may i remind you that as a left-libertarian:
- i support the constitution, despite its flaws, and even the flaws about the founding fathers.
- i support limited government within a socialist framework
- i’m pretty sure there are revisionists here on hexbear which is fine - everyone has their own opinion, and some (including the people here) have their own taste of socialism/communism.
- i do NOT condone the actions of stalin in any way, shape and form - between stalin and trotsky, i’d go with trotsky. he should’ve succeeded lenin in the 1920s to begin with.
- there are democratic and libertarian forms of communism such as/like de leonism, left-communism and even council communism.
- i find the idea of a multi-party communist country (like in ‘reds! a revolutionary timeline’ (you can also find the wiki here (just DON’T vandalize it, and i mean it!), or in nepal through ‘people’s multiparty democracy’) to be interesting.
Do you think you generally find out how you feel about some political issue by imagining how your personal values and experiences could inform an ideal society? You know, like starting from the idea of individual freedom as a goal unto itself, then trying to square existing contradictions using that goal and trying to find solutions to problems that satisfy that value?
Asking because the way you’re talking about politics in this thread is pretty different from how people on here usually think about things. We try to first identify the material reality and contradictions that exist in the systems around us, and try to analyze how sectors of society (as delineated by their relationship to the means of production, i.e. are they the havers or the have-nots) are pushed, structurally, into specific actions or behaviors. Then we try to understand what is to be done to bring a possible new world, one without as many of the oppressive systems present in the current one, into existence, but not necessarily a utopia either (because we can identify that the contradictions present in the current world will necessarily be transformed, not just eradicated, when brought to their tipping points). That way, things are always based in a historical process and material reality, not just vague values, morals, or even ideology (not that those things are bad, but they are inherently contextual/local and hard to build a movement that unifies all the workers of all the world when they all have different ideas about them).
I think you probably think the former way because that’s just the default in Western discourse, we call it idealism, Enlightenment Idealism, Liberal Idealism, whatever. Most members of the ruling class nowadays are idealists too, but some of the most successful among our enemies were people like Kissinger who don’t really care about some utopia they want to build, instead they just do their best to analyze material reality and strategize around the real material threats and the place in history that they occupy. The most successful revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Sankara, etc all did it too.
to answer your question: i support individual freedoms because i support the freedoms of speech, of religion, of the press, to assemble peacefully and to redress grievances (or simply ‘complain about potholes to the governments’). i support collectivism because i think if one CAN’T do something alone, then the community should help them out.
also, i think idealism and materialism can go hand-in-hand - for example, i support ideals such as/like freedom and equity, and i think that the conditions we are in right now may spark a socialist society where these ideals are the words on the street, and would therefore change these conditions. i think this is the best way i can answer your concerns.
oh, and henry kissinger enabled war crimes.
You’re kind of missing the point of materialism. Viewing freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and other rights as individual issues that one may support or oppose is antithetical to materialism. The point of materialism is to acknowledge that there actually is no such thing as a human right except that which can be enforced via political power and, ultimately, violence or the threat of violence. In other words: materialists don’t “support” freedom of the press, they analyze how one may come to control the press and use it to exert power in favor of one’s class interests. Same thing with any other right. Those rights don’t exist, the ruling class only plays ball when necessary and can do away with them when needed; idealist “progressives” would rather try to pressure the ruling class into recognizing their rights, while Marxists and co perfectly understand that the only way to guarantee rights is to overthrow the ruling class.
Thinking that a new world, even a socialist one, is brought about by changing people’s minds is pretty much the definition of idealism and mostly everyone on this site rejects that. History bears out that massive populations of people who hold reactionary beliefs can be pushed to join revolutionary movements when their conditions radicalize them. It also shows that, as radical and progressive as the academics, artists, and other intellectuals of a given society might be, if the material conditions for revolution aren’t present those ideas don’t change the world by themselves at all. Without a gun to back up an idea, it’s just a prayer, even if a million people believe it.
in that case, i mostly support materialism. i’m NOT sure if it’s okay for anyone to pressure the ruling class into fitting in in a socialist country. that said, the government should be that of the people by the people for the people, as lincoln said in his gettysburg address, rather than the government of the rich and wealthy snobs who stifle people’s liberties. that’s one of the reasons why i support left-libertarianism.
“…government of the people by the people for the people shall not perish from the earth.” - abe lincoln, 1863
is it okay you can tell me this again but as a shorter question?
Did you arrive at your ideology by trying to think of something that just vibes well with your personal values, or by synthesizing an observation of your surroundings, history, material conditions, and theory developed by previous revolutionary movements?
i’m pretty sure i’d go with the latter.
i support a synthesis of leftist ideologies (such as/like left communism (de leonism and all), libertarian socialism, social democracy and market socialism) to a point where i can only describe my views as ‘left-libertarian’.
my ideology is broken down into four stages (before and after revolution)
before revolution:
after revolution:
second stage: the people collectively own the means of production through a planned market framework - companies and corporations become split and collectivized, some become state-owned - the government runs as a dictatorship of the proletariat through councils with dual power between the parties and the unions, rather than a party-state framework.
third stage: markets become abolished in favor of a participatory economy, money replaced with labor vouchers.
fourth stage: full communism - a classless, moneyless and stateless society.