Any alternative leftists here?

I do not identify with communism nor anarchism. I think they do not work. Yet I do consider myself a leftist.
I see myself as an environmentalist but not the traditional kind and especially not the ecomodernist kind. Any unaffiliated leftist around here?

sage goes in all fields

I sort of expected this, these kind of reactions aren't the first

It's called SocDem or Centre, not Left.

Go look up R.D.Wolff. He is what you want. And don't come back.

I don't think so, but I expected this ridicule

Now you got what you came for, why don't you fuck off back to reddit?

you lefties belong on reddit lol. You're just a bunch of muh sekrit club retards as well. This is the only reason you're on Holla Forums. To feel superior.

I'm with you and I'm most people here's favorite poster unironically, well I assume anyway, so fuck 'em

In the last few days I've been thinking about alternative forms leftism, and I tried to mix up existing forms.

Instead of cooperating, destroying or taking over the state, one would get elected, to step-by-step replace the state. But instead of saying the market takes over, as libertarians/ancaps would, one would let communities do it (the interesting thing about with would be that one could lower taxes, which could undermine the liberal-right platform). At the same time one would start to take down capitalist defense mechanisms, like the police and the army. (It's obvious, that this movement would need international support, for outside governments not to interfere). Within these communes, the power structures would already have to be established, and people would therefore know they're not buying into a dystopian dictatorship. People wouldn't be forced to live within the communes, but as time goes on, the hope would be that it simply wouldn't make sense to live outside. The process ends with the revolution, when the bourgeois start opposing the development, but without any method to oppress the proletariat, since the state has been crippled away.

Basically, it's social-democracy (because of getting elected), libertarianism (because of reducing the state) Leninism (because of the elected party guiding the movement, while not interfering) and Anarchy (because of distributed implementations). Instead of starting with the revolution, one ends with the revolution, and it validates itself.

If it doesn't work, one could always revert to whatever one had before.

I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but it was a fun thought experiment. Please critique.

You need to have something you think necessary, rather than vague dissatisfaction with current state of affairs.

...

Well, what sort of structure of society are you advocating? If it's still capitalism, then what makes it left wing?

Post-leftist here asking why do you think anarchism or communism don't work despite them having worked (unless you count inability to overcome external pressure and aggression as not working, ofc).

Alt-left itself is sketchy as fuck term considering it's used by edgy anti-sjw to the point of anti-science, cringe, stupidity and reverse idpol socdems and liberals to describe themselves.

That is my issue, I have no clue other than degrowth. That is why I wanted to make this thread. I think both capitalism and tenants of liberalism do not work in the longterm, but feel that alternatives such as anarchism and communism do not suffice either.

So I am confused.

Perhaps more so because I loathe the right. But I do see capitalism as destructive to both humans and the environment, and think there needs to be an alternative.

Nice reading comprehension

So, you re-invented Bookchin's libertarian municipalism and smushed it together with social democracy?

So tell us what you think would work that is not communism or anarchism but still left.

I could be wrong. What've read about communism (a history of communism) is mostly bad. As for anarchism, I suppose I do not know enough about it, but to me it seems necessary to have a state.

I could always be converted, but at the moment I see no future in communism nor anarchism.

Do you accept the scientific consensus on transgenic crops?

That is the purpose of my thread, I do not know. Degrowth talks of steady state economics and more, but to be honest I need to read more about it.

I am personally more worried about the monoculture that genetic modified crops bring, them being heavily tied with pesticides, herbicides and so on, than health or environmental related issues.

And like I said I do not consider myself a traditional environmentalist.

I thought alt-left was just a meme. I actually am more tolerable towards sjw's as the typical channer.
As for anti-science, I am a big reader of scientific books and papers. I am however very anti Less Wrong, New Atheism and trans-humanism however. Trans-humanism mainly because I think it is bound to be misused and go horribly wrong just like iatrogenics have done in the past and present.

Shit thread. Checkem.

You could've at least gotten em

Basically, except that I never heard about Bookchin before. Thanks for the note.

It's almost like post-leftism's obviously true if you're capable of thinking anything through for yourself for 5 minutes

Choose one faget. What do you believe in?

Hi.

How about not being a sectarian idiot?

How backed up by the state were the Pinkerton's?

it makes me a nazi if nazis were actual socialists

but that's okay

It sounds like you're a pussyfooting liberal.

U wot m80

I'm an imageboard native though.

Can you defend, in any way, your assertion that transgenic crops are more conducive to "monoculture" than conventionally bred ones?

I think what you mean to say is anarchism or marxism. You can still for example support collective ownership of means of production (aka anti-capitalism or socialism) whilst being neither of those. It's just socialism, which predates marxism. You could be a rousseauite and then say "well either socialism or liberalism" whichever works.

...

Social democrats are leftists categorically.

It might not be the transgenic crops so much but what the big companies behind them are doing.
An additional fear I have based on iatrogenics and what is happening with our food is that we end up with crops that are modified not for better nutrition but for taste and appearance.

This is actually already happening with oranges and apples, they are barely nutritious anymore because they have been bred for taste and appearances.

I am not your typical environmentalist that I think organic food or biological food is necessarily better.

Also weren't bananas one big monoculture without genetic modification?

Social Democrats are center left, not leftists.

Does distributism count as left or right? Also do distrubists still exist

Wow. Just wow.

what it do breh?

deal w/ it

Sure. Just be wary of branding the technology with the sins of those who use it, i.e. of denouncing industry and socialized labor for the evils of capitalism.
A lot of what you hear about Monsanto is outright lies, too. The "sues farmers over accidental cross-contamination" one is especially pernicious. Remember that "big ag" is not the only sector with a confounding profit motive here.
Taste and appearance influence the level of food waste and are worthy targets, though without a doubt the potential of biotechnology will be much greater when it's no longer subordinated to private profit.
How are you defining "nutritious"? This feels like magical thinking.