposition to Marx. Libertarian commies played an important part in the spainish revolution aswell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism

Thanks for the links.

Sounds incredibly pie in the sky.....people will just get up and go to work for nothing other than to contribute to general society, and no individual benefit?

And, after bringing home the bacon, someone else who sat around all day can come over and take it, lawfully and rightfully?

Boleslaw
12-27-2006, 10:34 PM
Bourgeois Socialist is an oxymoron(unless you're talking about all this New Left BS that prevails within the West); and furthemore Proudhon during his time as a politican received considerable support from working class neighborhoods.

Daniel Shays
12-27-2006, 10:35 PM
Bourgeois Socialist is an oxymoron No it isn't. See Marx's critique of Bourgeois Socialism in the Manifesto.
and furthemore Proudhon during his time as a politican received considerable support from working class neighborhoods. So did Nazis.

Boleslaw
12-27-2006, 10:38 PM
No it isn't.

Well I edited my post to acknowledge that much of the New Left ideology could be considered "bourgeois socialism"; however thats stretching it. Nevertheless, I'll retract the statement. I remember Berdyaev writing an essay about how socialism essentially is dependent upon the bourgeois mentality.


So did Nazis.

Yes they did, which undermines the claim that they were bourgeois. Their support cut across class lines, which gave them an advantage over the Communists.

And also undermines the old slander that Proudhon was bourgeois.

Daniel Shays
12-27-2006, 10:42 PM
Yes they did, which undermines the claim that they were bourgeois. Their support was cut across class lines, which gave them an advantage over the Communists.

And also undermines the old slander that Proudhon was bourgeois. Yes, any party that can trick the working class into voting for it is of course not bourgeois. Excellent analysis Boleslaw. We can breath a sigh of relief that the Democratic Party must not be bourgeois because they are supported by most working class families. I believe Ronald Reagan won the working class vote back in 84, that proves he wasn't bourgeois either.

Daniel Shays
12-27-2006, 10:49 PM
How did you get into communism without possibly hearing about that split in the 1st international, it has been fairly important to the political geograpgy of our movement for the past 100 years. Can you really not distinguish between the International Workingmen's Association, and the International workers association?

Whereas you may see both traditions as inherantly libertarian, the fact remains that there are two quite clearly defined traditions within our movement. One refered to as 'Libertarian' and one as 'authorotarian' this fact is neither bad, nor good, it just is. She is a Eurocommunist who believe it or not used to have Mao as her avatar when she would post on topics of "gay liberation" (replete with homosexual pornography).

Steppenwolf
12-27-2006, 10:59 PM
Bourgeois Socialist (Proudhonist).

Unless you learn to accept that there are other alternatives to "bourgeois" and "proletarian", you will always be embedded in this erroneous doctrine which is more akin to religious monotheism than reality.

Thomas777
12-27-2006, 11:04 PM
I'm a libertarian-marxist-leninist so yes! :p

No, you're not. The terms are mutually exclusive.


The workers state is a permissive, libertarian state.
Libertarian theory is rooted primarily in the theories of John Locke and later Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick. In other words, libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxist-Leninism.

Marx, Lenin, the Castros and Chavez were/are social libertarians
False. Libertarianism is inextricably bound up with notions involving the sacrosanct character of private property.

Marxism-Leninism is a position of socio-political liberation for the masses and as such prioritizes their personal liberty just as bourgeois liberalism prioritizes the personal liberty of the bourgeois.
Marxist-Leninism is a total theory of political economy that advocates enforcing an equitable distribution of wealth by way of general Class War and the ultimate establishment of a dictatorship of the proleteriat. "personal liberty" is a bourgoisie notion that is inextricably linked to acquisitive values and tendencies that are inherent within free market capitalism.

There is simply no such thing as a socialist who is not also libertarian
Actually, there is no such thing as a socialist who is also a libertarian.

(for the working class) so "libertarian socialism" is a redundency (of course there are people who call themselves 'national socialists' or 'christian socialists' and what not but they aren't socialists at all).
You don't understand socialism. You believe that capitalist neo-Liberalism is socialism, and your critiques are embarrasingly fatuous.

Daniel Shays
12-27-2006, 11:12 PM
Unless you learn to accept that there are other alternatives to "bourgeois" and "proletarian", you will always be embedded in this erroneous doctrine which is more akin to religious monotheism than reality. I recognize the temporal existence of other classes. Please spare me your petty-bourgeois mysticism and reactionary shamanism.

Thomas, your responces are like an exacto knife, effortlessly slicing through her soggy paper-mache mask of Marxism Leninism.

Thomas777
12-27-2006, 11:14 PM
Unless you learn to accept that there are other alternatives to "bourgeois" and "proletarian", you will always be embedded in this erroneous doctrine which is more akin to religious monotheism than reality.

Can you tell me with a straight face that a genuine "middle class" exists in 21st Century America?

Steppenwolf
12-27-2006, 11:30 PM
I recognize the temporal existence of other classes. Please spare me your petty-bourgeois mysticism and reactionary shamanism.
This does not address that which has been said.

Can you tell me with a straight face that a genuine "middle class" exists in 21st Century America?
Even if it can be shown that there exist only two classes, people can come up with different ideologies than those traditionally labelled bourgeois and proletarian. I do not see why any other alternative ideology must necessarily be a re-adaptation of one of these two.

Thomas777
12-27-2006, 11:39 PM
Even if it can be shown that there exist only two classes, people can come up with different ideologies than those traditionally labelled bourgeois and proletarian. I do not see why any other alternative ideology must necessarily be a re-adaptation of one of these two.

I think that Third Positionist political tendencies are growing...not exponentially, but the schematics of political economy are definately changing and evolving.

No matter what your political stripe, it must be acknolwedged that dramatic conflicts of interest exist between the bourgeoisie and the proleteriat...the question is, can those differences be amicably reconciled or are such conflicts of interests fatal ones?

I personally think that they could be resolved, but a general strike of sorts would have to take place first and a radical sociopolitical restructuring would have to be effected...I do not believe that these things would be possible in my lifetime, but I hope that future generations will be able to effect these sorts of revolutionary changes. Mind you, future governments will not look like those that we have seen before...

Kodos
12-28-2006, 12:06 AM
As I have a meagre 3 posts, and havent visited their site for about 3 years, im interested to see how lonely I am here...

How many Libertarian-Socialists are there on this forum?

How can you be a libertarian socialist?

Kodos
12-28-2006, 12:08 AM
No matter what your political stripe, it must be acknolwedged that dramatic conflicts of interest exist between the bourgeoisie and the proleteriat...the question is, can those differences be amicably reconciled or are such conflicts of interests fatal ones?

The big diffrence in class interest in the US is between

1) The parasitic welfare class and everyone else

2) The parasitic ultra elite (old families who really run everything types) and everyone else.

Do office workers and people who work with their hands really have that much against each other? No its a communist lie...

Kodos
12-28-2006, 12:10 AM
Whereas you may see both traditions as inherantly libertarian, the fact remains that there are two quite clearly defined traditions within our movement. One refered to as 'Libertarian' and one as 'authorotarian' this fact is neither bad, nor good, it just is.

As an anticommunist I'll say this.

As Stalin recognized if you ain't gonna pay people to work you gotta force em to work...

Daniel Shays
12-28-2006, 12:17 AM
1) The parasitic welfare class and everyone else This is a condition unique to liberal capitalist states where the fear of unemployment is required to force people to accept lower pay. Marx wrote that

It [The bourgeoisie] is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.
2) The parasitic ultra elite (old families who really run everything types) and everyone else. These are the bourgeoisie.
Do office workers and people who work with their hands really have that much against each other? No its a communist lie... That is totally false. No Communists ever claimed that there is an irreconcilable conflict between "office workers" and other workers. The problem is that office workers too often adopt a bourgeois identity - they are counter jumpers. They aren't by default reactionary unless they try to pursue their "middle class" interests (which by default means an alliance with the bourgeoisie against the working class) instead of assimilating into the working class that they will eventually be forced into anyway as they are made obsolete by offshoring or technical advancement.

Kodos
12-28-2006, 12:19 AM
These are the bourgeoisie.

They are the aristocracy, they also support socialism to knock the ladder down.

Its called "rent seeking" in real economics.

Daniel Shays
12-28-2006, 12:32 AM
They are the aristocracy, The US has never had an aristocratic class. Why would you use that term to describe the American ruling class?they also support socialismOnly a few errant heroes like Corliss Lamont and Frederick Vanderbilt.to knock the ladder down.Are you implying that wealthy people support socialism as a means of preserving their wealth?

Berianidze
12-28-2006, 01:08 AM
I'm a libertarian-marxist-leninist so yes! :p


The workers state is a permissive, libertarian state. Marx, Lenin, the Castros and Chavez were/are social libertarians (unlike, it should be pointed out, Prince Bakunin who was a white supremist anti-semetic rightwing extremist).

Marxism-Leninism is a position of socio-political liberation for the masses and as such prioritizes their personal liberty just as bourgeois liberalism prioritizes the personal liberty of the bourgeois.

There is simply no such thing as a socialist who is not also libertarian (for the working class) so "libertarian socialism" is a redundency (of course there are people who call themselves 'national socialists' or 'christian socialists' and what not but they aren't socialists at all).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, the way you're using the term is different, because you mean to imply that there are socialists who are not libertarian, meaning the entirety of the politically relevant left, as you're an anarchist. So...you're also in the catagory of socialist-in-name-only.

This is the post that I've been waiting for Tragic. Thank you so much!

Kodos
12-28-2006, 05:14 AM
The US has never had an aristocratic class. Why would you use that term to describe the American ruling class?

They aren't titled, but the Duponts and Rockefellers are de facto noble houses of the realm.

Are you implying that wealthy people support socialism as a means of preserving their wealth?

To some degree yes. Socialistic regulations tend to knock the ladder down.

If you are rich enough you can get around taxes and afford the regulations any upstart competitors would have to pay for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Worker&Parasite
12-28-2006, 10:24 AM
How can you be a libertarian socialist?
Libertarianism and Socialism are in many ways polar opposites.

I can see why you are getting confused, but they are in no way opposites.

'Libertarian' didn't always mean what it does in the context of today, in this usage it simply means, pro-freedom (to put it simply). Libertarian Socialism utterly rejects the idea of a state, and of a 'transitional period' towards communism. In the past, Libertarian and Anarchist were synonymous terms, today of course things are different. So it may be more up to date to refer to this system as Anarcho-Socialism, Autonomist-Socialism or Anti-state socialism. Whatever works for you.

Libertarian socialism breaks down into various tendancies, including Anarchist-Communsim, Left-communism, Counsil Communism, Autonomist marxism etc. The two most famous manifestations are Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Bakuninism.

It is not a fusion of capitalist "libertarianism" and Socialism, if that's what you thought.

Worker&Parasite
12-28-2006, 10:44 AM
Hi Worker&Parasite. I'm a Marxist-Leninist and Boleslaw is a Bourgeois Socialist (Proudhonist).

Generally I would see any Marxist-Lenninist as a comrade of sorts, despite various disagreements. But from what I have gathered, the "marxist-lenninist" camp in this online backwater community is closer to a form of Pseudo-nazism, than any real manifestation of Marxist lenninism.

And being personally involved in the Class Struggle in the UK, I can honestly say that I am in touch with, and an acquaintance to many Marxists-lenninists and Marxist organisations. None of which would even consider permitting any of the homophobes and racists posing as communists here.

If you are not one of the above catagory, then It's nice to speak to you.

Berianidze
12-28-2006, 12:20 PM
Generally I would see any Marxist-Lenninist as a comrade of sorts, despite various disagreements. But from what I have gathered, the "marxist-lenninist" camp in this online backwater community is closer to a form of Pseudo-nazism, than any real manifestation of Marxist lenninism.

And being personally involved in the Class Struggle in the UK, I can honestly say that I am in touch with, and an acquaintance to many Marxists-lenninists and Marxist organisations. None of which would even consider permitting any of the homophobes and racists posing as communists here.

If you are not one of the above catagory, then It's nice to speak to you.

You make some bold statements, and on the basis of our posting some things on an internet message board you're going to generalize what type of Marxists we are? That isn't sound reasoning, and furthermore you keep asserting how involved you are with the working class movement (in Britain no less) as if that somehow makes you credible or a "true marxist." Perhaps you should step down from your throne atop the mass-movement of libertarian socialism and stop attacking people here for not being limp-wristed "identity-politics" socialists.

Also, you criticize us for taking what you term "homophobic stances," then coming to the conclusion that we are reactionary "pseudo-nazis." Nobody here has put forth an argument for the rounding up and execution of homosexuals. Marx personally felt the same on the subject, and Tragic was correct in that he didn't outline an agenda towards homosexuals but his personal feelings were of disapproval. Yet I don't see anybody jumping to the conclusion that Marx was a reactionary "pseudo-nazi!" :rolleyes:.

By the way, Bakunin was a rabid anti-Semite and staunch Russian chauvinist. I guess that makes him a reactionary nazi, too!

Worker&Parasite
12-28-2006, 12:39 PM
You make some bold statements, and on the basis of our posting some things on an internet message board you're going to generalize what type of Marxists we are?

Do you mean what you say? if you do then it's fair for me to make solid assertions about your politics.

you keep asserting how involved you are with the working class movement (in Britain no less) as if that somehow makes you credible or a "true marxist."

Im not a marxist. I agree with a lot of what marx said, and base many of my ideas on his work. But im no more a marxist than I am a Bakuninist. Both said a lot of sensible things, and things I find objectionable.

The reason I make references to my political activism is to make a point of context. Within the real left (not the cyber-left) the homophobic and racist tendencies that your camp express here exist as prisoners in the minds of a few bumbling has-beens. People like you are witch-hunted out and expelled from any serious revolutionary organisation. This isn't going to convince you of anything, so I don't intend to pursue the point, but Im just informing you that you are very much an anomaly.

Nobody here has put forth an argument for the rounding up and execution of homosexuals.

You have admitted that such a practice would not be a bad idea morally, simply impractical. So if it was practical, my understanding is that you would like to see a workers state perform such a holocaust.

By the way, Bakunin was a rabid anti-Semite and staunch Russian chauvinist. I guess that makes him a reactionary nazi, too!

I am neither Bakunin, nor a Bakuninist.

The man himself however, was not a nazi, as the tendency did not yet exist, most of his reactionary views, and yes they were reactionary, was simply cultural/historical baggage. Either way I fully reject those elements of his work, and think for myself.

Berianidze
12-28-2006, 12:53 PM
Do you mean what you say? if you do then it's fair for me to make solid assertions about your politics.
I mean what I say, but my position cannot be summarized entirely through some of the posts, or even all of my posts. And I highly doubt you went through all 1,930 of my posts before arriving at the conclusion that I'm a staunch reactionry. Or any of the others, for that matter.

Im not a marxist. I agree with a lot of what marx said, and base many of my ideas on his work. But im no more a marxist than I am a Bakuninist. Both said a lot of sensible things, and things I find objectionable.

I figured as much, my mistake for not phrasing my sentence better.

The reason I make references to my political activism is to make a point of context. Within the real left (not the cyber-left) the homophobic and racist tendencies that your camp express here exist as prisoners in the minds of a few bumbling has-beens. People like you are witch-hunted out and expelled from any serious revolutionary organisation. This isn't going to convince you of anything, so I don't intend to pursue the point, but Im just informing you that you are very much an anomaly.

Are you prepared to substantiate such bold claims on the overall sentiments of the workers' movement in general? You may be well informed on the socialist movement in England, and maybe the West in general, but those are not the opinions of some of the leading parties in the former Soviet bloc (I'm not using this as a justification for anything, but simply to show you that moral subjectivism in the communist movement is not unanimous).

You have admitted that such a practice would not be a bad idea morally, simply impractical. So if it was practical, my understanding is that you would like to see a workers state perform such a holocaust.

That conclusion is not supported by your stated premise. Just because I said I oppose it on practical grounds does not imply that I support it on moral grounds. I do not think my statements justify your making that assertion. I simply have not stated a moral opinion on the subject.

The man himself however, was not a nazi, as the tendency did not yet exist, most of his reactionary views, and yes they were reactionary, was simply cultural/historical baggage. Either way I fully reject those elements of his work, and think for myself.
I know he wasn't a nazi, and I was not seriously implying that he could possibly have been. But for whatever reason that the communists on this board show an opposition to homosexuality and we're automatically reactionary "Nazis" (a loaded term just as 'fascist' is used now). I fail to see how a moral opposition to the social acceptance of homosexuality implies that one cannot be a Marxist-Leninist. I would also like to see a material argument for the inclusion of homosexuality as equal in significance to the liberation of the working class -- particularly when petty-bourgeois liberalism makes the same attempts, and uses the same rights-based arguments as tragic has.

Boleslaw
12-28-2006, 03:25 PM
By the way, Bakunin was a rabid anti-Semite and staunch Russian chauvinist. I guess that makes him a reactionary nazi, too!

Bakunin was very much a pan-Slavist. He also remarked how nations are a fact of nature, but that one should never mistake the fatherland for the state.

By extension; Proudhon also earned the contempt of fellow socialists for his staunch support for traditional morality in terms of the family and sexuality. And he had the reputation for being a Bible-thumper.

Boleslaw
12-28-2006, 03:57 PM
So Worker&Parasite, what is your basic attitude towards issues of race and nationalism? Are you against them in toto and adhere to an abstract sense of internationalism(which many anarchists and Leftists these days seem to do); or rather are you merely against the political exploitation by the state of such natural feelings for ones kinship community(which essentially was the attitude of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc)?

Worker&Parasite
12-28-2006, 05:12 PM
I mean what I say,
Good.

Are you prepared to substantiate such bold claims on the overall sentiments of the workers' movement in general?

Yes.
The International Workers association, The Industrial workers of the world, the IAF-IFA, the spartacist league, the communist league, The Committee for a workers international, etc are all vast international organisations that oppose racism and homophobia.

The fact that a few (some might call them fossils) soviet-style parties in eastern europe carry heavily reactionary viewpoints, means very little to the direction movement today. The rest of it is simply dead weight that will either have to catch up or die out.

I simply have not stated a moral opinion on the subject.

State one.

I know he wasn't a nazi, and I was not seriously implying that he could possibly have been

Im not sure, he would have after all, opposed almost all the other stated principals and practices of the fascist state. So it seems somewhat absurd to suggest he would have joined the nazis. But yes he was an anti-semite.

I fail to see how a moral opposition to the social acceptance of homosexuality implies that one cannot be a Marxist-Leninist

Without being patronising, it's quite simple really. As a marxist, you are against the existence of economic and social classes.

You seek to abolish all forms of class, In favour of collective democratic, working class ownership of the economy and all the mechanisms of production.

As soon as you institutionally victimise a section of the working class, you have created a category of people who will undoubtedly have less say over the economy than the rest of the working class, and for an entirely irrelevant reason (ones sexuality has little to do with economics) Until that section of the working class is free, no one is free, they are simply priviliged.

I would also like to see a material argument for the inclusion of homosexuality as equal in significance to the liberation of the working class

I'd much rather hear the material argument for exclusion.

Worker&Parasite
12-28-2006, 05:33 PM
So Worker&Parasite, what is your basic attitude towards issues of race and nationalism?

My position on race is, complex to say the least. I recognise that biologically, it doesn't exist, but socially, and culturally it clearly does.

"There are differences, but they don't define historical lineage's that have persisted for a long time. The point is, for race to have any scientific validity and integrity it has to have generality beyond any one species. If it doesn't, the concept is meaningless." -Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University

Unlike many leftists, I oppose Black-Nationalism, 'Black-pride day', and positive-discrimination (as well as the white alternative). My pride and loyalty are felt toward my class, which consists of many different people, of different backgrounds and cultures.

Are you against them in toto and adhere to an abstract sense of internationalism

I am against the idea of race, and nationalism. But I wouldn't say I adhere to an abstract sense of internationalism. My adherence to 'internationalism' is purely practical, my immediate interests are in liberating myself and my community.

I would support nationalist revolutions, depending on the ends of such a movement. If it were to result in the formation of a native ruling class, and native oppression as opposed to foreign oppression, then I would absolutely oppose it. If it lead to greater community control and self-determination, I would support it.

I've sumarised greatly, but hopefully you have some idea of where I stand.

Rakhmetov
12-29-2006, 07:19 AM
What is a libertarian socialist? I always thought of libertarians as free marketeers who like to smoke cannabis. How then can such a type be a socialist?

Daniel Shays
12-29-2006, 05:29 PM
Generally I would see any Marxist-Lenninist as a comrade of sorts, despite various disagreements. But from what I have gathered, the "marxist-lenninist" camp in this online backwater community is closer to a form of Pseudo-nazism, than any real manifestation of Marxist lenninism.The Socialist Paradise is not an exclusively Marxist-Leninist camp by any means, as you know from your pos(+) rep invite sent before you insulted the Phora's Marxist-Leninists and asstd. socialists. And being personally involved in the Class Struggle in the UK,Are you a member of Class War?

Now, As a proponent of an obscurantist ideological witche's brew that you admit is concocted speficially for your liberation it's understandable why you are unable to adapt to the everchanging realities of our world. It is not simply that we Marxist-Leninists characterize homosexuality and liberal 'anti-racism' as bourgeois, but rather that it is the bourgeoisie itself that brought about this in a great reactionary shift, an adaptation that compels Communists of all countries to in turn make a radical shift in strategy.

If it appears that some Communists are 'homophobic' or 'racist' it is only because the bourgeoisie has for decades been consistently anti-racist and pro-gay. It is impossible for us to 'liberate' gays and racial minorities as social groups because capitalism has not only unfettered them financially and socially, but continually exerts great effort to assist in their integration into the capitalist system (affirmative action, sex changes, etc.). Gays and Blacks are simply no longer oppressed as social groups - HOWEVER - they are still oppressed in a class sense, thus it is inappropriate for them to fight their oppressor as anything other than a proletarian. Their sexual and ethnic identities are distractions in a capitalist society which is destroying its own bourgeois scruples (anti-gay -- in America at least; racist, etc.) - clearing the way for proletarian unity. Now, a section of the bourgeoisie sees that the bourgeoisie is destroying itself - they split off and become the pure reactionary nationalists who advocate a 'national culture' as an alternative to the 'multiculturalism' of capitalism proper. Both these are traps for the working class who need only a proletarian culture.

And it is surprising to see British communists that tout homosexuality as socially revolutionary. The British ruling class doesn't affect anti-gay attitudes and they never have, that's a difference between the UK and the rest of the firstworld. The British ruling class after Henry VIII never took religion seriously ever again, seeing it only as a cynical cloak for their [mis]deeds, most bourgeoisies had an overwhelming majority of fervent believers but never the British. Your bourgeoisie is notorious for their sexual preying on working class youth. They are educated apart in sprawling single-sex barracks in so-called 'public schools' where Spartan-like pair bonding occurs. Homosexuality in Britain is and remains a way of conforming to the values of the ruling class, not rebelling against them.

Your solipsist socialism makes you a captive of an outmoded approach that was correct before the 60's - but is now incorrect - as far as the homosexual issue in Britain, you were never correct.
The fact that a few (some might call them fossils) soviet-style parties in eastern europe carry heavily reactionary viewpoints, means very little to the direction movement today. The rest of it is simply dead weight that will either have to catch up or die out.What are the views of the CPGB-ML, NCP, and RCPB-ML on homosexuality?
Unlike many leftists, I oppose Black-Nationalism, 'Black-pride day', and positive-discrimination (as well as the white alternative). My pride and loyalty are felt toward my class, which consists of many different people, of different backgrounds and cultures.This is understandable.

But do you universally oppose Black Nationalism or are you able to recognize that there are times and places it is appropriate and others it is not. Such as in America for instance? Assuming you universally oppose it as a rigid dogma, why would you support the diffusion of revolutionary anti-capitalist Black Nationalism into the capitalist system? In America due to history, geography, culture, psychology, and language African Americans constitute a nation that is uniquely oppressed by capitalism. Now, all black leaders get sucked into the corporate world and are corrupted. This is detrimental to all workers, but blacks feel its effects the hardest in loss of honest leadership. The Civil Rights movement was for black autonomy and self-determination - not guaranteed passes into the American bourgeoisie for their best and brightest.

Boleslaw
12-29-2006, 05:49 PM
My position on race is, complex to say the least.

Alright I can understand, since the same could be said of my views as well.


I recognise that biologically, it doesn't exist, but socially, and culturally it clearly does.

My view is that race does biologically exists, but it has so relevance as far as ones social identity is concerned. As Jacques Maritain noted:

"The word nation spring from the Latin nasci, that is, from the notion of birth, but the nation is not something of the biological order, like the Race. It is something ethico-social: a human community based indeed on birth and lineage, yet with all the moral considerations of those terms: birth to the life of reason and civilized activity, lineage in family tradition, social and judicial formation, cultural heritage, common conceptions and customs, historical memories, sufferings, claims, hopes, prejudices and resentments. An ethnic community, generally speaking, can be defined as a community of patterns of feeling rooted in the physical soil of the origin of the group as well as in the moral soil of history..."
--Man and the State pg. 4

What's your take on this kind of position?


Unlike many leftists, I oppose Black-Nationalism, 'Black-pride day', and positive-discrimination (as well as the white alternative). My pride and loyalty are felt toward my class, which consists of many different people, of different backgrounds and cultures.

So you would support an ethno-pluralist approach?



I am against the idea of race, and nationalism. But I wouldn't say I adhere to an abstract sense of internationalism.

So you're against nationalism but not necessarily nations themselves?

"True internationalism will never be attained except by the independence of each nationality, little or large, compact or disunited - just as [the essence] of anarchy is the independence of each individual. If we say no government of man over man, how can [we] permit the government of conqured nationalities by the conquering nationalities?"
--Petr Kropotkin, cited in Kropoktin - Martin A. Miller, pg.231


I've sumarised greatly, but hopefully you have some idea of where I stand.

I understand you somewhat, but I feel you may have to clarify a few things.

Anyways....here's a thread Im sure you'd be interested in reading, since it deals with this issue to a large extent.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13107

Worker&Parasite
01-01-2007, 01:32 PM
What's your take on this kind of position?

The idea that race biologically exists? My take on it is that it is scientifically wrong. It's empirically falsifiable, and therefore not worth proper scientific debate.

The idea that groups of humans, are socially bound together by a common cultural heritage, is largely true, but has limitations. For example, I am part of a culture, but I despise many of it's traditional values, because I am a free thinker, and an individual I do not want to be fully associated with my culture, consiquently, I do not make assumptions about other individuals relations to their cultures. All cultures break down into classes, regardless of skin colour, or tradition, the workers, and parasites.

As such, I Identify with my working class heritage, which I am proud of. I love my class, and everyone else who takes pride in, and fights for it, regardless of artifical constructs like "nationhood". Humans are bound together by class, and their economic self-interest, more so than race and nationhood. I feel more comfortable and familier with working class foreigners than the middle class individuals of my culture.

Janus
01-01-2007, 11:45 PM
The idea that race biologically exists? My take on it is that it is scientifically wrong. It's empirically falsifiable, and therefore not worth proper scientific debate. Would you like to argue that point in another thread? :)

I would be glad to make one.

Helios Panoptes
01-01-2007, 11:48 PM
The idea that race biologically exists? My take on it is that it is scientifically wrong. It's empirically falsifiable, and therefore not worth proper scientific debate.

Your comment does not make sense. To say that a statement is "empirically falsifiable" is to say that there is a possible observation that could render it false. That it is falsifiable does not preclude scientific debate at all. At the bare minimum the overwhelming majority, and perhaps all, statements propounded by modern science are falsifiable.

Kodos
01-02-2007, 02:44 AM
As such, I Identify with my working class heritage, which I am proud of. I love my class, and everyone else who takes pride in, and fights for it, regardless of artifical constructs like "nationhood". Humans are bound together by class, and their economic self-interest, more so than race and nationhood. I feel more comfortable and familier with working class foreigners than the middle class individuals of my culture.

Um yeah how well does your left wing intellectualism go down at your local working class watering hole...

The regulars are hanging out at Joey's Pub

Vinny to Joe: So these niggers all try to jump me

Worker and Parasite: The working class of all races should unite against the buergois, America is an artificial construct. The black working man is your brother against the oppression (etc)

The bar goes silent...

W&P ends up at the hospital...

Kodos
01-02-2007, 02:47 AM
Unlike many leftists, I oppose Black-Nationalism, 'Black-pride day', and positive-discrimination (as well as the white alternative). My pride and loyalty are felt toward my class, which consists of many different people, of different backgrounds and cultures.


Of which the diffrent racial groups within it hate each other.

Przemysław
01-02-2007, 02:47 AM
I've been labeled as a Libertarian lefty, does that count? I am predominantly libertarian in my views, but my political views are left of centre.
I think you just have a lot of anger towards the world.

delete
01-02-2007, 02:58 AM
The idea that race biologically exists? My take on it is that it is scientifically wrong. It's empirically falsifiable, and therefore not worth proper scientific debate.

The idea that groups of humans, are socially bound together by a common cultural heritage, is largely true, but has limitations. For example, I am part of a culture, but I despise many of it's traditional values, because I am a free thinker, and an individual I do not want to be fully associated with my culture, consiquently, I do not make assumptions about other individuals relations to their cultures. All cultures break down into classes, regardless of skin colour, or tradition, the workers, and parasites..

You sound like an intellectual poser*, where ideology becomes a fashion statment used to get layed.

*I would have called you jewish, but this is forbidden. :)

Helios Panoptes
01-02-2007, 03:03 AM
Delete, this is a lowbrow forum.

Janus
01-02-2007, 03:27 AM
Delete, this is a lowbrow forum.I have a question about the new rule. :)

May I call a member a Jew before he has stated his ethnicity?

OVERWATCH
01-02-2007, 03:40 AM
:jew::jew::jew::jew:


It naturally follows that anyone who disagrees with extreme racist views or holocaust revisionism are Jews. No white person and no Aryan would ever express disagreement with these fundamental truths, only Jews would. While Jews make up only 2% of the population, they are a whopping 99.8% of people on the internet.

The entire internut itself is a huge, multiheaded Jewish sockpuppet hydra, one grand illusion run out of Tel-aviv, London, and Langley, VA., for the express purpose of corrupting white racialists and Aryans with porn and lies. This is a proven fact once one realises the the #1 internut business is porn, and only an idiot does not know that the porn business is almost entirely run by Jews.

My suggestion, as an Aryan, is to buy a shortwave radio and listen for coded broadcasts from Moon Base Himmler and Neuschwabenland during the solstices.

:jew::jew::jew::jew:

Boleslaw
01-02-2007, 08:33 PM
Anyways, addressing the charge Proudhon was merely a "bourgeois socialist":


http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/proudhon/sp001863.html

Marx attacked Proudhon as a "petty bourgeois anarchist", yet France was to remain fundamentally a country of petite bourgeois well into the 1940's. Success for any movement meant incorporating this group. To ignore or condemn the petty bourgeoisie would only drive them into the hands of the monarchists or fascists. Proudhon's anarchism appealed to the peasant, artisan and professional as well as the industrial worker. And as workers incomes increased, they too began to purchase property. Having once done so, they were most unwilling to relinquish their hard-earned gains to the sticky hands of the Socialist State. Proudhon the peasant had a much better grasp on reality than the bourgeois Marxists with all their abstract thoughts and dreams.

Furthermore, Proudhon was of a peasent background, while both Marx and Engels were bourgeois. Engels in particular enjoyed a typically bourgeois lifestyle all his life. I believe one time he even remarked how he personally prefered the company of country club gentlemen to that of any worker!

Helios Panoptes
01-02-2007, 08:50 PM
I have a question about the new rule. :)

It's not a new rule. It's an old rule that is beginning to be enforced(in the HR forum). It was never permissible to disparage one's opponents with personal attacks in the highbrow forums.

It is acceptable in the Lounge, however, which is why I informed delete that this is a lowbrow forum and he could have called W&P "a jew" without reprimand.

May I call a member a Jew before he has stated his ethnicity?

I suppose if it is relevant to the topic at hand.

Nyx
01-02-2007, 10:37 PM
biologically, it [race] doesn't exist,Substantiate this assertion, please.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-03-2007, 07:06 AM
People like you are witch-hunted out and expelled from any serious revolutionary organisation.

I'm a veteran of the American anarclique and former reader of the UK's Black Flag and have to admit that I'm at a loss to identify a single "serious revolutionary (anarchist) organisation" in either country.

All of the groups making efforts seem mired in lifestylism, identity politics, reformism, and the very go-nowhere witch-hunts you seem to enjoy so much.

I left the American anarclique when it became clear to me that its idea of "revolution" was teaching people how to fix bicycles and engage in anal sex without prolapsing.

Worker&Parasite
01-03-2007, 05:57 PM
Would you like to argue that point in another thread? :)

Please point me in the right direction.

You sound like an intellectual poser*, where ideology becomes a fashion statement used to get layed.

Well, a lot of people are like that, though this critique tends to apply more to the Che-merchanide wearing youth of the suburbs. I do however, consider myself a bit more mature about my politics than that.

I would have called you jewish, but this is forbidden

Im an atheist.

Worker&Parasite
01-03-2007, 06:01 PM
I'm a veteran of the American anarclique and former reader of the UK's Black Flag and have to admit that I'm at a loss to identify a single "serious revolutionary (anarchist) organisation" in either country

I wasn't necessarily referring to Anarchist organisations as such. The SWP, Socialist party, Socialist party of Great Britain, the IWW, and many more, are all opposed to homophobia, sexism, racism etc in all forms..

All of the groups making efforts seem mired in lifestylism, identity politics, reformism

This is sadly true, but not universally so. There are plenty of Serious libertarian-socialists out there, stronger national federations, with clearer politics are needed.

Worker&Parasite
01-03-2007, 06:05 PM
Um yeah how well does your left wing intellectualism go down at your local working class watering hole...

Normally, very well if I stay away from using terms like "socialism" "anarchism" and "proletariat". On the contrary to your fantasy scenario, I know that C18, and other known racists have been banned from various pubs and venues locally, after being chased out with the regular pub-goers.

Such things have not happened to us. And we are a fairly large and overt group.

Boleslaw
01-03-2007, 06:24 PM
The idea that race biologically exists? My take on it is that it is scientifically wrong. It's empirically falsifiable, and therefore not worth proper scientific debate.

Im not a race fanatic, but the mere fact that Blacks and whites have clearly distinct features alone show that race does biologically exist. However, outside of a biological context it has little relevance. Cultural identities, even those based on kinship and descent, are a different matter.



The idea that groups of humans, are socially bound together by a common cultural heritage, is largely true, but has limitations.

Yes but the ability to break away from them also has limitations. This is shown with the fact that national identities and prejudices have too often come to fore in regards to the international socialist movement.

For example: in regards to Marx and Proudhon, their conflict was reflective of a general conflict between German and French socialists. German socialists tended to be staunch atheists and saw socialism largely through the lens of obtaining political power. French socialists tended to be more spiritual and moral in nature, and saw socialism as the means of improving man's soul. Same thing in regards to the conflict between Russian and Ukrainian socialists. One Ukrainian socialist even remarked how Marxism is nothing more than "socialism for empires".



All cultures break down into classes, regardless of skin colour, or tradition, the workers, and parasites.

True, but history has also shown that cultural ties are far more entrenched then class ties.


regardless of artifical constructs like "nationhood".

Artifical constructs? I have to say that even Bakunin would strongly disagree with this assestment:

"I feel myself always the patriot of all oppressed fatherlands. . . Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom."
-quoted by Alfredo M. Bonanno in Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle, pp. 19-20

Worker&Parasite
01-03-2007, 06:38 PM
Im not a race fanatic, but the mere fact that Blacks and whites have clearly distinct features alone show that race does biologically exist.

Well, As I said, I would be more than happy to perhaps discuss this in another thread. But Scientifically it is impossible to determine someone's race by their genetics. There is diversity in the human race, but to declare that these diversities define races is factually wrong.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena (National Academy of Sciences)

One Ukrainian socialist even remarked how Marxism is nothing more than "socialism for empires".

Well, in light of the historical context (assuming this individual was a Makhnovist) I can see what may have encourgaed such a statement.

Artifical constructs? I have to say that even Bakunin would strongly disagree with this assestment:


Well, im afraid me and Bakunin disagree on this issue. Though not entirely, you cannot really sum up my opinions on nationality as "they are artificial - I reject them"

Boleslaw
01-03-2007, 06:42 PM
Well, As I said, I would be more than happy to perhaps discuss this in another thread. But Scientifically it is impossible to determine someones race by their genetics. There is diversity in the human race, but to declare that these diversities defines races is factualyl wrong.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena (National Academy of Sciences)

Well yes, this will have to be discussed within another thread.


Well, in light of the historical context (assuming this individual was a Makhnovist) I can see what may have encourgaed such a statement.

No it was actually Mykhailo Pavlyk (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/P/A/PavlykMykhailo.htm) who made that remark. He was friend and associate of Ivan Franko. This was a decade or so before Makhno came onto the scene, not to mention they were Galician.


Well, im afraid me and Bakunin disagree on this issue. Though not entirely, you cannot really sum up my opinions on nationality as "they are artificial - I reject them"

Well I must say my attitude falls more into line with Bakunin's.