I'm trying to flesh out part of a story I'm writing, specifically I'm still in character creation.
This character only works as the most maximally left wing stereotype, but I don't know what that is because I lack experience in that kind of extreme. I thought I'd ask you what you feel is the most left wing ideology a person can base their life on.
Google is worse than useless (pics related).
Thanks!
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
these couldnt be any more wrong
Anarcho-Hoxhaism
As in like a tankie?
Why would we help you write a story slanderous to the left?
Yeah that's why I said they were useless in the third line, thanks.
I hope this isn't someone playing a joke on me, I'm going to take all posts at face value.
Again I don't know what a tankie is, I'm not familiar with in group terms from here. To me a tankie is a small tank.
tankie is someone who thinks the ussr did absolutely nothing wrong, stalin was a good boi who dindu nuffin
For a bit of context about what left and right comes from.
en.wikipedia.org
Usually left and right are related to economics.
The right would be more about private ownership and the left about common ownership (very simplified)
As for who is the most left wings, there is a swarm of ideologicals subdivisions on this board, it would be hard to tell which exactly is the more left wing.
Beside you're forgeting an important side of the politics: the relation to authority (statists vs anarchists)
Stalinists and anarchists are both extremely left wings but they're pretty opposite about authority, just like lolberts and monarchists are both pretty right wing but opposite when it comes to authority.
Or you could just lurk moar.
well that's what he said.
Anyhow, even if it'll be unflattering, whatever, depends what kind of extreme left you want, you've got Tankies/Marxist-Leninists (followers of Stalin's USSR), Anarcho-communists (no state, see Paris Commune), Trotskyists (State socialists but non 'totalitarian'), libertarian socialists, which is somewhere in between Trot and Ancom. And many different various flavours but those are the main archetypes.
And none of them like each other much but that just makes it more fun.
Well the left is so broad that it's difficult to have exactly one stereotype, so you need to give us some direction that we can then add details for you.
Are we talking someone who is a supporter of the USSR and Stalinism, a typical anarchist who wears bandannas and throws molotovs, a book worm who gets through lots of literature on not only communist theory, but also philosophy?
We really need more to go on.
Hell let me add a few more for fun.
Maoists are for some reason in the modern age mostly SJW types who LARP at being revolutionaries, Maoist Third-Worldists are related but are explicitly people who believe revolution can only come from the third world and the first world is too decadent and evil and so on.
Then you've got your 'anticapitalists' which may be liberals or may be leftists who just don't have any theory, these people make up much of OWS and so on.
Tankie means Stalin's apologist.
Hoxhaism don't come from Hoax but from Hoxha, aka albanian bunker man.
Given the subject of personalized ideologies, i'm surprised no one posted this yet.
all your pics are wrong
Who made this anyway? It's p. dank
The catgrill drawfag. Usually haunts the OC thread.
Such a thing does not exist.
The word never made sense in the first place (conflates Stalinists and the most rabid anti-Stalinists). Now it is applied to practically everyone who isn't full-on Anarchist.
OUR GLORIOUS PROPAGANDA COMMISSAR, COMRAD CATGRILL DRAWFAG!
Ancom and libertarian socialism are essentially the exact same thing afaik
Fair enough, maybe I should have said democratic socialists. I can't say I understand all the nuances.
Anarchism in general however, like anarcho-syndicalism, may differ from regular libertarian socialism
However, OP is trying to find a stereotype, and the smaller cuurents are proabbly not what he's after.
So OP are we talking authoritarian or anarchist here? You must remember also that "authoritarian" does not actually mean authoritarian; it just refers to the DotP in the form of a state.
wut?
Well back in the OG days of Anarchism (the times when Bakunin and Marx used to diss each other in the International) anarchism had nothing to do with lolberts, and "libertarian socialism" was naturally was sort of a synonym for "anarchism".
I think the go-to guy for an authoritarian ultra-leftist is Pol Pot. Wonder why nobody mentioned him
are you the OP?
Add a name so we can help you.
The DotP is a concept known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It refers to a method of acheiving communism in which the proletariat gain control of the government via revolutionn from the bourgeoise and utilize it to establish a socialist economy, and eventually communism.
Not OP, i know what is the dictatorship of proletariat but acronyms are not my thing especially in english.
Thanks.
Something makes me think Albania and North Korea aren't really left-wing.
Wouldn't anarchist then be the maximum left-wing person?
Or is there a flavor of anachism that's more left wing than any other?
Pretty much all forms of left anarchism can work together.
No idea about Albania but North Korea is Juche which is basically fascist national monarchy with a (thin) communist veneer.
I think state socialists would resent that comparison, anarchists are economically far left like pretty much every other type of Marxism, but they are anti-state which isn't strictly left or right wing. Some people would say you can't be socially conservative and be a leftist but state socialists aren't necessarily that either.
Shit I forgot name for the last few posts. Forgot this board has no ID code. I'll use this flag from now on.
Hold on, since when are there are right wing version of anarchy.
Well yeah, lots of leftists revolutions tend to degenerate into some capitalist and or nationalist regimes and thus stray away from leftism. This is the main problem we have to solve tbh.
There aren't. Anarcho-capitalists use the name but they aren't apart of the anarchist tradition. I used "left anarchism" since you yourself said you didn't have much knowledge of leftism
It made sense when it was originally used by Marxist-Leninists. Less so now that it's being abused by weenies who think the 80's USSR was an example of Stalinism in action,
They were at some point, at least. You can blame Kim Jon Il's Songun policy for that. Not as sure about Albania's history but they've clearly gone wrong at some point after Hoxa.
Depends on how you mean by "left wing."
National Anarchism?
OK so it's just an economic thing. The more someone favors shared resources, the more left-wing someone is?
Kek, who thinks this?
Well that's the crux of the question, what does left-wing mean? And what would a maximally left wing person sound like if they existed?
Ancapism, very memeworthy. Have you not heard of Peter "nod an argument" Molyneux?
tldr version: No state, only Private property.
Altough you can argue they're not really anarchist given that property rights have to be enforced so Ancap ends up creating privates… states.
There is economic left and also social left, but anarchists and state socialists don't necessarily disagree on those. They disagree on state vs no state (personally I think anarchists play games with what they consider to be a 'state' but there we go).
Generally, yes, but you really need to define "shared resources". Leftists think that the means of production should be communally controlled and operated
That depends on whether or not we're talking about athoritarian or libertarian currents. They both advocate the abolition of the state, yes, but many leftists propose a transitory statist phase.
a tankie is anybody who follows the kremlin line
so todays tankies are actually putinfags
OK so far I'm leaning towards some kind of authoritarian leftist.
I'm not sure if I brought it up but the setting is probably going to be a low-tech (with some salvaged high-tech) and post apocalyptic.
I'm worries an anarchist character is not going to provide a lot of drama or plot in such a setting. Also there are way too many flavors of anarchism….
Whether or not the means of production are collectively owned is where most of the radical left would draw the line between "left" and "right." So it's very difficult to determine degrees of leftism.
I think The Trotsky did a really good job depicting a stereotyped Marxist. Someone young and introverted with a very analytical mind but lacks the charisma needed for anyone take him seriously.
Wow, that's actually the most arbitrary definition of tankie I've heard yet.
To expand on this, we usually distinguish personnal property (your house, your car, your toothbrush) and private property (like factories you can't operate yourself so you hire people to work in it).
Leftists are against private property and think factories, farms and workplaces should belong to thoses working in it, as opposite to shareholders.
The closest thing we currently have from this model are cooperatives.
Ah yes, sorry for not stating this in my post OP. Also, personnal property is usually defined by possession.
Doesn't matter; pick one, they all work fine together, they aren't mutually exclusive
Since you're going for an authoritarian though, you need to remember that they aren't actually authoritarian. They are anti-statist but think they can effectivly use the state in the early stages of socialism.
So somethin akin more to Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism?
Do you plan making a vanguard leader character or just a generic leftist militant?
Well if you want a stereotypical authoritarian leftist, take inspiration from Jason.
Well, you could do, he starts as an idealistic anarchist but rubs up against the brutality of the world and the people around him and graducally turns pragmatist statist as he tries to reimpose order (up to you if he turns overtly evil or not)
DELET THIS
...
Why not? He'd likely be percieved as far more extreme than any authoritarian communist, simply because he advocates for the abolition of the state as soon as possible, rather than having a transitory phase.
lol is this real, I somehow doubt it but hope so
Chomsky pls go.
I was just pointing out that the average person might think of it that way.
This is the 3rd or 4th most important character.
Well the problem is
I suppose a disillusionment narrative could be thrown in if there's room, but it's better to plan ahead and just start off statist.
Lolberts are as authoritarian as monarchists, there's no such thing as a libertarian right as the right is defined by strict strong hierarchies and a corollary to that is that there will be many people on the bottom who have to do what the people on the top tell them.
np man, good luck
please look up how MLs actually think if you want a more rounded character, I'm not one but I know they're somewhat well intentioned.
"Most Left" would be someone against any type of hierarchy, while generally leftists are at least open to voluntary hierarchies.
Anarcho-primitivists would probably count as "most left", read the Unabomber's manifesto for a very smart and well laid out description of such views.
whoa, whoa, hold up don't leave. If statelessness has been achieved, your average authoritarian communist is gonna be completly fine with it, as long as communism exists. Also, anarchists will not support a stateless society if it doesn't include communism.
OP when someone uses this term it means they don't know anything about libertarianism.
No he's not, because the statelessness isn't guaranteed to be socialist.
What if it's anarcho capitalist?
>>>/liberty/
When lolberts call themselves Libertarian it means they don't know anything about Libertarianism.
I adressed this in my post dude
Yeah thanks for proving you know jack shit.
This isn't you addressing the point, it's you being a twat.
It's not newspeak, the guy who came up with the modern term chose it because of the negative connotations. Aristotle came up with the word and meant it in the worst way ffs.
Are you saying there are communists who would needlessly advocate statism after communism has been achieved?
I guess it's conceivable for there to be non-Socialist Anarchists (though I don't know of another economic system that seeks to develop non-hierarchical societies). However no Anarchist can be a Capitalist.
1st pic: lefties get btfo by freedom lovers.
2nd pic: anarcho capitalism isnt libertarianism.
3rd pic: you cant make a disordered society function better than an ordered society in several key fields, such as military. meaning your utopia will always be btfo by a statist neighbor, or the first group commune that decides to turn statist.
Tell me how they're different. AnCapism is literally the Logical conclusion of American Libertarianism, even by its own logic. If you tried to maintain a State apparatus (which includes corporations but let's leave that out for the sake of argument) no matter how minimal you'd eventually end up violating the Non-Agression Principle and contradicting yourself.
It can be both my dude
Did Pol Pot actually write anything?
Nope. Anarchists take pride in the negative connotations. It opposes Aristotlian theories of government and in doing so says his nightmare is our dream. The whole point is to make people say "Why would people support Anarchism?" and then look it up.
I didn't mean how important to your story, but his relative importance in the leftist "party". You probably won't write Fallout Stalin, Comissar Ivan or the regular Red Army soldier in the same way. Still happy to help ya.
Capitalism is the only decentralized means of exchange, so there can't be a socialist (command economy) anarchist. Sorry mate.
Look up what anarchy means. This is the state of government ANARCHO-Capitalists want.
Look up what minarchy means. This is the state of government Libertarians want.
Corporations are a socialist form of organization and utterly opposed to Libertarianism. I swear to god if you conflate corporationism with libertarianism I'm going to stop replying to your dumb ass.
Give an example where a minarchy must violate NAP.
...
Capitalism isn't decentralized. It is incredibly centralized. 62 people own half the world's wealth, we have not seen such centralization of power ever before. This situation would make a Chinese Emperor blush.
No anarchist supports a command economy. Many support syndicalism, with the workers controlling their companies (think Co-ops) and democratic governments.
READ NIGGA READ!
I meant it can be newspeak and also be a propaganda technique, not that it can be both anarchy and "anarchism" at the same time
Also
I didn't know Wal-Mart workers owned their means of production wow.
anarchism or left-communism is as left wing as it gets as of the moment.
I don't think you know what decentralized means. It means you and I can trade without a third party mediating the process.
In communism we need the central authoritys permission to trade.
Also the only reason for such a severe wealth inequality today is because the entire developed world is essentially socialist/corporatist, and those 62 people get protections from an out of control government.
Exactly there aren't any anarchosocialists.
You realize these are terms invented to trick you into accepting corporatism?
Yeah but then they wouldn't be allowed access to any of the resources the taxpayers paid for, how the fuck are they supposed to run a successful business without access to roads?
They can, by buying shares in the company.
Anarchy isn't inherently left wing.
Anarchism, you idiot
l m a o
Anarchism is inherently and that's why anarchist have always been socialist( I guess Mutualism has its own thing going on but it's anti-capitalist). If you don't think that you misunderstand the authority anarchism is trying to resist. One person having the authority over the land that many people use(and which requires the work of those people) is hierarchy. Just because anti-state capitalist appropriated the words "anarchism" and "libertarianism" to their ideology does not make them either of those things. The Nazi's appropriating Nietzsche does not mean that Nietzsche is a fascist( or a racist).
And if they can somehow muster up the money to by a significant amount of shares, they have to share the fruits of their labour with people who don't labour at all.
That's pretty hard when your boss decides not to pay you overtime or wage that can help you buy decent food to eat.
Started a new thread because I don't want to fuck OP up
You're contusing a corporation with a privately owned company.
PLEASE explain the difference
my god, good luck with your shitty thread
Ample evidence lolberts and libertarians STILL don't understand capitalism.
A privately owned company is owned by one dude, an owner for whom everyone works for.
The corporation is publicly owned by a group of shareholders, in this case the shareholders are the workers.
The shareholders comprise something called a board of shareholders (BOS), which jointly owns the company. The CEO is not an owner, he's just the guy enforcing edicts by the Board.
Why would the Board (workers) decide that workers need lower wages, and then order the CEO to lower the workers wages?
That makes no sense.
kill yourself
Corporatism allows the shares to be traded publicly. And it does not abolish private property. It is a mix of socialism and capitalism but it is not in anyway the same as socialism, let alone communism which revolves around a stateless classless and moneyless society.
In a moneyless society they wouldn't be traded though.
every goddamn time
I think you should make the protagonist a heroic antifa transqueer, on a mission to fellate every Saracen in Frankfurt.
I never realized google was so damn wrong.
Holy fuck.