Yes, exactly ILN. Some think Christianity is a pacified religion but others understand that that's not the case and never has been the case, nor will it ever be.

That's because people confuse the christian ideology with the mistakes of its "followers".

I may be leftish but I thought that you can't talk in this thread if you still believe in some form of a free market.

I favor a mixed economy so I don't think I belong.

You know the first and last prayer in most services in a mosque are prayers for peace? Same goes for Judaism. Both have plenty of people that don't want peace.

No religion that advocates violence gains long-term traction. They gain some traction and then go away, replaced by another of the same type. It's the followers - the descendants as I prefer to say - that make a religion what it is.

I think the various leftist positions are characterized by the degree to which they are critical of individualism. With positions that share the same position on that scale being differentiated by a wider degree of factors

Nice random chat about religion here...

Thucy, social democrats are generally accepted in leftish groups from my experience.

I think Socrates was referring to neoliberals and such.

Anyway, I like Damian's point about individualism and think it has some validity as it submerges a number of important differences I was going to highlight: attitude toward bourgeois economic & political institutions (reform or revolution, for example); & whether they are process-oriented or results oriented.

I would also add that the ideological trend's position on individualism is based on the class composition & class outlook of the ideological trend.

To me there are three basic trends, with sharp differences within all of these groups as well as between them:

Social Democrats: Generally speaking I think you can say social democrats accept the current bourgeois order, but want to reform it to make it fairer for the working class and oppressed groups. That means well-regulated markets, even some public control of industry for essential utilities & services like healthcare, strong unions, etc. They believe they can work within the current structure and oppose notions of 'class struggle' or 'revolution'. It is murky as to whether this trend is more results oriented or process oriented. They are not on either extreme on that point. Some groups, like your run-of-the-mill 'green parties', tend to be the latter. Other groups - like the Congressional Progressive Caucus or the Democratic Socialists of America, tend to be the former.

Anarchists: Both revolutionary in opposition to the bourgeois order & extremely process oriented. The most individualistic trend, they are so allergic to hierarchy or leadership that every decision-made has to be agreed upon, generally, by consensus. Each individual has the right to block decisions made by the group. The legitimacy of decisions matters more than if the decisions end up working. To an anarchist, the whole notion of authority must be overthrown (including from within the left), and the State is the foremost representative of authority. The State, rather than Capital, tends to be their primary target. Their ideas about economic organization are highly variable, reflecting the individual idiosyncrasies of this trend.

Reds: (all-encompassing, including both standard Marxist-Leninists & Trotskyists).
Results Oriented & Revolutionary. The most collective-oriented of the three trends, with individual objections to group decisions never being allowed to block the will of the majority (although they are prone to frequent sectarian fissures). The target for Reds is always Capital, with the State being seen as the only tool capable of overthrowing it. Reds have a fairly clearly defined idea of what they want to replace the bourgeois political & economic order with. Some form of command economy, with differences as to how tolerant they are about using markets to develop the means of production.

I take it a free market guy like myself is not welcome here?

I'm not a censor, but I'm only going to pay attention to you if you can help shed some light on the differences within the left. If you're here to abuse us I'm not going to bother with you.

I feel like anarchy can come from both left and right with general variation on the actual decisions that can be made, but I guess that's nothing more than a logistical assumption. I'd personally classify myself as economically moderate (leaning slightly right) but socially left, often to a Marxist standard. I don't know why; guess I just ended up that way. Lot of random moral dilemmas pop up in that setup...

well I think most people on this site are socially liberal, supporting gay marriage, legalization of marijuana etc.

Where do you see religious communalists fitting into this scheme, if at all? I'm curious since I spent the first ten years of my life in a religious (Mennonite by denomination) commune, and I still have contacts in that movement, so I'm quite curious about your take.

" I'd personally classify myself as economically moderate (leaning slightly right) but socially left, often to a Marxist standard."

I don't know what it means to be 'socially Marxist', care to explain? On paper it looks like you're particularly interested in gender & racial oppression, but I'm probably wrong about that.

I think social issues are not at all clearcut as to what is right or left.

Socialist countries all held what was known as "homosexuality" to be a form of bourgeois decadence, and in the 1930s it was associated with Fascism because of people like Rohm, etc. No socialist country that I'm aware of ever legalized drugs. Again this goes back to Damian's point about individualism, I think. Socialists tend to emphasize other kinds of social issues (like gender based exploitation), and not the ones dealing with what an individual is entitled to do.

"Where do you see religious communalists fitting into this scheme, if at all? I'm curious since I spent the first ten years of my life in a religious (Mennonite by denomination) commune, and I still have contacts in that movement, so I'm quite curious about your take."

My scheme mostly deals with groups that seek to change the political system. Some religious communalists are content to live in their own society apart from everybody else. I think Mennonites tend to be more politically engaged and tend to feel most at home in social democratic groups.

Generally speaking I think religious communalists, at least according to Marx, were considered reactionary - allies of the aristocracy at least historically. That's probably not true about the modern day Mennonite communes. They're probably more akin to the Owenites.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#a4

Putin does a very good job of splitting the left into three main camps and I largely agree with those definitions. I'm very strongly a "Red" myself. For me, only the power of the state can solve society's problems, and only by revolutionary change can we create a state which can, and will, exercise its power for society's benefit.

I would pribably go wiyh social democrat.

As for Putins I think a major category that has been left out is the environmentalists

Environmentalistm is broad and not really a separate trend. There are anarchist oriented ones like Free the Planet and a whole lot of social democrat reformist ones.

Putin: Aren't you in the US? The last time I checked anarchists (and assorted radical socialists) had been at the forefront of not only every major anti-globalization and anti-war effort in the US, but also most practical projects - intentional communities, indymedia, squats, #OWS and now the Occupy Homes movement (which is the most populist and militant class-based organizing the US has seen since the 1930s probably), Common Ground in New Orleans post-Katrina etc. The various flavors of vanguardist authoritarian socialists, mostly old men in their 50s and 60s and whatever few young men they had convinced to join them have been content with selling newspapers and hijacking larger anti-war organizations with front groups (ANSWER anyone?). In nearly every city I've done organizing and political work in, and that's a lot of them in the US, anarchist identified folks (or at least anti-authoritarians) are the ones actually doing stuff - along with semi-radical religious folks. Authoritarian socialism seems to me to be largely irrelevant in the US. Even most radical labor organizing is happening under the auspices of the IWW. So I think it's a bit nonsensical to label vanguardist, party-based, platformist etc strains of socialism as "results oriented"

Also consensus is simply a way of making decisions. It's a process, not a virtue. It's no more or less anarchist than industrial sabotage or black blocs.

Authoritarian socialism is dead. And for good reason. It has been dead among radicals ever since they watched country after country slip into the grips of Father-worshipping Tyranny - in the USSR, in China, in Venezuela, in Cuba.

Did you really just call homosexuality bourgeoise decadence? (or hint at it by saying, well historically...) Come on, you want to know why radicals don't take authoritarian socialists seriously? It's nonsense like that.

Again, I'm happy to work with Trotskyists or Leninists or whomever if they are doing good work - preferably community-based and non-hierarchical, but I'll accept whatever, organizing a factory or an anti-war march - but given that anarchists have generally been some of the first against the wall in firing squads for being counter-revolutionary, don't expect me not to feel strongly about authoritarian socialism being a dangerous virus, a perversion of socialist thought (socialism and anarchism should be nearly synonomous IMHO), and has been shown time after time again to result in dictatorships just as bad as an imperialist "democracy", military junta, or feudal aristocracy they were replacing

So Putin, what are your views on the U.S.? Are you a U.S. citizen? If you are, do you consider it the greatest nation to have ever existed?

What a lot to wade through. It'd be nice if this thread to be done in a comradely manner and not get into sectarian acrimony, but like I said before anarchists tend to engage in friendly fire.

The most incorrect claim you made is that IWW is doing the brunt of the radical labor work. The most IWW has done is organize a Starbucks. And they bragged about that for several years. I've never seen a single anarchist at Labor Notes, which is *the*annual radical labor conference, organized by a Trotskyite group I don't particularly like called Solidarity. The major labor actions of the past several years have been led by Reds, including several high profile factory occupations (such as Republic Windows & Doors). Reds took over a teamsters local in Chicago, challenging the leadership of the national organization. There's a reason why anarchists don't get involved in the labor movement.

It's pretty outrageous to say reds aren't doing any of the real work. The groups organizing against the School of the Americas in Georgia are mostly reds. One of the major anti-war groups is known as CAN, and they were started by Reds. ANSWER is not only a front group it actually does a lot of hard work organizing major anti-war rallies. They are UFPJ (a social democrat outfit, but with CP members in the leadership) were the two principle organizations leading the massive rallies in DC & Washington. Anarchists participated too (see I'm actually willing to give you credit) but they also frequently engaged in splinter marches and didn't abide by the democratic decision-making process.

The *only* Colombia solidarity work (meaning solidarity with the peasants fighting with the paramilitaries) is being done by the Reds. Who was out protesting against the trial of Ricardo Palmeira? Not anarchists, I can tell you that.

If you think the only people in Red organizations are older people selling newspapers, then you haven't been paying attention. That's like me saying all anarchists are black bloc types who think activism is smashing windows. The Minneapolis Anti-War committee is both Marxist-Leninist and made up almost exclusively of women, both older & younger. They were the group most responsible for the massive RNC protest in 2008. Anarchists (the Welcoming Committee) also participated. Again they were pretty non-cooperative.

"t has been dead among radicals ever since they watched country after country slip into the grips of Father-worshipping Tyranny - in the USSR, in China, in Venezuela, in Cuba. "

Last I checked Venezuela was inspiring Bolivarian revolutions across Latin America and Cuba was considered a model nation in terms of healthcare and women/LGBTQ rights. Where have anarchists made any real achievements? Your equating of the Latin American revolutionaries with the imperialists who want to steal their resources is why it's tough to figure out which side anarchists are on half the time.

"Did you really just call homosexuality bourgeoise decadence?"

I simply reciting the historical record. I don't support that theory. I'm proud that Cuba (which you can't say anything good about) just elected the first transgendered person to the assembly. You'd rather throw the baby out with the bathwater.

" but I'll accept whatever, organizing a factory or an anti-war march - but given that anarchists have generally been some of the first against the wall in firing squads for being counter-revolutionary"

Well when you happily compare imperialism as being equivalent to socialism, and have a habit of trying to overthrow governments in the middle of civil wars with fascism, it's very difficult to work with your trend. Right off the bat, you attack. When the point of this was to try to explain and understand. This is why most non-anarchists dislike working with you guys and many anarchists look for other tendencies that aren't as sectarian.

I forgot about the Quad City Die Casting factory battle, which was also a Red-led event. Point me to where a single local of significant union is led by anarchists.

Oh and who do you think brought the May Day rally back in 2006 re: immigrants rights? That would be Reds. Where are the anarchists in the immigrants rights movement that exploded? I haven't seen any.

I guess under Putin's Three Divisions of Leftists/Democrats, I'd be a Social Democrat.

Doesn't fit 100% necessarily with me, but relatively close, I think, as Putin regularly takes issue with my not being a radical one way or the other and, indeed, his SD definition is middle of the pack and moderate by his own admission, and that's just where I'd consider myself to be, and what I'd consider myself to be--a Moderate Democrat.

Orwell was a Social Democrat...or was it a Democratic Socialist? ;)

Ah, well, I steal that (slightly modified) joke...anyone guess which markedly-Leftist author I shamelessly stole that joke from (bonus points if you can name the work I stole it from!)

:p

But yeah, I suppose that'd be about right for me...

I'd probably more accurately--and truthfully--describe myself as an Elitist Social Democrat from the Intellectual (Ivory Tower?) side of the spectrum...or at least I suppose that's where my seeds are planted and sprout from...

So I certainly don't take the anti-big-business stance some here might and shake my fist at all of capitalism and all the moguls...

By that same token I think the only true "Free Market" is a fair market with regulations and adequate compensations and protections for workers as well as advancement opportunities for the impoverished and a thriving public as well as private sector...

And then finally I wholly frown upon the notion of leaving such social matters as segregation, slavery, gay marriage and a woman's right to abortion to the states; the federal government SHOULD serve as a social example, and Atticus Finch's noble sentiment in TKAM on how "in this country our courts are the great levelers" should be the standard to which we hold the Supreme Court and that court of elected opinion, Congress and the Presidency as well--the federal government MUST lead on social matters, it cannot, should not, must not ever be a follower torn between states pulling different directions.

IT must set the standard by which the social law of the land follows...and it should be a standard that is ever-progressive, always looking towards the future and never stuck in the past.

Are anarchists really leftists, though? I kind of thought they were their own thing.

communism : the left :: anarchism : libertarianism

Also want to point out re: "authoritarian socialism being dead"

Reds - overthrew the monarchy in Nepal
Reds - waging a decades-long insurgency in India, Colombia, and the Philippines
Reds - until recently were waging a decades-long insurgency in Sri Lanka & Peru
Reds - elected to government in Cyprus, a dynamic EU country
Reds - the only Kurdish group waging an insurgency against Turkey
Reds - the most powerful leftwing group in Greece, on the brink of revolution
Reds - control two of the most dynamic economies in the world (China, Vietnam)
Reds - part of the government in Venezuela & South Africa
Reds - the main opposition force in Russia

So much for being "dead".

"Are anarchists really leftists, though? I kind of thought they were their own thing.
"

Historically there has never been any confusion about this. The long-standing meaning of the term "libertarian" meant what is now known as a leftwing anarchist. Rightwing anarchism is a really recent 'invention', and should more properly be called proprietarianism, since you cannot have private property without the guns of the state.

Goldman, Bookchin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky- are all anarchists, all solidly on the left. The foremost advocate of rightwing "anarchism" wrote articles in defense of the police beating up the urban poor.

Thucy, let me direct you to:

http://c4ss.org/

They describe themselves as left-wing market anarchists. And I believe that Marx argued that the state would necessarily wither away once the proletariat revolution completed. Left-anarchists want to get there in a different way.

Obi -

Which US Congressman or politician do you think is most closely aligned to your political views?
That would clarify for me whether I think you're a Soc-Dem (who are only "moderate" compared to the other leftwing trends). My hunch is you're not, but you might surprise me.

Chomsky isn't all that much of an anarchist is he? I mean, he's for decentralization, but I dunno.

What is the defining idea that unites every leftist? That's what I'd really like to learn in this thread.