Question for the Capitalists

[Murica!]

Capitalism is when the means of production are in private(and in my opinion also state)hands and have hierarchical structure.

In which case it does not apply - though I do find that some folk on the left take issue with me endorsing for-profit economic activity, interclass collaboration, market-driven competition, some deregulation, right to work laws, and toleration of some form of class hierarchy in lieu of being able to create a society where the exchange of all forms of capital (not just economic) are controlled enough to prevent non-meritocratic patterns of privilege and deprivation from developing. At least in my experience, Marxist-Leninists tend to perceive my position as capitalist. But then again, I guess they throw that label around a lot. xD

Marxist-Leninists have little to do with the left and are more on the lines of fascism.

[Redalgo]

Fascists and Leninists are alike in their totalitarian qualities, lack of inhibition to unleash political violence, intolerance of dissent, and tendency to set up corporatist economies but I think the lines between them have been blurred a bit too much on account of corruption in many regimes. Leninism is supposed to be internationalist, utilize democratic centralism, and establish a workers' state that embarks on a journey through varied stages of capitalism, then socialism before finally approaching its stateless destination of communism. Fascism is instead oriented towards national survival and is very hostile towards egalitarian sentiments - including but not limited to questions of race, nationality, creed, class, gender, sex, etc. - desiring a society that is "pure," "natural," and serves as an extension of a state that never yields power.

Don't get me wrong - in practice they can become rather similar and I do not conflate Leninism with the socialist movement as a whole - but in a way they do seem to be socialists. It is just that their approach is much more aggressive, ruthless, authoritarian, and dependent upon the benevolence of intellectuals in the vanguard party than those of us who in contrast are non-violent, "revisionist," aim to decentralize all sources of power, and are even more concerned about how socialism is to come about than what precise shape it will initially take. I tend to think of the movement as containing at least a few competing currents that differ quite substantially from one another.

[Murica!]

Fascists and Leninists are alike in their totalitarian qualities, lack of inhibition to unleash political violence, intolerance of dissent, and tendency to set up corporatist economies but I think the lines between them have been blurred a bit too much on account of corruption in many regimes. Leninism is supposed to be internationalist, utilize democratic centralism, and establish a workers' state that embarks on a journey through varied stages of capitalism, then socialism before finally approaching its stateless destination of communism. Fascism is instead oriented towards national survival and is very hostile towards egalitarian sentiments - including but not limited to questions of race, nationality, creed, class, gender, sex, etc. - desiring a society that is "pure," "natural," and serves as an extension of a state that never yields power.

Don't get me wrong - in practice they can become rather similar and I do not conflate Leninism with the socialist movement as a whole - but in a way they do seem to be socialists. It is just that their approach is much more aggressive, ruthless, authoritarian, and dependent upon the benevolence of intellectuals in the vanguard party than those of us who in contrast are non-violent, "revisionist," aim to decentralize all sources of power, and are even more concerned about how socialism is to come about than what precise shape it will initially take. I tend to think of the movement as containing at least a few competing currents that differ quite substantially from one another.

By Marxism-Leninism I meant Stalinism which little to do with either Marxism or Leninism, but the rest is very correct even though I consider myself an anti-revisionist(which ironically Marxism-Leninism and Leninism are revisionist.)

[Redalgo]

Aye - and it's all good. I've really yet to see two folk in this area of politics who tick in quite the same way!

[Murica!]

Aye - and it's all good. I've really yet to see two folk in this area of politics who tick in quite the same way!

I find them quite hilarious really, from still believing Lenin in the 21st century(Leninism is an ideology for
under developed nations not modern states) to believing that creating a state will get them to communism(one step forward ten steps back.)

[Oakvale]

I reject the premise of this thread. Anarchism is a ridiculous pseudophilosophy for dippy children (Lenin was right about something!) and it seems unlikely that a totalitarian government would pay much heed to established property rights.

Aye - and it's all good. I've really yet to see two folk in this area of politics who tick in quite the same way!

I find them quite hilarious really, from still believing Lenin in the 21st century(Leninism is an ideology for
under developed nations not modern states) to believing that creating a state will get them to communism(one step forward ten steps back.)

Believing in Communism in the 21st century is inherently deranged enough that the bizarre infighting seems like much ado about nothing.

[Redalgo]

Believing in Communism in the 21st century is inherently deranged enough that the bizarre infighting seems like much ado about nothing.

Though not a communist, I suspect a time will come when there will be so much automation that the communist aspiration of individual emancipation from compulsion to perform dissatisfying, alienating, soul-crushing, w/e forms of labour will become possible - regardless of whether capitalism, corporatism, or socialism prevails in the meanwhile. I imagine post-scarcity is unrealistic and I am not much a fan of statelessness or abolishing money, but what I will say is this. If anything about the ideology is innately deranged, it is that people tried to implement it before tech could unlock most of its latent potential.

As for the infighting itself, I think it is difficult for people to settle on a small handful of possibilities when most of their ideas have never been given a chance to play out in practice. Capitalists are fragmented as well, to some extent, but they at least have an abundance of experience to fall back upon to help them narrow down the range of options somewhat to focus on what seems to be most promising. Socialists do not have that luxury, in contrast, forcing them to think in terms of "what if" and react to the outcomes of non-socialist programmes and those who felt short of establishing socialism.

It is the nature of left-right divides, really. The former is by its very nature new, experimental, and seeks to venture forth into unknown territory whilst the latter is aged, safe, but has little potential remaining to unlock in exceeding current expectations.

[Murica!]

Believing in Communism in the 21st century is inherently deranged enough that the bizarre infighting seems like much ado about nothing.

Though not a communist, I suspect a time will come when there will be so much automation that the communist aspiration of individual emancipation from compulsion to perform dissatisfying, alienating, soul-crushing, w/e forms of labour will become possible - regardless of whether capitalism, corporatism, or socialism prevails in the meanwhile. I imagine post-scarcity is unrealistic and I am not much a fan of statelessness or abolishing money, but what I will say is this. If anything about the ideology is innately deranged, it is that people tried to implement it before tech could unlock most of its latent potential.

As for the infighting itself, I think it is difficult for people to settle on a small handful of possibilities when most of their ideas have never been given a chance to play out in practice. Capitalists are fragmented as well, to some extent, but they at least have an abundance of experience to fall back upon to help them narrow down the range of options somewhat to focus on what seems to be most promising. Socialists do not have that luxury, in contrast, forcing them to think in terms of "what if" and react to the outcomes of non-socialist programmes and those who felt short of establishing socialism.

It is the nature of left-right divides, really. The former is by its very nature new, experimental, and seeks to venture forth into unknown territory whilst the latter is aged, safe, but has little potential remaining to unlock in exceeding current expectations.

One correction is about the infighting. The infighting exists due to misuse of the word "dictatorship" By "right" communists such as Lenin and even more so Stalin.

[OSR stands with Israel]

None