[Uberak]

Warning: I know this is one of my first threads and I'm unsure of my posting ability, but I hope that this would be a good opening post. If it isn't, then just assume that my writing ability has rusted due to not having written anything in a long while.

Firstly, I wouldn't really call this to be my own "new" ideology, like what so many threads over here do. Instead, this is just supposed to be a discussion on the continuity of a radical republican line of though in the Western world from the time of Rome onwards and the possible ways to carry on the torch into the modern, industrial age. At first, I saw libertarian socialism as the possible germ of this continuation, albeit with flaws inherited from the modern "Left" that are to be removed. However, it was increasingly apparent that these flaws are intrinsic within the modern "Left", and mere reform within the "Left" is impossible. Instead, a revolution must be done against the modern "Left".

Now, what are those flaws I keep mentioning? They are the flaws of cosmopolitanism, identity politics, and lack of focus on the real revolutionary struggle. Communism seems to have devolved into empty dreams of a planned or gift economy in a globalized and cosmopolitan world of "global citizens". As if the concept of citizenship doesn't imply a sense of nationality! From my experiences at the May Day protests in Detroit, the communist doesn't give a real damn about the working class taking over society aside from a thin veneer. And before the mention of "Workers of the World, Unite!" comes into mind, why doesn't the modern far-left activist look at him or herself when it comes to dividing the working class? Doesn't identity politics divide the working class even more than what they accuse nationalism of? To the modern Communist, the working class can be divided in white and black, men and women, and straight and gay along with a variety of other forms of identity that are created on the fly. Yet, damn the working class for having a national identity instead of being good "global citizens" who enjoy the cosmopolitan culture of the often non-working-class communists. The hypocrisy is downright baffling when they even condemn the revolutions of the past, except the Russian Revolution, to the point of siding with the counter-revolutionaries. The modern communist would rather be a Tory than a Patriot. In this sense, the modern communist isn't even a revolutionary but merely is instead a reformist who is an unwitting lackey of the global capitalist system.

So, Communism is dead and has devolved into something completely different from what it initially was in it's long devolution. But, history can not be paused. There needs to be a revolutionary ideology that would arise from the ashes of communism.

Well, we should look to the ideas that had worked for the revolutionary movement when it was at its strongest. Firstly, the core of these ideas would be a "Republican Liberty" which is well summarized here. It is quite easy to draw the conclusion of wage labor being unjust from this basic premise. Secondly, the revolutionary movement must be as radicalized politically as it is economically, taking the classical republican ideas to their logical conclusion. Direct democracy is the government of a society ruled by the working classes, in which I include any one who labors without employing the labor of others. And, it is the form of government that prevents one individual or group of people from seizing control of society. Of course, such a democracy must not be the baseless democracy often dreamed up, but instead a democracy based on an active and patriotic citizenry. The citizenry must be invested into the nation. The citizenry must be armed to fight for their liberty. Another consequence of this is that confederalism is a must in this system. This is where the idea of recallable, mandated delegates come into play and direct representation. Though, I would prefer if exact blueprints of forms of government be delayed for another discussion. Economically, a mixture of mutualism and syndicalism/guild socialism seems to be the most practical way to bring control of the means of production to the working class and thus prevent the dependent and authoritarian relationship between the capitalist class as masters and the proletarian class as dependents. And, a form of nationalism, mixed with regionalism and localism, based on common citizenship, culture, and territorial history within one's city/town/village, region, and nation would be a mobilizing force for the citizenry. Essentially, mixture of cultural, territorial, and civic nationalism into one entity along with regionalism and localism.

And, I see Cantonalism as the term closest to describing these sorts of ideas.

[mikema63]

Your appeal to nationalism is rather unfortunate and misguided.

The working class is an identity, building a shared consciousness of that identity and organizing it politically is identity politics. When I hear communists complain about identity politics I simply translate it too them complaining that they aren't organizing around the identity they would prefer.

Guild socialism is a form of command economy, mutualism is a more anarchist economic conception. How do you reconcile them?

[Uberak]

Your appeal to nationalism is rather unfortunate and misguided.

The working class is an identity, building a shared consciousness of that identity and organizing it politically is identity politics. When I hear communists complain about identity politics I simply translate it too them complaining that they aren't organizing around the identity they would prefer.

Guild socialism is a form of command economy, mutualism is a more anarchist economic conception. How do you reconcile them?

So, no explanation?

The working class is not an identity. You don't identify as working class out of the blue, and it isn't based on your person in itself like race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's a relationship to the means of production. Now, you can call nationalism a form of identity politics but that is really pushing it. Even then, the distinction would be that forms of identity are more valid.

As for guild socialism and mutualism, I meant that the economy would be a market economy with cooperatives but worker's guilds would be involved in regulations. So, I guess it wouldn't really be guild socialism or traditionally anarchist mutualism.

[Decky]

The working class is not an identity. You don't identify as working class out of the blue, and it isn't based on your person in itself like race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's a relationship to the means of production.

Being working class is an objective reality. Being black or white, gay or straight etc is no different to bickering about what shoe size you are.

[mikema63]

Identity politics is a political style that focuses on the issues relevant to various groups defined by a wide variety of shared characteristics, including, but not limited to, race, social class, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, ideology, nationality, sexual orientation, gender expression, culture, currency, shared history, medical conditions, profession, and other of the many ways in which people differ from each other, and into which they may be classified or classify themselves.

Being a man or a woman isn't a shoe size or some arbitrary distinction, they are real things about ourselves that mean a great deal about our position in society. All these things are not arbitrary and are important. Our relation to the means of production is just one more fact of life that we organize around and has a series of political positions that are necessitated by that relationship within society. It is exactly like how a woman's relationship to the social structure of society necessitates a series of political positions.

[Decky]

So libertarianism, socialism, fluffy bunny social democrat wank, what next Mike? You will need to slow down or you will run out of ideologies.

[Cromwell]

I tried writing out a full, point-by-point, response but I came to the realisation that it was unnecessary as I basically agree with almost everything you've said, and I share your concerns about "the New Left" and the direction it's taken the labour movement in.

Of course, a lot of my own political philosophy comes from Georges Sorel and, as such, my notion of republicanism is, undoubtedly, different to yours; for me, I connect it with the French Revolution and men like Jaques Roux. And, even if I were to think of it in an English sense, I'd have to point out that being a republican in Britain is radical in and of itself (see my signature).

[Uberak]

I tried writing out a full, point-by-point, response but I came to the realisation that it was unnecessary as I basically agree with almost everything you've said, and I share your concerns about "the New Left" and the direction it's taken the labour movement in.

Of course, a lot of my own political philosophy comes from Georges Sorel and, as such, my notion of republicanism is, undoubtedly, different to yours; for me, I connect it with the French Revolution and men like Jaques Roux. And, even if I were to think of it in an English sense, I'd have to point out that being a republican in Britain is radical in and of itself (see my signature).

Actually, the same thing here. I actually take plenty of inspiration, or even most of it, from the French Revolution, especially the more radical elements. The French Revolution's radical elements based their liberty on the conception of liberty I presented or the "Liberty of Ancients" as Benjamin Constant would call it. (Note that I was referring only to the definition of liberty offered in that I link I showed in the opening post. I wasn't agreeing with the entirety of the article.)

So, I guess we are in almost complete agreement here.

Georges Sorel's problem is that he abandoned all belief or support in the ideas of the French Revolution, instead connecting with Early Christianity. I do agree with his warnings about the rise of corporatism and a lot of his ideas. Other issues are his rejection of science and rationalism as a whole, though not his views on the "science" of Marxism or science's role in political affairs, along with his associations with Action Française which ironically aided in creating the very corporatist hybrid of socialism and conservatism that he warned about.

[Cromwell]

Actually, the same thing here. I actually take plenty of inspiration, or even most of it, from the French Revolution, especially the more radical elements. The French Revolution's radical elements based their liberty on the conception of liberty I presented or the "Liberty of Ancients" as Benjamin Constant would call it. (Note that I was referring only to the definition of liberty offered in that I link I showed in the opening post. I wasn't agreeing with the entirety of the article.)

Yes, I shouldn't have been so presumptuous as to, automatically, assume you were talking about radical republicanism in the strictly American sense.

Georges Sorel's problem is that he abandoned all belief or support in the ideas of the French Revolution, instead connecting with Early Christianity. I do agree with his warnings about the rise of corporatism and a lot of his ideas. Other issues are his rejection of science and rationalism as a whole, though not his views on the "science" of Marxism or science's role in political affairs, along with his associations with Action Française which ironically aided in creating the very corporatist hybrid of socialism and conservatism that he warned about.

Well, needless to say, I don't agree with everything he wrote (in fact, such a thing would be quite impossible as his views changed dramatically over time). His latter-day associations were certainly unfortunate, though not necessarily irredeemable; it is quite possible to hold attatchments to some themes of the radical right whilst being, broadly, on the side of progress (I would point to the Montoneros and other left-wing Peronistas as examples).

[Uberak]

Yes, I shouldn't have been so presumptuous as to, automatically, assume you were talking about radical republicanism in the strictly American sense.

Well, needless to say, I don't agree with everything he wrote (in fact, such a thing would be quite impossible as his views changed dramatically over time). His latter-day associations were certainly unfortunate, though not necessarily irredeemable; it is quite possible to hold attatchments to some themes of the radical right whilst being, broadly, on the side of progress (I would point to the Montoneros and other left-wing Peronistas as examples).

True, though Peron was more of a populist with some progressive elements. Sorel aligned himself with often elitist elements such as monarchists and often flip-flopped, supporting positions that he previous opposed. Still, his work does have merit.