Er...

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

As for your question: I'd say the single most important common value is a shared commitment to economic & political equality coupled with a shared dissatisfaction with capitalism as it is generally implemented.

Is environmentalism necessarily leftist? The organized political movements are but the idea seems to have many culturally conservative facets.

I think environmentalism is a cross wing movement. Which has its advocates within various other movements

Indeed, not to Godwin-nuke this thread, but the German Romantics were the progenitors of the modern international environmental movement. Unfortunately "conservatism" has been hijacked by neoliberal economic thought so the connection is lost.

Environmentalism is usually leftist, I think, because there are no serious free-market based solutions to environmental problems. They seem to know it too, why else are all the climate-skeptic arguments coming from the right?

I'd like to learn more about FlemGem's Mennonite commune. Interesting thread so far, though.

"Which US Congressman or politician do you think is most closely aligned to your political views?"

I don't know if there IS a living politician who fits my views adequately that I'm aware of...

Historically I think the Roosevelts (Teddy, Eleanor and Franklin) and the Kennedy family match up decently...

All but Teddy there were Democrats, and Teddy was, for his era, a pretty liberal Republican on some issues...

I think social democrats would be the far left of the Democratic party, right? say, kucinich?

Frank, yes. Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Paul Wellstone, those people.
Obi, those people all have widely different views. Are you more Bobby or Jack?

I quite like Putin's answer to the shared value questions, and feel he defined the so called three major trends quite well.

A question for the social democrats here, if, hypothetically, you realised that capitalism could not be reformed in a way that produces a suitably equal and fair society, and that we either had to keep the bourgeois order of today or completely overthrow it, would you either turn more to the right and accept the current system, or want to overthrow it? (for the time being it doesn't really matter if this is as an anarchist or a good old red)

To chime in briefly re: anarchism, anarchism has historically been left-oriented. Right-anarchism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Right-anarchism also uses a significantly more strict understanding of anarchy, that is, an absence of a non-voluntary "state," and not the more historical context of anarchy (absence of hierarchy). Ours is a textbook definition, not the historically-applicable one.

Interesting thread, though.

@Putin .. By "socially Marxist" I am saying that I am on pace with Marxism in all but two areas: one, as I stated, financial distribution of both capital and state, and the other being homosexuality. The only drug I'd support legalizing is pot and in turn making tobacco illegal, but the second half will never happen and I'm slowly accepting that. Social Marxist or whatever might not be a proper term, but that's the best classification anyone's ever found for it that I know about. If there's something better, let me in on that one…

Environmentalism can cross both spheres, though it's definitely stronger among the left. Most of the right in the United States have completely forgotten that the environment exists. The ecological environment is certainly the biggest issue in just about anything in my mind, but people that don't believe the environment is in trouble are strongly bound to those beliefs and no amount of coaxing on my end is about to change that. Ideally the next generations won't be so blind to what's happening.

Capitalist governments could be reformed if it wouldn't conspire to allow a certain set of political parties ultimate power. The United States does so extensively, as do most democratic capitalist nations. Fresh ideas don't come from traditionalists. All that's easier said than done, of course.

@PE/Putin on right anarchy .. sounds reasonable to me. I don't think history is going to dictate the coming centuries in terms of governmental structure though. Just look at how little long-term history actually influences us now. Take away the Bible and religious texts and I'm having trouble thinking of any currently standing historical ideology that is what it was, say, 500 years ago. Industrialization and urbanization, plus the sprawl that came with it, changed just about everything.

"Obi, those people all have widely different views. Are you more Bobby or Jack?"

JFK before RFK, but I also admittedly know far more about the former than the latter.

Anarchy
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority:
Socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

To all those people that are trying to link Socialism with Anarchism I've posted definitions from the tinternet, I hope actually understanding what you're writing about might help inform opinion if you actually interject simple truth into your viewpoint, otherwise you just sound like a numpty. Anarchism is the antithesis of Socialism, is that so hard to understand ......

Both were brutally killed by idiots. Bobby was the Attorney General under President Johnson but ran - and won - the New York Senate race in 1964 I believe. A Palestinian killed him because he promised to support Israel. And people here think that the Arab/Israeli conflict doesn't matter because it's never hit home… they should do some research on that one.

NigeeBaby I'm afraid you sound like the 'numpty' here if you are trying, for one second, to say that bukanin and kropotkin were not socialists and anarchists.

And bo_... many Marxists have been in favour of gay rights, seeing as many Marxists were proponents of free love.

I'm not talking about labels that people give to themselves or others, I know anarchists, I know socialists. We don't have a lot in common because we believe in different things, I don't like anarchists, they are not very nice people but they are just the ones I know. How can true Anarchists and Socialists be compatible as the beliefs of one negate the beliefs of another, it is a matter of reading and understanding what each group stand for. Put simply one group supports state control of the commanding heights of the economy, the others want to abolish all forms of government. You do the math.... it's not brain surgery

You're a socialist? I'm happy your omniscient internet source told you that, BUT - socialism isn't about state control of the economy (even if many versions support this), it is more about equality and shared ownership of some sort. You can have free associations and communities and still be socialist, in fact, historically, many anarchist communities have been socialist.

the state controlling the economy is not inherently socialist, and socialists that support it support it as the way of achieving the things that define them as socialist!

Socrates, getting your thoughts and ideas from books is a bit like eating fish from a can, it's not quite the same as catching it yourself. I'm not reading stuff from a book, I'm talking about the real world. Maybe for an academic the books speak the truth and anecdotal evidence is meaningless ...... I don't support Anarchy or Anarchists based on personal experience, that is more real to me than reading books about the subject

I'm confused, you are a socialist yes? And I agree that you don't just get your ideas from books, but then i'm not sure I would reduce them as far as you do, they are nice places to start thinking from... But anecdotally one of my best friends is ultimately a socialist anarchist (we would have a major falling out if a socialist revolution ever came....) and I used to think the ideal world would have no state (what is traditionaly espoused as Marx's final stage), which, whilst not your conventional anarchist outlook, is still somewhat anarchist ultimately if you are striving for it.

@ Nigee: "I don't support Anarchy or Anarchists based on personal experience"

What experiences are you talking about? Which anarchist societies have you lived in?

Socrates - I support Socialist principles but live in a Social Democracy so it's frustrating but come the glorious revolution :-)
To be fair I'm an evolutionary and not revolutionary Socialist, I take a long term view and believe we have to win the arguments before we win the war.
If I thought it was sustainable I could have been a free marketeer but alas we are surrounded by evidence to the contrary. The times they are a changin'

You can be revolutionary and think that too though? We need 'a war of position' as well as 'a war of maneuver' :)

"I'd like to learn more about FlemGem's Mennonite commune."

First of all, don't think conservative Mennonite or Amish. This was a commune started in the midst of the Jesus movement in the early 70's, inspired by the stories of the early church living communally and committed to the Mennonite peace doctrine. Everyone in the little rural Illinois town nearby thought we were communists who had come to take over their town - I grew up being called a "commie" and I knew that was "bad" but not why, ha ha.
Anyway, there was a strong blend of anti-capitalist and anti-war theology. The commune made decisions by consensus. So using Putin's guidelines I'd say it was more anarchist than Red.
There has actually been an upsurge in interest in communal living among young liberal Mennonites. Your run of the mill liberal Menno is probably a social democrat like Putin said, but the radicals tend towards anarchism because the strong pacifism pushes them away from the perceived violence of Red authoritarianism.

Cool. I worked with Mennonites on some (pretty radical) Colombia solidarity stuff I did. I like them a lot. They and UUs have my respect (UU churches are frequently opened up to activists in order to provide them housing during the middle of campaigns. They're also usually the center of any pacifist network in town. I've slept on many a UU church floor).

Thanks, FlemGem. What happened to the commune (or the families in it)? Did they mainly return to conservative Mennonite communities or move more into secular/urban communities?

Thucy-

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

Fuck, I don't know if there is a defining idea which unites every leftist. For me, the reason I feel more comfortable on the left is because I am familiar with poverty. It seems to me that a person mired in poverty, which according to the capitalist model of distribution, is a systemic and necessary condition of the economy, really doesn't have the ability to defend his or her other rights that I hold we as a society have the means to guarantee to all. Under the capitalist model, who you are is completely a function of how many resources you control. If you're poor, you have access to substandard education. You have access to substandard legal representation. You have access to substandard transportation and health care. It seems to me to be unjust to write off huge swaths of society from these basic rights, but that's the system we have developed.

It also seems foolish as well as unjust. First, because it squanders a ton of talent. How many scientific breakthroughs have we not developed because we refuse to make the effort to make everyone scientifically literate? How many great works of art have gone uncreated because the artist has been too busy working to try and make a living wage and too tired at the end of the day because of it? Second, because inequal distribution of wealth tends to really fuck up a society. The more that economic power is concentrated within a society, the more important such power becomes. Which means that those who have it can privilege themselves and their outlooks to a greater extent than they could if wealth were more broadly diffused. This tends to create a feedback loop, and the end of the loop involves violent revolution. Third, accepting the premise that more economic activity is better for society as a whole, society gets a lot more bang for its buck on marginal dollars controlled by people in the bottom half of the economic distribution graph than in the top. We as a society get more out of a dollar in the hands of someone who made 20,000 USD last year than we do someone who made 1,000,000. So, ensuring broader distribution of wealth also tends to create more wealth.

So it's about inequality, for you.

What about sustainability? Where might that fit in?

And lastly is there no "pragmatist" leftist movement that believes some inequality is actually necessary to run a complex economy? There is a sense in which it can be argued that "civilization" is predicated on inequality arising naturally from specialization.