Hello, i am a social democrat or democratic socialist if you will!
We are a happy few
I am of Libertarian Socialist convictions - conversely also called "Anarcho-Syndicalism" All that all of this really means is: Anarchism: I believe in the peaceful dissipation and abolition of all states, and other similar coercive hierarchical arbitrary power-structures, such as corporations. Socialism: Democratization of the means of production, simply put. Syndicalism: The conglomeration and cooperation of like-minded workers, service providers and other interest groups. Based on the "Cooperative" model. So yea, I'm on the left somewhere.
I remember seeing your political profile being only millimetres away from my own position, such superficial indications are rarely true, but I see that I was right. I read about the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Anthony Beevor's "Spanish Civil War" and were pretty puzzled as to what their belief was. Thanks for clarifying though!
Hi all. Thank you for the invitation. I'm not an expert on political sciences, I don't even really know how to classify myself. I'd consider myself a socialist because I agree with the socialists' take on most issues. I feel a system in which greed is the supposed catalyst for progress will only facilitate the division of society in a small rich group and a large poor group (which is essential for the system to 'work'). But whether I'm a socialist of the anarchistic kind or leaning more towards the importance of states and governments, I'm not sure.
Ah, good old White Knight. I think I remember you.. somewhere. Perhaps I could give you the arguments for and against state socialism vs libertarian socialism. First off, a number of great scholars have compared State Capitalism (USA) to State Socialism (Soviet). They are both based on the philosophies of Hegel. To press this point forward, capitalism's indeed greatest triumph (for the elite) might turn out to be arising in "Communist" China. China is the perfect cocoon for a consumer capitalist economy. A total police state coupled with consumerism. A perfectly pliant environment for mega-corporations. Now, very early on in the birth of the idea of Socialism under Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the two of them started to disagree on the very function of such a "revolution." According to Marx, and I agree essentially with him, the revolution was not something that could be brought about by force, or exigent circumstances. He understood that the revolution had to come completely naturally and spontaneously. From here on, quoting Noam Chomsky "On Anarchism" (I have the book, but this I copied/pasted from web) Engels in a correspondence with Marx: Engels, in a letter of 1883, expressed his disagreement with this conception as follows: "The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state....But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune." In contrast, the anarchists---most eloquently Bakunin---warned of the dangers of the "red bureaucracy,'' which would prove to be "the most vile and terrible lie that our century has created.'' The anarchosyndicalist Fernand Pelloutier asked: "Must even the transitory state to which we have to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail? Can't it consist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption, all political institutions having disappeared?'' I do not pretend to know the answers to this question. But it seems clear that unless there is, in some form, a positive answer, the chances for a truly democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left are not great. Martin Buber put the problem succinctly when he wrote:"One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.'' The question of conquest or destruction of state power is what Bakunin regarded as the primary issue dividing him from Marx. In one form or another, the problem has arisen repeatedly in the century since, dividing "libertarian'' from "authoritarian'' socialists. -end of quote The argument was that the socialists had to take advantage of pre-existing power infrastructures, to get the revolution moving faster. However, as Bakunin predicted long before it happened, it would become just as evil as any other autocracy. To me, Martin Buber's elegant allegory put it succintly I think. "One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.'' The little tree turned into a club = The State. Expecting the club to put forth leaves = naive socialists joining the movement of State Socialism (Bolshevik/Lenin).
Woo Im a member of the popular front. Im finally with the cool kids...
Social Democracy... this seems to be my group hi all
@ Axeman Consider yourself lucky that I didn't get the chance to make this group moderated before you snuck in *GLARES*
Hi Shigawire. You may remember me from being a member of the resident cheering crowd in the EB forum. I'm more or less aware of the difference between state socialism and libertarian socialism, but thank you for your extensive reply. I'd certainly not want to be considered a communist, as I consider authoritarian systems associated with it as highly odious. My uncertainty over governments/anarchism is the uncertainty on whether I'd want to identify myself with the social democratic movement, protecting and extending equality in society through existent means of democracy, or the anarchistic movement. The reason I'm not identifying myself as an anarchist is likely my belief that ultimately social democrats can achieve more, though only gradually. Much more importantly, even, it would be my general ignorance on what the libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism concretely proposes. I cannot imagine how an acute transition (or 'spontaneous revolution') would occur or even if it would ever. I suppose educating myself will help me define my political identity more clearly (if this is even necessary? ). Perhaps the book "Chomsky on Anarchism" you quoted, by a man whose poignant observations on American imperialism I admire, can be of help in this respect?
hah , slay nazi and borders hi all
Hello, all, thought I'd join since I could consider myself somewhere near Social Democrat.
I'm a social-anarchist with certer-right economical ideas.
I am a far-leftist socialist, how do you do?
Hi all I'm a former communist turned democratic socialist (but then I live in a developed nation) I joined a communist organisation the International Socialist Organisation (don't let the name fool you they where revolutionary Communists in Australia although democratic in other nations such as Ireland & France) when I was younger but after being a member for a while decided maybe democratic socialism was a much better road (for my country at least). I have a hammer and sickle tattoo from my communist days.
I'm a progressive socialist (moderate left) with communist and environmentalist tendencies. Hi all..
I'm a democratic federalist republican of the left wing. That is i support a democratic federal republic that works to keep people's rights, with good public healthcare and educational systhems. HI all!
