Indeed. Good point. lol

The democrats have been crony capitalists bought and payed for so many times its not funny. many republicans have as well, but unlike republicans democrats got in bed with socialists like Bernie Sanders and than slowly they have been taken over by radical extremists of the left. But they just kept on getting those paychecks from special interests groups, people like Nenci Pelosi, and Biden etc and they kept pandering to the lefties and bending the knee and now they are in position where the radical extremist of the left with wipe out the democratic party all together. Maybe not even the name will left.

Republicans are just as corrupt but they are not extremists because the mythical "far right" doesn't actually exist so they cant't take over the republican party, unlike far left that does exist and has taken over the democrat party.

People have been sitting by and watching democrats and republicans just talk how the other party is unfit the rule while they rob the taxpayers. And they are both correct, neither party is fit to rule. Trump was the guy that they didn't know how to handle, he is a bull in their china shop.

But if I'm not mistaken Larry Elder joined the Trump team. So that is good. Unlike Ted Cruz types who talk but never do anything, because they are being payed by same lobbyist as the Pelosi. Ted is basically being payed by taxpayers to be professional podcaster. not senator. Washington is so freaking corrupt.

@Krunoslav "Republicans are just as corrupt but they are not extremists because the mythical "far right" doesn't actually exist so they cant't take over the republican party, unlike far left that does exist and has taken over the democrat party."

Sometimes I wonder why not more right leaning individuals aren't that far right. They do exist, here and there, at least on an odd individual or two. I think one of the people that was planning to kidnap Whitmer self identified as anarchist (which would be all the way right? I'm guessing, because anarchist is no government at all) The David Duke types show up as well once in a while. Yet, not to the extent I've seen in government.

I find a lot of my Republican acquaintances seem to engage in debate at a more central point and or more flexible in discussions. Of course everyone has their more ridged biases, I just tend to find the left have more "no compromise" type stances on issues.

Political corruption has been seen a lot more since Trump took office. I agree it's not party preferable either, which is even more evident when they routinely air their dirty laundry all over MSM and social media. It's nothing all that new, but I would be interested in how this would have played out in a different era. Can you imagine what Abraham Lincolns twitter feed might have looked like?

@saramarylop3z Well technically the qualifications for left side of political spectrum would be people's state. (liberals, republicans, communism, fascism, Nazis, BLM, Antifa etc.) and right side would be conservatives of the old regime (absolute and constitutional monarchy or Church control).

Left and right terms off course came from French Revolution.

Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are used as symbolic labels for liberals and conservatives, but they were originally coined in reference to the physical seating arrangements of politicians during the French Revolution. The split dates to the summer of 1789, when members of the French National Assembly met to begin drafting a constitution. The delegates were deeply divided over the issue of how much authority King Louis XVI should have, and as the debate raged, the two main factions each staked out territory in the assembly hall.

The anti-royalist revolutionaries seated themselves to the presiding officer’s left, while the more conservative, aristocratic supporters of the monarchy gathered to the right. “I tried to sit in different parts of the hall and not to adopt any marked spot, so as to remain more the master of my opinion,” one right-wing baron wrote, “but I was compelled absolutely to abandon the left or else be condemned always to vote alone and thus be subjected to jeers from the galleries.”

When the French National Assembly was convened in 1791, the delegates were seated as follows relative to the Speaker’s Chair:

Right. Those who sat on the right side of the hall believed that reform had gone far enough; that the monarchy should be restored and things turned back to 1788 - before the revolution. They were opposed to change. (Monarchists, Loyalists, conservatives of the old regime).

Middle. Those who sat in the middle of the hall supported moderate (mild) reform: the changes made so far to nobles’ rights and reduced power for the monarch, but no additional changes or loss of privileges. (moderates, centrists). Between the left and right sat a mass of deputies, known as the Plain, who did not belong to any particular faction.

Left. Those who sat on the left of the hall were the Jacobins and other republicans: they wanted to abolish the monarchy completely and make radical (dramatic) changes to French government and the social order. (republicans, radicals, Jacobins, liberals etc.) They were to the left of the president’s chair on an elevated section called the Mountain.

This was not word-play on right/wrong, but simply identification of political views based on where they happened to be seated relative to each other.

Another way to think of it in terms of the day:

Feuillant (political group) - Wikipedia "The Society of the Friends of the Constitution", formed to protect a conception of power.

Cordeliers - Wikipedia Revolutionary, not all moderates.

Jacobin - Wikipedia Revolutionary, mostly extremists.

The divisions only continued during the 1790s, when newspapers began making reference to the progressive “left” and traditionalist “right” of the French assembly. The distinctions later vanished for several years during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte (1804 until 1814 and again briefly in 1815), but with the Bourbon Restoration and the beginning of a constitutional monarchy in 1814, liberal and conservative representatives once again took up their respective posts on the left and right of the legislative chamber. By the mid-19th century, “left” and “right” had entered the French vernacular as shorthand for opposing political ideologies. Political parties even began self-identifying as “center left,” “center right,” “extreme left” and “extreme right.”

France’s “left” and “right” labels filtered out to the rest of the world during the 1800s, but they weren’t common in English-speaking countries until the early 20th century. The terms are now used to describe the oposing ends of the political spectrum, but their origins are still evident in the seating arrangements of many legislative bodies. In the U.S. Congress, for example, Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit on opposite sides of the House and Senate chambers.

Political parties in the United States are dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, constituting what is known as the two-party system, many aspects of which have been written into law, and others of which are customary. The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, since at the time of its signing in 1787 there were no existing parties.

I object to the modern use of the word left and right because its an accusation not a description of political views anymore so if we must use it at least we can use the original.

........................................

First to sweep through was the bright idea of, in the words of Adam Smith, "allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.” In the first half of the 19th century, this idea became known as liberalism.

Then, just as liberalism began to transform the world, two pernicious ideas began to vie with it. Nationalism and socialism began to capture the imaginations of intellectuals and would eventually displace liberalism completely in the hearts and minds of the West.

Liberalism unlocked humanity’s creative potential, yielding the first ever rise of widespread abundance through industrial mass production. Nationalism and socialism unleashed humanity’s capacity for destruction, unleashing the first ever rise of industrial-scale mass murder.

The twin banes of nationalism and socialism followed the boon of liberalism remarkably quickly. To understand why, we must consider a fourth big idea that historically links the other three: the idea of the people’s state.

Communism was international socialism, and Nazi and Fascist were National Socialism. Communists were based on Marxist worldview, while Fascist and Nazi used their own ideas as to why their nation is superior.

Fascism and national-socialism are two different things. The fascism accepts the different social classes, the national-socialism rejects the social hierarchy (hence it is called socialism). However in practice both are controlled by a dictator. The main enemy of national-socialism are the capitalist, bankers (jews) and the international-socialists (communist). Communists are not a treat because of their methods of socialism, but because their doctrine does not put national pride of people ahead of economic model.

For the fascists the party is sacret, for the national-socialism the homogeneous society (no classes, one ethnic nation) is the ultimate goal. Both are totalitarian systems as well the communism. And this characteristic puts all three on the left of the political spectrum because they rely on people to rise to power and for people to submit to totalitarian rule.

And that is the ideas behind the people’s state. And all who were for these ideas based on people's state, during French National Assembly 1791, where we got the terminology, all those people's state advocates were sitting left, and all those for monarchy were sitting right. Therefore, BLM, Antifa, Communism, Fascism, Nazi, liberalism, even republicans are technically all left wing sitters.

“Mussolini and Hitler became “right-wingers,” and the people who supposedly brought them to power became “conservatives.” This is not true, if you know what conservatives were conserving. The Left, then, became the glorious resisters of fascism and Nazism. To make this story work, fascism and Nazism had to be largely redefined.”

“John Locke says that whatever other tasks a government undertakes—whether humanitarian or otherwise—its primary duty is to protect its own citizens from foreign and domestic thugs. That isn’t fascism; it’s classical liberalism. Similarly, socialists claim to be in favor of equitable redistribution of income and wealth, but who determines what is equitable and does the actual redistribution?”

“Progressivism simply cannot account for the easy traffic from socialism to fascism. Consequently, progressives typically maintain complete silence about this whole historical relationship which is deeply embarrassing to them.”

“So progressives decided to tell a new story, and this is the story that has now become our conventional wisdom. In this story, the very fascism and Nazism that were, from the outset, on both sides of the Atlantic, recognized as left-wing phenomena now got moved into the right-wing column. Suddenly Mussolini and Hitler became “right-wingers,” and the people who supposedly brought them to power became “conservatives.” The Left, then, became the glorious resisters of fascism and Nazism.”

@saramarylop3z As for anarchists... that would be left. If indeed was official political movement, not just some desperate bunch of individuals who listen to Sex Pistol's "Anarchy in the U.K." song one time too many, while being on Chrystal meth.

If it was an actual movement, In the post-World War II era, anarchism regained influence through new developments such as anarcho-pacifism, the American New Left and the counterculture of the 1960s. Contemporary anarchism in the United States influenced and became influenced and renewed by developments both inside and outside the worldwide anarchist movement such as platformism, insurrectionary anarchism, the new social movements (anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism and green anarchism) and the alter-globalization movements. Within contemporary anarchism, the anti-capitalism of classical anarchism has remained prominent.

Around the turn of the 21st century, anarchism grew in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-globalization movements.

The Spanish Revolution of 1936 was a workers' social revolution that began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 and resulted in the widespread implementation of anarchist and more broadly libertarian socialist organizational principles throughout various portions of the country for two to three years, primarily Catalonia, Aragon, Andalusia, and parts of the Valencian Community. Much of the economy of Spain was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy influence by the Communist Party of Spain.[citation needed] Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian socialist communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.

@saramarylop3z Yes, the republicans moved towards more moderate positions where they are economically more liberal than democrats, but culturally more conservative. Democrats used to be the other way around. Both were for democracy as a republic, they just had disagreement on about ten key points. Marriage, Religion, second amendment, etc.

Democrats went more left in the 1960's with the New Left movement. As as the democrats became more and more radical lefties, the republicans moved more moderate than before.

THE NEW LEFT

The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms.

Some saw the New Left as an oppositional reaction to earlier Marxist and labor union movements for social justice that focused on dialectical materialism and social class, while others who used the term saw the movement as a continuation and revitalization of traditional leftist goals.

Some who self-identified as "New Left" rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle, although others gravitated to their own takes on established forms of Marxism, such as the New Communist movement (which drew from Maoism) in the United States or the K-Gruppen in the German Sprachraum. In the United States, the movement was associated with the anti-war college-campus protest movements.

The origins of the New Left have been traced to several factors. Prominently, the confused response of the Communist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Great Britain to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 led some Marxist intellectuals to develop a more democratic approach to politics, opposed to what they saw as the centralised and authoritarian politics of the pre-war leftist parties. Those Communists who became disillusioned with the Communist Parties due to their authoritarian character eventually formed the "new left", first among dissenting Communist Party intellectuals and campus groups in the United Kingdom, and later alongside campus radicalism in the United States and in the Western Bloc. The term "nouvelle gauche" was already current in France in the 1950s, associated with France Observateur, and its editor Claude Bourdet, who attempted to form a third position, between the dominant Stalinist and social democratic tendencies of the left, and the two Cold War blocs. It was from this French "new left" that the "First New Left" of Britain borrowed the term.

In the United States, the "New Left" was the name loosely associated with liberal, radical, Marxist political movements that took place during the 1960s, primarily among college students. At the core of this was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The New Left can be defined as "a loosely organized, mostly white student movement that advocated for democracy, civil rights, and various types of university reforms, and protested against the Vietnam war".

The term "New Left" was popularised in the United States in an open letter written in 1960 by sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916–62) entitled Letter to the New Left. Mills argued for a new leftist ideology, moving away from the traditional ("Old Left" ) focus on labor issues, into a broader focus towards issues such as opposing alienation, anomie, and authoritarianism. Mills argued for a shift from traditional leftism, toward the values of the counterculture, and emphasized an international perspective on the movement. According to David Burner, C. Wright Mills claimed that the proletariat (collectively the working-class referencing Marxism) were no longer the revolutionary force; the new agents of revolutionary change were young intellectuals around the world.

The New Left opposed what it saw as the prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment", and those who rejected this authority became known as "anti-Establishment". The New Left focused on social activists and their approach to organization, convinced that they could be the source for a better kind of social revolution.

@saramarylop3z The New Left in the United States also included anarchist, countercultural, and hippie-related radical groups such as the Yippies (who were led by Abbie Hoffman), The Diggers, Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers, and the White Panther Party. By late 1966, the Diggers opened free stores which simply gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed free drugs, gave away money, organized free music concerts, and performed works of political art. The Diggers took their name from the original English Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley and sought to create a mini-society free of money and capitalism.

On the other hand, the Yippies employed theatrical gestures, such as advancing a pig ("Pigasus the Immortal" ) as a candidate for President in 1968, to mock the social status quo. They have been described as a highly theatrical, anti-authoritarian, and anarchist youth movement of "symbolic politics". According to ABC News, "The group was known for street theater pranks and was once referred to as the 'Groucho Marxists'." Many of the "old school" political left either ignored or denounced them.

Many New Left thinkers in the United States were influenced by the Vietnam War and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Some in the U.S. New Left argued that since the Soviet Union could no longer be considered the world center for proletarian revolution, new revolutionary Communist thinkers had to be substituted in its place, such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.

Other elements of the U.S. New Left were anarchist and looked to libertarian socialist traditions of American radicalism, the Industrial Workers of the World and union militancy. This group coalesced around the historical journal Radical America. American Autonomist Marxism was also a child of this stream, for instance in the thought of Harry Cleaver. Murray Bookchin was also part of the anarchist stream of the New Left, as were the Yippies.

The U.S. New Left drew inspiration from black radicalism, particularly the Black Power movement and the more explicitly Maoist and militant Black Panther Party. The Panthers in turn influenced other similar militant groups, like the Young Lords, the Brown Berets and the American Indian Movement. The New Left was also inspired by Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Students immersed themselves into poor communities building up support with the locals. The New Left sought to be a broad based, grass roots movement.

The Vietnam War conducted by liberal President Lyndon B. Johnson was a special target across the worldwide New Left. Johnson and his top officials became unwelcome on American campuses. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides. The climax came at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

The New Left also accommodated the rebirth of feminism. As the original leaders of the New Left were largely white men, women reacted to the lack of progressive gender politics with their own social intellectual movement. The New Left was also marked by the invention of the modern environmentalist movement, which clashed with the Old Left's disregard for the environment in favor of preserving the jobs of union workers. Environmentalism also gave rise to various other social justice movements such as the environmental justice movement, which aims to prevent the toxification of the environment of minority and disadvantaged communities.

By 1968, however, the New Left coalition began to split. The anti-war Democratic presidential nomination campaign of Kennedy and McCarthy brought the central issue of the New Left into the mainstream liberal establishment. The 1972 nomination of George McGovern further highlighted the new influence of Liberal protest movements within the Democratic establishment. Increasingly, feminist and gay rights groups became important parts of the Democratic coalition, thus satisfying many of the same constituencies that were previously unserved by the mainstream parties.

This institutionalization took away all but the most radical members of the New Left. The remaining radical core of the SDS, dissatisfied with the pace of change, incorporated violent tendencies towards social transformation. After 1969, the Weathermen, a surviving faction of SDS, attempted to launch a guerrilla war in an incident known as the "Days of Rage". Finally, in 1970 three members of the Weathermen blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village brownstone trying to make a bomb out of a stick of dynamite and an alarm clock. Port Huron Statement participant Jack Newfield wrote in 1971 that "in its Weathermen, Panther and Yippee incarnations, [the New Left] seems anti-democratic, terroristic, dogmatic, stoned on rhetoric and badly disconnected from everyday reality".

In contrast, the more moderate groups associated with the New Left increasingly became central players in the Democratic Party and thus in mainstream American politics.

The term "politically correct" was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term "politically correct" appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit. The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s. William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman. The term probably entered modern use in the United Kingdom around 1975.

@saramarylop3z How would Abraham tweeted. I hope he wouldn't. Twitter would be such a waste for such a good speech writer. lol

Twitter and Trump are perfect match. But Ab, oh God I hope not. We would all be robbed of his great speeches like Gettysburg Address, world-famous speech delivered by U.S. Pres. Abraham Lincoln at the dedication (November 19, 1863) of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the site of one of the decisive battles of the American Civil War (July 1–3, 1863).

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

@Krunoslav I guess I always figured that if left was more government and right was less government, then anarchy being no government would be an extreme right position. Admittedly a simplistic idea considering the group could actually fall left or right or even not exist on such a scale at all. Either way, not a group I'd really have a lot of knowledge about.

@saramarylop3z Yeah, on the outside I can see your logic and it works, if you just use typical left vs right modern back and fourth. But in those conversations lefties always control the narrative, placing themselves as moral center of the universe so anyone who is against them they move to the right. In fact in modern times you can say that the right whatever it means, is not connected with particular ideology and the only thing they have in common is that they are opposing the left.

As for anarchy ideologies, they are full on lefty. Because they are about society with liberty and no state, which is moronic idea beyond belief. Remember CHAZ? The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, also known as Free Capitol Hill, the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, or the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, was an occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington, United States.

We don't need society, we will be our own society. We will be anarchists? How it ended, in lawless crime ridden shit hole that had people killed , raped etc. And soon local warlords showed up to replace government and establish hierarchy.

Libertarian socialism, also referred to as anarcho-socialism, anarchist socialism, free socialism, stateless socialism, socialist anarchism and socialist libertarianism, is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state socialist conception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy.

Never trust anyone who calls himself a libertarian socialist. They're bound to be deeply confused, at best.
-- Glenn Reynolds

It was tried before: The Spanish Revolution of 1936 was a workers' social revolution that began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 and resulted in the widespread implementation of anarchist and more broadly libertarian socialist organizational principles throughout various portions of the country for two to three years, primarily Catalonia, Aragon, Andalusia, and parts of the Valencian Community. Much of the economy of Spain was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy influence by the Communist Party of Spain. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian socialist communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.

It ended in dictatorship and terrible atrocities.

@saramarylop3z Ulli Diemer What is Libertarian Socialism?

We call ourselves libertarian socialists. But why the adjective? Why libertarian socialism? Is libertarian socialism any different from socialism as it is generally understood?

The problem, and the reason for the adjective, is that there exists no definition of socialism that is “generally understood”. The dilemma of socialism today is first of all the dilemma of the meaning of socialism, because the term has been applied to such an all-encompassing range of persons, parties, philosophies, states, and social systems, often completely antagonistic to each other, that the very term ‘socialism’ has become virtually meaningless.

There are more variations of socialism currently in existence than there are varieties of soup on the supermarket shelves, more socialist parties with the correct line than religious sects with a monopoly on salvation. Most of the earth’s people are now governed by states calling themselves socialist, states displaying among themselves the familiar antagonisms usually held to be hallmarks of capitalist imperialism, as well as every kind of social system presently in existence, from declining tribalism to advanced industrialism. Can there be any meaning worth salvaging in a label that has been claimed by Kautsky and Lenin, by Mao and Brezhnev, by Gandhi and Hitler, by Ed Broadbent and Karl Marx? Does the term connote anything more than “just” or “good” to its proponents, “bureaucratic” or “bad” to its enemies?

The temptation is strong to abandon the label entirely, to adopt some new term to indicate the kind of social change we propose. But to do so would be to attempt to side-step a problem that really cannot be avoided. For the terminological confusion is not accidental. Nor is it ‘merely’ a matter of words. It is rooted in the fact that the dominant social system always acts to integrate that which it cannot destroy — movements, ideas, even words — and therefore destroys them precisely by integrating them, by claiming them. It denies the very possibility of an alternative to itself, and proves this impossibility by absorbing the alternative and emptying it of meaning, by adopting new forms and new language which create the illusion of choice and change while perpetuating the same essential relations of domination. Since the main challenge to capitalism has always come from that which called itself socialism, it is hardly surprising that capitalist social relations have survived in half the world by calling themselves socialist. ‘Socialism’ has become another name for capitalism, another form of capitalism: in ‘victory’, socialism has been more totally buried than it ever could have been in defeat. Capitalism has dissolved the socialist alternative by stealing away its name, its language, and its dreams. We have to take them back, for without words there can be no concepts, and where there is no language of freedom, there can be no dream of liberation.

Consequently, we cannot simply abdicate the terminology of socialism and arbitrarily invent new labels. To do so would be futile, both because any new terms will be similarly sucked dry if they acquire popular recognition, and because the existing language of freedom refers to meanings and history that must be recovered from those who now suppress them by laying claim to them. Words such as ‘socialism’, ‘revolution’, ‘democracy’, and ‘freedom’ do contain within themselves a critique of the existing order. That critique can be realized only by reconquering it and giving it new life, not by abandoning it and searching for another.

For this reason, we start with the term ‘socialism’ and precede it with the adjective ‘libertarian’, which begins to elaborate that term, and which simultaneously makes it a new term, by differentiating it from all the other ‘socialisms’. Perhaps most important, the adjective ‘libertarian’ raises questions in the minds of those who encounter it, whereas the term ‘socialism’ by itself tends to let itself be taken for granted, to act as an uninteresting vessel which each person fills with his preconceived ideas.

And by raising questions, the term libertarian socialism initiates the first step in a process of criticism that must be applied equally to capitalism and to ‘socialism’ as it is “generally understood”. This process of criticism has not yielded any finished results that can be presented as a comprehensive picture of libertarian socialism. Indeed, the very concept of critique stands in opposition to the idea of having finished results. What is presented here are some beginnings, some themes for elaboration. Most of the ideas presented here are not new, but neither are they generally accepted.

What is implied by the term ‘libertarian socialism’?

The idea that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation that block the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action. We do not equate socialism with planning, state control, or nationalization of industry, although we understand that in a socialist society (not “under” socialism) economic activity will be collectively controlled, managed, planned, and owned. Similarly, we believe that socialism will involve equality, but we do not think that socialism is equality, for it is possible to conceive of a society where everyone is equally oppressed. We think that socialism is incompatible with one-party states, with constraints on freedom of speech, with an elite exercising power ‘on behalf of’ the people, with leader cults, with any of the other devices by which the dying society seeks to portray itself as the new society.

An approach to socialism that incorporates cultural revolution, women’s and children’s liberation, and the critique and transformation of daily life, as well as the more traditional concerns of socialist politics. A politics that is completely revolutionary because it seeks to transform all of reality. We do not think that capturing the economy and the state lead automatically to the transformation of the rest of social being, nor do we equate liberation with changing our life-styles and our heads. Capitalism is a total system that invades all areas of life: socialism must be the overcoming of capitalist reality in its entirety, or it is nothing.

Libertarian politics concerns itself with the liberation of the individual because it is collective, and with the collective liberation because it is individualistic.

Being a socialist is not only an intellectual thing, a matter of having the right ideas or the right intellectual approach. It is also a matter of the way you lead your life.

A politics that is revolutionary because, in the words of Marx and Engels, “revolution is necessary not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”

Because revolution is a collective process of self-liberation, because people and societies are transformed through struggle, not by decree, therefore “the emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved by the working classes themselves”, not by a Leninist vanguard, a socialist state, or any other agent acting on their behalf.

A conception of the left not as separate from society, but as part of it. We of the left are people who are subjected to social oppression like everyone else, who struggle for socialism because our own liberation is possible only when all society is liberated. We seek to bring others to our socialist project not to do them a favour, but because we need their help to achieve our own liberation. Cohn-Bendit’s comment that “It is for yourself that you make the revolution” is not an individualistic position, but the key to a truly collective politics, based on the joy and promise of life, instead of on the self-sacrifice that is often the radical’s version of the white man’s burden.

We of the left see ourselves as equal participants in the struggle, not as the anointed leaders of it. We put forward our socialist vision as part of our contribution, but we do not think that our belief in socialism means that we have all the answers. We deal with people honestly, as equals, not presuming the right to dictate what they shall think or do, nor presuming that we have nothing to learn from them. We have enough faith in our politics that we do not seek to manipulate people to our conclusions.

As socialists we form organizations with other people who share our ideas. This is necessary and valid, but it represents a situation that we should continually try to overcome, not one that we should accept and even institutionalize in the Leninist mode. Socialism implies not only the withering away of the state, but also the withering away of the left and its organizations as separate entities. Power in a socialist society must be exercised in ways allowing the participation of everyone, not only those belonging to a given organization. This must be prefigured in the political forms and movements that emerge before the revolution. The ultimate goal of the left and its organizations must not be to rule society, but to abolish themselves.

The most important component of socialist consciousness is critical thought. We must learn to think about everything critically, to take nothing for granted, nothing as given. Consequently, we do not want people to accept socialist ideas in the way they now accept, partially or completely, bourgeois ideas. We want to destroy all uncritical acceptance and belief. We think that a critical examination of society leads to socialist conclusions, but what is important is not simply the conclusions but equally and even more so the method of arriving at them.

We base ourselves on the heritage of Marxism. This does not mean that we accept all the ideas of Marx, let alone of those who claim to be his followers. Marxism is a point of departure for us, not our pre-determined destination. We accept Marx’s dictum that our criticism must fear nothing, including its own results. Our debt to Marxism will be no less if we find that we have to go beyond it.

Nothing could be more foreign to us than the “traditional Marxist” idea that all important questions have been answered. On the contrary, we have yet to formulate many of the important questions.

We have to try to maintain a balance of theory and practice which seeks to integrate them, and which recognizes that we must engage in both at all times.

The centre of gravity of our politics has to be when we are, not in the vicarious identification with struggles elsewhere. Solidarity work is important, but it cannot be the main focus of a socialist movement.

We don’t know if we’ll win: history is made by human beings, and where human beings are concerned, nothing is inevitable. But because people do make history, we know that it is possible to build a new world, and we strive to realize that possibility.

“There is only one reason for being a revolutionary — because it is the best way to live.”

Yeah, he is one of the rare ones that managed to overcome being black and become a responsible human. What a thing. He could have easily build a career of being black, instead he chose character. Kudos to him. We need more men like him.

He made a documentary "uncle Tom" that I would like to see. About blacks in America who chose not to be democrats and naturally they are attacked for it.