Logan_the_libcom
LSA Member
I have come to chew bubble gum and spread communism. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Posts: 158 
|
Post by Logan_the_libcom on Apr 9, 2016 16:13:23 GMT
I believe that a very important step in growing libertarian socialism of all forms is waging a form of linguistic warfare against Leninists. The very name "Marxist-Leninist" implies that they are somehow the "true" communists. This makes it seem as if they have some kind of authority that we lack when it comes to communism (to outsiders). I think we should stop calling them Marxist-Leninsts and call them simply Leninists. Thoughts?
|
|
Giga
LSA Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by Giga on Apr 9, 2016 16:17:55 GMT
I often feel that the most common disadvantage we're given is the word "libertarian" in libertarian socialism. I feel like most American liberals (and the rest of the left in America for that matter) associates the word libertarian with libertarian capitalism and the Libertarian Party. I think that if we could find a way to explain the true meaning of the word, it would give us something of an argumentative advantage.
|
|
Logan_the_libcom
LSA Member
I have come to chew bubble gum and spread communism. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Posts: 158
|
Post by Logan_the_libcom on Apr 9, 2016 16:20:48 GMT
I often feel that the most common disadvantage we're given is the word "libertarian" in libertarian socialism. I feel like most American liberals (and the rest of the left in America for that matter) associates the word libertarian with libertarian capitalism and the Libertarian Party. I think that if we could find a way to explain the true meaning of the word, it would give us something of an argumentative advantage. I agree. I already have "libertarian" in my bio, both my personal account and my commie account. People always ask me "how can you be libertarian and support communism" and it gives me an opportunity to explain without shoving my views down peoples throats |
|
anpacklaus
LSA Member
"Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I sits and drinks, but mostly I just sits." -Neal Cassady
Posts: 84
|
Post by anpacklaus on Apr 11, 2016 4:02:03 GMT
I think the way we an fix the libertarian situation is just be more specific when labelling ourselves, and our respective ideologies. I call myself an anarcho-pacifist, so that's specific enough. But a lot of Marxists, especially the mega-tankies, call themselves by the type of materialism try subscribe to, like "Dialectical Marxist."
|
|
Logan_the_libcom
LSA Member
I have come to chew bubble gum and spread communism. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Posts: 158
|
Post by Logan_the_libcom on Apr 14, 2016 11:46:42 GMT
I think the way we an fix the libertarian situation is just be more specific when labelling ourselves, and our respective ideologies. I call myself an anarcho-pacifist, so that's specific enough. But a lot of Marxists, especially the mega-tankies, call themselves by the type of materialism try subscribe to, like "Dialectical Marxist." That's more a philosophy though, if I understand correctly |
|
mbrownec
New Member
Social Anarchist / Libertarian Socialist
Posts: 3
|
Post by mbrownec on Apr 26, 2016 22:26:09 GMT
This goes back to fundamental reality that words mean something. Even the order of words can make a huge difference. We are living through a classic example of this right now in the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. Without getting into a dialogue of why Senator Sanders is not a (democratic) socialist, we all realize that, at best, he is a social democrat (under a social democracy as in the Scandinavian model) or a New Deal Democrat. This is a perfect example of why words, including the order or words, can produce significantly different meanings. Logan_the_libcom said:
"The very name "Marxist-Leninist" implies that they are somehow the "true" communists. This makes it seem as if they have some kind of authority that we lack when it comes to communism (to outsiders)."
I resolved the issue of the Marxist-Leninist (and Trotskyist) nameplate in my own head quite a few months ago. Like you, I wanted to defend the integrity of Marxism theory. However, after several hundred hours of Marxism study, I came to this realization: - Any society based primarily on the theories of Karl Marx, will ultimately lead to a society ruled under a centralized form of government.
Hence, the 'state' will still exist. Only the faces will change. Socialism/Communism without anarchism still results in a few ruling over the many. The following quote regarding democratic centralism from the Socialist Equality Party (Trotskyist) in the U.S. fully illustrates this truth: Giga said:
I often feel that the most common disadvantage we're given is the word "libertarian" in libertarian socialism.
I agree. Needing to explain the 'classical' definition libertarian gets exhausting at times. However, I get the same blank stares when I tell people I am a Social Anarchist or an anarcho-socialist. So, I usually tell them that I'm a Social Anarchist and proceed to tell them what that means if they ask questions. |
|
