What does leftypol believe?

Genuinely asking as someone who has explored the merits of different ideologies. All of them show negatives and positives especially when it gets outside of theory and into implementation and the real world.

It's pretty obvious what Pol thinks…Nazism 2.0, the meme edition for the 30 and under autistic set.

So what is it and how would you achieve it in today's world?

Google Bookchin

I believe tomorrow's revolution is already out of date

I believe in a world where Marxist-Stirnerism is not an oxymoron


Left anarchism? Interesting. .. I've seen my share of pro Soviet memes on this board.

Probably the only thing we consistently agree on is communism and moving past capitalism. We’re probably not all going to agree on how to get there.

I don't want to sound pretentious, but I don't believe in any ideology in particular. I guess I could say I am fond of socialism, but saying that I'm a socialist sounds like an ancient egyptian pharoah saying "I'm an after-deathist". If you know something is logically certain to happen in the timeline of future history, it's excessive to state that you believe in it

Fair enough.

I struggle with the going from theory to practice in many left ideologies like communism.

In a sense, some people won't conform, others will resist, and there would be those who would say it all deincentivizes the individual as a creator/arbitrator of their labor.

personally I'm a post-leftist post-modernist national libertarian maoist hoxhaist with posadist characteristics

During the first few months of the Bolshevik revolution the workers spontaneously organized in councils, called soviet in Russian. Mere weeks prior the revolution Lenin himself said that a communist uprising would never happen in his lifetime.
Similarly the Catalan anarcho syndacalist uprising spontaneosly organized a new society while in the middle of a civil war.

Communism is no less natural than capitalism. Yes there will be people contrary to it, especially after a century of propaganda, but that's true for any social movement, even those with far smaller scopes than the paradigm shift like a communist society woud make.

The elevation of humanity farther away from the twin Abysses of starvation and violence - in other words, the creation and maintenance of the common good, the res publica, the Commonwealth.. Today, the biggest obstacle to that goal is the current, capitalist system, which operates on the premise of rent. Hence, we aim to abolish the "current state of things".

Apart from that, though, we diverge quite a bit. Most people think violent revolution is necessary to get rid of rentierism; some (Anarchists) believe said revolution should immediately abolish the current state of things, while others ("Marxists", in general, though Marxism in general is simply a way of observing society and social relations, and even most of the anarchists think Marx was correct on the vast majority of matters) think it will take more time to accomplish a genuine change and want to establish a transitional stage of Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Me, personally? I'm a reformist; I think it would be both optimal and possible to abolish rentierism from within the confines of the current bourgeois-democratic system. I'd try to get to power democratically, positioning the party as an actual alternative to established alternatives and advocating for popular policies that never found much heyday among my parliament. For instance, liberals in the papers and online were always saying how good a Land Value Tax or proportional voting must be, but I'd force them to backtrack by advocating for those policies as well as a simultaneous end to imperialist policies and a drive to attack rentierism and advertising in favor of actual productivity.

I would like to be part of a rigorously organized working class movement that appropriates the property of the bourgeoisie by means of force for our own material benefit!

uhhh ML leaning i suppose

There is no consistent answer to this question, leftism is too broad a political category with too many mutually exclusive subcategories and further mutually exclusive tendencies thereof.

I mean, I think we all agree with
this though. Except primitivists or whatever but they aren't really leftists so much as hyper-reactionaries.

here; I don't particularly give a shit about the "working class" (they're people from whom rent is extracted from, yes, but not all rent is extracted from them, and in reality even some people who provide productivity also extract rent), and I'd prefer not to seize by force if at all possible.

I'm familiar from reading as to what happened in kronatadt and to the early soviet councils…at least from the perspective of those who resisted (Nestor mahkno, etc)..

I guess what strikes through all this though is that some people who advocate left ideologies particularly statist ones seem to just be ok with using violence to achieve their ends against regular people. It isn't really that different than those on the far right who want to use government power to implement their ideal system.

With all forms of left anarchism I tend to look at failed states where warlords inevitably arise and force rules. Yes some countries have had a hand in that but anarchy in the present day doesn't look particularly appealing to say the least.

This what we believe.

read Marx

Oh and to add I'm not a pacifist nor see that as a viable ideology in a complex world. When I speak of some groups being ok using violence I mean against the everyday person not against organized forces of big entities. ..wall street, etc.

My beliefs have become such a mess of memes the closest thing to them is possibly nazbol

Free assocation of producers and abolition of the the internal logic of market exchanges rule over society.

Marxism Demsoc with De Leonist characteristics.