ITT:

libertarianism-traditionalism

we are against human alienation, we support private propery and liberty, as well as we support human nature, morality and national pride.

there is a growing number of hippie cucks that are againstl iberty and themain principles of national pride,andit's time to teach them.

because they are against human nature and property, they don't believe in sacred aspectsoflife as national pride, hard work, religion and morality.

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad that people unironically think this way.

...

I'm just generally anti-capitalist right now.
I was leaning Anarcho-communist for a while, but I've seen some things that have made me question it.
Now I feel like anything that isn't Stalinism or whatever Pol Pot was is alright by me.

(1) Leftcom-leaning
(2) worker councils should form the basis on socialist society, with the Party playing a leadership role
(3) Provides a nice balance between the extremes of M-L and anarchism
(4) Cause I said so, faggot i think most flavors of leftism have something of value to them, so I don't consider any to be shit compared to mine

moderate/market socialist

I think markets are great, but they should be regulated. I also prefer worker owned cooperatives to traditional capitalist enterprises, but traditional capitalist enterprises should still be allowed to exist because if they can provide a good or service for a better value than a worker owned cooperative, A) consumers should be allowed to choose them and B) it provides incentives for the worker owned cooperatives to out compete the traditional capitalist enterprise which just improves socialism. I think socialism will only work if it is built from the ground up by winning out on the market, otherwise you're forcing society to do something it doesn't want to do which creates inefficiencies. I'm not an anarchist because that's just too radical for me, I prefer liberal democracy. Basically I want socialism to be built by worker owned cooperatives working together to provide better goods and services/for a better price than traditional capitalist enterprises.

There's just too many failed planned economies and so many market success stories for me to ignore. Like how Yugoslavia, while it had it's own flaws, had much higher standards of living than other socialist countries of the time, partially because they allowed markets to exist.

All other ideologies are shit because they try to force people to do what they don't want to do, and I think societies should be allowed to get what they want and succeed or fail based on their own actions. Trying to force socialism on eastern Europe and China already created a huge stigma for socialism in general without even getting good results, to say the least…

do you believe the non-agression meme ?

I forgot to add, I'm not a right libertarian because I do believe capitalism has too many flaws. Like the need for infinite growth and no way to cope with the loss of jobs due to automation besides hoping it somehow creates at least as many jobs as it takes away (which is retarded, automation is only profitable once it creates fewer jobs than it replaces).

I don't fucking know.

I call myself a communist to scare normies, but I'm not convinced that anarchy is a desirable end-point. There will always be assholes, and a state seems to be the best mechanism to prevent these isolated individuals from exploiting or harming others.

The more I read and argue with liberals, the less satisfied I become with electoral democracy. But at the same time, I believe a state needs a mechanism for the people to hold their leadership accountable. I like the idea of elections which are "free and fair" in a bourgeois sense – people can vote for leaders supported by citizen parties who represent different Marxist tendencies. This subverts traditional liberal critiques of socialism as unfree, and would do wonders to prevent dissent.

I generally hold a somewhat positive view of the Soviet Union and a somewhat negative view of China. The collapse of the USSR was the final tragedy of the 20th century, causing the lives of workers both within former Soviet states and in the West to lose what little bargaining power they had. I'm not sure if the Soviet Union can be considered socialist, and I think the label "state capitalism" is kind of autistic.

It's hard figuring this all out. I've only been identifying as a socialist for a couple years. For most of my life I really did think the Soviet Union was evil and that capitalism, for all its harms, was better than the alternative.

Good thing I never claimed to be a Marxist.

Actually, you'd be the revisionist.

Literally how

Somalitelecommunicationist.

Everything is property, all can be owned individually/collectively/communally.

Trade without force is mutually beneficial.

Every other system is an attempt to play god.

im not an anarcho-capitalist, i think the strongers have the right to impose their power, as it's the same that occurs in nature, and it has shown historically to be the most efficient way to rule.

Anarchism without Adjectives.

Respecting the fact that many different anarchist subideologies exist, and wanting as many as possible to be implemented in order for free experimentation. Most anarchists don't deny this, so that's good.

Because I couldn't decide on one over the other, so I chose em all.

They aren't.

Market socialism with a few nationalized industries.

The MoP would be socially owned and products would be distributed within the framework of a reasonably free market. The state would still exist as an arbiter of disputes, and do a bit of other stuff like defense and a bit of economic intervention so not full mutualism.

Support bc it prevents worker exploitation but the method of distributing stuff is a pretty well-known and extensively practiced one, so we would have a running start as the majority of economics deals with markets. Also the rest of the world is composed of mixed market economies and they wouldn't take too kindly to a full commie thing as the big capitalist military powers have done before.

Others aren't necessarily shit except for ayncraps n primitivists n Nazis they're pure shit. American politics is dominated by idpol so it's also shit but a lil bit less stinky shit. This board is good tho and I like the other leftist ideologies other than sickdems they killed rosa luxemburg. But mostly they're pretty nifty.

you mean anarcho-communism?

I do not.

There are other methods for anarchist economic organization that isn't communist, and I'm cool with them all.

free software (not "open source") is very important for this very scenario

So, just Marxism-Leninism for the modern age?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

Leninism was marxism in the age of imperialism, however as imperialism evolves so must ML alongside the conditions it creates.

I support it because it's the most coherent line of leftist theory still carrying out revolution today and in recent history, and it has been given many different contributions to it's theory in recent history (i.e Gonzalo Thought / Prachanda Path).

I don't think the others are shit (assuming it means other leftist alternatives), I'll get behind any leftist struggle or liberation movement, but I think MLM is the best ideological line for today's material conditions.

...

...

strass-erism/national bolshevism

basically state socialism with more emphasis on proletarian nationalism

its a good way to gain support from the rising wave of nationalism

they all require the people to magically drop their nationality for some concept they just learned of

Anarchism

Advocates for the abolition of the stateand the establishment of communism

Because the ideas of communism can create the best society under which I as an individual can live most happily and easily

The organization of radical socialist unions to direct the workers to seize the means of production and plan it after all is done.
I think socialist unions formed on a profession by profession basis (eg, a programmers union, a web developers union and a parts production union cooperating as one to best utilize the resources for their respective wings of the tech industry) cooperating to form one big union for whatever industry they work in is a decent way to ensure that planning is free, fair and devoid of corruption.
For the most part, they aren't.

...

I don't get it, I thought Nazbols were in favour of limiting ethnic minority rights? Why

Left communism
State composed of worker councils(council communism)
Not as authoritarian as ML but not as deluded as anarchist who think a post revolutionary government can exist without a state
ML has a track record of failing, as well as anarchism.

its called shitposting

I believe in a transitory state towards anarcho-communism. Said transitory state would probably be really similar to DeLeonism. I really like dialectics and social conditioning theory and such.
No-transition anarchism is shit and I shouldn't have to elaborate why, and ML is shit because it creates a superclass of elites whose interests become detached from that of the proles, and authoritarianism in general is shit.

No. National bolshevism is nat.ion.al socialism in its truest sense, hitlerist ethnic nationalism had not a drop of socialism in it. The russian faux-nazbols are just fascists who dislike other fascists using hitlers swastika, real, actual nazbols are just very patriotic communists who think capitalist globalism is detrimental for the people of their country. Different people think different things, but personally i dont care about that racialist theory crap, blacks deserve good lives regardless of their genes, criminals should be dealt with the same regardless of race.

Says the leftcom lol

...

Leftcom hasn't really been tried on a large scale. Most defiantly not on as large a scale as the Free territory or Catalonia.

I don't have an issue with anarchism(I used to be an ancom) other than the fact that pretty much every real world example or anarchism functioned the exact way as a State, but just didn't call itself a state. I don't think anarchism can work until internal subversion isn't a substantial threat.

Participatory Economics

Using participatory decision making to allocate resources and other factors of production. It also uses Facilitation boards in order to help plan the economy and keep things democratic and adapt to demand.

I support it because it is a democratically managed system that allows for quick adaptation for change in demand, keeps things nice and organized, balanced job complex, etc.

The Economic Calculation Problem

For anybody interested, there is a website on it here participatoryeconomics.info/ The site has some great articles and links to more resources on the topic.

lmao try harder

ANyway
1: mix of market socialism and libsoc
2: Basically classic anarchist federalism but with the federation having slightly more executive power. The federation (state) serves as a mostly economic mediator and regulator, it has no place in the personal or the cultural. Preferably not militaristic either, but that would depend on outside forces, it would have to be integral to the federal organisation and not be a seperate entity like most miltiaries.
3: Because I believe that states are more counterrevolutionary than markets.
4: see 3

Fucking "Libertarians" you are just a conservative that has taken the Neoreactionary propaganda too serious.

Wtf!

Fucking spook.

Kill yourself.

What are you going to do about it? sing a petition in change.org

Fucking kill yourself.

This but the companies should be run democratically.

Didnt mean to namefag, forgot to remove it after posting on meme craft server board

this is why we're never having a revolution

I really just think I'm angry lumpen trash and I deserve to be gulag'd with the rest of my neighborhood. I don't think I have a real purpose. I'm pissed off at lumpen culture and I want to destroy things and hurt people. Which I guess means I've become just another angry lumpen myself.

I'm developing Stalinist tendencies toward any group of people I see getting support, or any group of people I've had more than a fair share of negative interactions with. So far this would be "ghetto" people and skitzophrenics.

My best friend is skitzophrenic…I might have to break ties with him out of hatred for times when I've been abused by skitzophrenic people. I feel like a piece of shit, but I feel persecuted when people online tell me the attacks "never happened". He's the one who threatened to kill me. I forgave him, but when I tell my story online and people take his side, it makes me hate not only him, but ALL skitzophrenics. Not because of what he did, but because people are throwing sympathy at him, saying things like "Well you'd be violent too if your own mind was turning against you".

As if I don't have FUCKING problems in life.

I'm tired of being a punching bag for other people's problems. I have a mentally ill sister who screams at me whenever someone else pisses her off, says things like "get a life" (And this is my OLDER sister who I look up to like an aunt). Then apologizes the next day "sorry, I was angry at someone else".

I have no life. I refuse to kill myself unless I take others out with me. My life is nothing but getting pushed around by other lumpens and mentally ill people. Kill us. Bomb our neighborhood, now. I have nothing to live for. I have no girlfriends, my one friend is someone I'm not physically safe around, all the revolutionary organizations are located at least 90 miles away from me and I'm stuck here helping out co-dependant older family members (hoarders, addicted…)…

I want to spread propaganda to try to change the culture around me. But am I really serving leftism or do I just want a better world for MYSELF?

I know at one point I cared deeply about other people. That was when my rage was at its worst (I take pills for my constant feelings of rage). Now I'm not sure anymore.

I've seen your posts before. I think you're actually the schizophrenic all along. Schizo-something.

There's nothing wrong with supporting leftism so that you may have a better life. Leftism isn't some god you have to praise.
Well want socialism and then communism so that we and our children may have a better life.

No, I'm actually not. I'm fucked in the head, definitely, but not skitzophrenic. What would make you think that?

I have respect for skitzophrenic people because they try to act normal while their own brains are screaming at them, which is extremely admirable. Then when I get abused by them I hate them because people feel sympathy for them even when they're violent toward me. And NOONE defends me.

Its a power imbalance. I feel like shit because my skitzophrenic friend who abused me is actually a really nice, cool, and awesome guy. I love him even though I hate skitzophrenics and I hate what he did to me that night that he lost it.

I really want to be a force of good in the world. How do I break free of all this hatred?

I understand you feel offended when I say things against our skitzophrenic comrades.

Try to understand that I'm trying VERY HARD to work against this side of myself.

But accusing me of "making up stories" when I actually have been physically attacked is NOT the answer. Neither is giving unlimited sympathy to my attackers.

Maybe there's a happy medium? Please understand it is NOT easy for me to type this as this hatred and rage goes deeper into me because not a single person says to me,

"OKAY so I acknowledge that skitzophrenic people DO have a legitimate reason why they lash out…however…that doesn't mean I can't be your buddy and offer you a place to crash the next time your (skitzophrenic) friend does that (lashes out)."

That would mean SO MUCH to me. Instead of just continually being abused over and over and over again and having everyone accuse me of "making it up".

This is NOT a healthy way to exercise your compassion for skitzophrenic people, black and red. You can have compassion for skitzophrenic people, including even understanding why some of them get violent, without having disdain for non-skitzophrenic people who actually DO have those negative experiences WITH skitzophrenic people.

This is key to building the revolution. You're going to deal with a lot of angsty 20-somethings like me who can't get over the past. You have to learn how to bridge these gaps and it won't always be easy.

Life isn't always black and white. Sometimes two good people are played against each other, like me and my skitzophrenic friend who I love/hate. In those cases you have to try to figure out how to bring those two people closer together, or find out a way they could get along, rather than siding with one and disdaining the other.

wew lad…

I'm not gonna lie. Reading your sarcastic, careless reply hurts me. I see that black and red flag and I respect what you have to say more than if some ignorant old tea party type said it.

I wish someone would talk through this with me. All my therapists are from middle class backgrounds and they can't really help me with this shit. Help me bridge this gap between myself and low income culture, and myself and our skitophrenic comrades?

Please, I'm dying, literally. I'm not trolling. I consider suicide sometimes. This is really, really bad.

Bluetualist. It's like mutualism, but without the orange.

I think bluemenism is too authoritarian. And frankly, I'm not a fan of the color red.

kek

I've contributed to this board unknowingly (You wouldn't know it was me) so please don't think these shitposts are all I'm about.

I'm going to stop myself from posting this shit and wait later (if I can restrain myself, I think I can) so please don't permaban me because this place is like a home away from home…its the only place where people even come close to understanding me. I NEED leftypol. So I'll shut up and stop with the shitposting because I do NOT want to be banned.

Although if someone could answer those posts above, that would be great, if not, I'll wait till I find someone from a like background who can help me sort through this shit in my head.

It really doesn't surprise me tbh.

Spook *sniff*

Thinking you don't have an ideology is spooky.

Syncretism
No rules, just use whatever you like regarding existing and yet non existing ideas.
Kek
Paradigms

saying there are no rules is a paradigm

Social democracy > State Capitalism

This is why Leninism is dead and will always fail. You can't refute this.

but Leninism's goal isn't state capitalism.

The Soviet union was the best example of State capitalism out there.

That's not the point, the point is State Capitalism can't happen for the reasons I stated and several more. Why would we go from a secure Social democracy to an unstable and dangerous form of State capitalism. That's silly.

Trying to impersonate me?

ARRR Nope mate I'm just another pirate in this board!

ARRR Nope mate I'm just another pirate on board.

kek, all right.

I literally can't see any reasons that you have stated in this thread

Don't be retarded, even Xexizy knows that undemocratic State capitalism is worse than what we would have under a social democracy.

ain't gonna lie, libertarian right is a cutie, 10/10 would commit bourgeois degeneracy with.

I am a dirty dirty reformer

I believe that we can get to Socialism one step at a time. The exact end goal might be a highly centralized version, or an anarchic version, depending on how things are looking as we are getting closer. The Federation from Star Trek is my ideal society (every need below Self-Actualization is met by abundance, no money, no forced work, no internal conflict, etc.), but I hope that as we evolve as a society, we develop more complex ideals.

I support is because I am a bourgeois student that lives a good life, can expect to make well over median income my whole life. Less tongue in cheek, I think that most revolutions are 1. horrible for the proletariat (I love Robespierre but I would not want to be a French peasant in 1789-1815) 2. Ultimately ineffective. Russia was never a good place to live after the revolution. Denmark/Germany/etc. are decent Social Democracies that I hope can keep pushing the envelope until they become fully classless.

Every other ideology is shit because they are either masturbatory fantasies by my fellow students who wont have to deal with the fallout of a revolution, or because they are too sectarian/too reliant on the past and not looking towards to future. Do you think Lenin thought he was literally Danton? No. He moved the ideology forward. Every fucker in this board is living in the past.

I dont know if I fit in anything neatly. I think the state is necessary to prevent an authoritarian takeover. Ideally I would like money abolished with a gifting economy or resource based economy but money will be needed at first to prevent isolation from other countries if trade deals arent worked out right away. I think means of production should be collectively owned by the workers but if not I would at least put benefits for cooperatives that capitalist businesses wont receive and the later will have transparency of finances and a legal requirement of half the board of directors to be democratically voted in. I think there should be as few laws as possible that involve peoples private lives but good control over businesses for safety and environmentalism. Social programs are important. Laws should be based on science and instead of a voting age there should be a requirement on IQ or knowledge on the subject being voted on and how much it personally effects someone. Intellectual property laws should be about giving due credit more than focus on money.

Holy shit, this is almost exactly what I think. 10/10 would do revolution with.

...

Honestly, I have no idea. Used to be an ancom, but I started to have my doubts about it after spending some time on Holla Forums. I'm liking the sound of market socialism, since it has some very simple goals which actually has a potential for progressing into communism, unlike Social Democracy. Still, wouldn't mind a revolution, and I'd probably accept anything that isn't fucking Stalinism.

...

What a thoughtful argument. 10/10.

...

...

...

We can do this all day.

...

...

...

...

Fuck

Depending on situation IRL, obviously. If cluster is contained within region, then there is no need to rely on national level. On the other hand, if your factory needs bits and pieces from everywhere, you'd better put it on national level. Of course, enterprises vital to the state in general have to be under central control, regardless of their suppliers.

Rigidity of Planning can vary greatly. I.e. state can keep some amount of fertilizers in warehouses, in case there will be a shortage, but leave the rest to market.

Eh. I smell bureaucracy. Wealth is not a problem, if it could be converted into consumer goods only.

And you forgot finance: banking sector. I.e. ability of worker co-ops to get credits from the government. Also, depending on a size of a state (if there will be bourgeois states left), you might have an option of putting foreign trade under state monopoly (i.e. any co-ops can't trade with porky without oversight).

One of the things I like about Soviet system, you don't need to be in the Party to get into government. There were ~40-45% of non-party deputies getting elected (it was "communist and non-partisan bloc", after all).

Your multi-party system could easily degenerate into Democrat/Republican system. Padded political sumo.

Is there some reason you don't like direct democracy? I mean, parties are fine, as long as they simply formulate the questions, while the actual voting is done by the population at large.

Also, I've already pointed out: "bureaucracy" of USSR is a meme.

Even after Linux? Not that I support Utopian Socialism, but Communism is possible. Eventually.

Also, it is no longer "mixed market", once you dropped industrial goods into Central Planning. That's almost fully Stalinist economy you have.

I'm not sure as I'm pretty new to the left. I used to be pretty conservative, but that has changed over time.

This is my newest compass test, where would you place me Holla Forums?

Socdem.

Consider the following.

Kill yourself ASAP.

Thanks lol

Banking could be handled by the state on some level, either national or regional. Government banks would lend startup funds to new cooperatives just like private banks do, except it would low interest.

I don't see how, given that it would operate in the framework of a constitution that precludes private ownership of the means of production and non-collective enterprise. I understand that the whole premise behind an ML single party state is that the party itself would be democratic, but given the extent of a state in an even partially planned economy, keeping the state from becoming too authoritarian is extremely important. Having the legislature be divied up amoung several parties would help ensure that that doesn't happen. Besides, several single party ML states have descended into revisionism anyway, so having a single party doesn't seem to help keep socialism intact.

I'm not against it, in fact I would prefer a bottom up political structure, but I don't see how that can be compatible with central planning on a national scale. If local governments are all making different laws, regulations, standards etc. that's going to massively complicate planning. Not to mention that if the economy is partially planned by the central government then that would limit the actual power of local governments, since they couldn't override the actions of the central gov.

Sure it is, consumer goods make up large portions of the market in most economies, and they would be handled entirely by co-ops.

Don't think about that stupid compass too much comrade. It'd just assume you are probably a little higher, in the bottom third of the red field or something. If I remember correctly, the compass puts everybody in green who doesn't wanna straight up kill gay people. It focuses too much on irrelevant cultural and social questions and somehow assumes that the "authoritarian left" is anti-gay and sees woman as kitchen wenches.

rate my meme ideology lads