Just your average friendly neighbourhood radical.
Will electing an authoritarian promising ethnic clensing and codified class systems to further harm the poor and middle class create a democracy?
Good... I'm glad somebody is willing to admit that we don't actually get to exist within democratic societies. It's a start - it's very difficult to do something about a problem when nobody will even admit to the problem existing.
Voting for the 70% Hitler instead of the 100% Hitler
Fine and dandy - choose the least worst-seeming option. I didn't tell you who to vote for - what I'm telling you is that irregardless of who wins in November, people are going to have to start coming to grips with the fact that "liberal democracy" hasn't turned out to be very democratic. If it did, this mess wouldn't have been able to exist in the first place.
when so many keep getting caught with
prostitutessex workers?FTFY. If you've ever worked for a living, you're a prostitute - just like the rest of us.
conflict with established Leftist theory and history,
Nothing I have said conflicts with leftist theory and history in any way whatsoever. What I have said does conflict with Marxist-Lennist "theory" and "history" - not really sure whether that can be called leftist, though.
Transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to Democratic institutions and councils is the goal and history of Marxism.
Oh... is that what the Bolsheviks were doing? I guess they just happened to hijack the soviets through anti-democratic means purely by accident, then?
and that which validate Class Society in Capitalism
So class society is good as long as it's not capitalist, eh? Do tell - what class do you imagine yourself to be in your idealized, faux-socialist utopia? Let me guess... the class that doesn't have to do all the hard and dangerous work with barely even a smidgen of the labour protection workers in the imperial core get?
More random jabs, childish and unproductive.
No, really, Clyde - where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society?
Care to explain why democratic states that control industry,
The state does not represent the working class.
The state will never represent the working class.
If the state controls the means of production, it means the working class doesn't.
The state will only ever represent the interests of the small elite that control it's apparatus. You know this perfectly well - and you believe yourself entitled to be a member of that elite that are (supposedly) qualified to dictate material conditions to the working class "for it's own good".
Everything you say merely exists to dress up that fact in socialist-sounding discourse designed to hide that you view the working class as little more than something that exists to facilitate your utopian fantasies. I'd say they were utopian fantasies that was doomed to failure - but delivering socialism isn't really the point to you and yours, is it?
You are not just anti-democratic - you are fundamentally anti-socialist.
I don’t see how you plan on achieving any leftist goals
What "leftist goals" can someone who only has loyalty to a technocratic elite have? You are no less classist than the liberals and capitalists - we have no goals in common.
Let me repeat that - me and you have no goals in common.
Why is the state a “nexus of power,”
Why do you need the obvious explained to you? Why do you think Marxist-Leninists want to seize the state? Because it (somehow) isn't the nexus of power? What would be the point of centralized economic, political and social power if there was no organ through which to hegemonically exercise it?
Where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society, Clyde? On my patio, perhaps?
but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
It's perfectly relevant - this has been the proscribed logic of every (so-called) "AES" so far... and none of them has delivered anything that can be called socialism with a straight face.
Cuba is a quick and easy one
The Cuban working class controls nothing. Cuba is not a socialist project - it is a nationalist one, plain and simple. Something isn't "socialist" just because it got help from the USSR. The USSR cared about a lot of things - helping socialism along wasn't one of them. It cared about as much for "spreading socialism" as the US cares about "spreading democracy."
Try again.
You haven’t given a good reason to ally with you either,
I'm not the one whining about "leftist unity" - you are. I see no value in "leftist unity" whatsoever.
I'd laugh... but my country's politics is just as bad.
The only chance for healthcare reform is to preserve democracy.
You can't preserve something you never had to start off with.
Government is not inherently a bad thing.
Again - you are attempting to camouflage the role of the state as a nexus of power... and failing.
You could elaborate on what you mean by “industrialized feudalism,”
No elaboration needed - what did you think happens when the people is enslaved by a class of technocratic elites?
before we get into discussing the successes and failures of AES countries.
We will not be discussing that at all - you will either provide examples of the working class controlling the means of production or you won't.
If leftists were more united
I have yet to hear one good reason to ally with you - not tripping over the anarchist critique of hierarchy at every step might be a good start, though.
Marx didn’t see an issue inherent to hierarchy,
Of course not... the people's boot would never trample on the people, would it?
How exaxtly? Vibes?
Rejecting the idea that industrialized feudalism will, upon repressing and deprivating the working class hard and long enough, somehow lead to socialism isn't "vibes."
Ah, vibes, gotcha.
So you have exceptions to provide, then? Let's hear it.
The descriptor may not have been the best,
And you've had how many years to change that descriptor? Or is it sacrilege to touch Red Jesus' holy writ?
but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation.
Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state's role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure.
A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of "withering" - as you can see for yourself... the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it "withered" in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no "withering" to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no "withering" of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words "communist" or "socialist" in their gold-leaf printed titles.
Sooo...
Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist,
...absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I'd call it downright cynical - but I won't, since I'm not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren't even any "exceptions that prove the rule" around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
Primitive Communism
I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as "primitive" communism just as there is no such thing as a "primitive" - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
and systems like Owenism aren’t the same as modern Socialism
The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn't make "modern" socialism all that unique.
There is no centre - there never was. Not in a "left-vs-right" conception, anyway - there is no such thing as "half-a-socialist" or "half-a-capitalist." You're either for it or you're not.
There is a way of visualizing a "centre," though... if you imagine the status quo as a "centre" (which also signifies institutionalized political, economic and social power) and draw a circle around it, everything inside that circle will be right-wing - everything outside it will be left-wing. This would actually be somewhat more accurate than the silly "political compass" infographics which does more miseducating than anything else.
If you are pro-capitalist you are a right-winger - no ifs, ands or buts. Not "centrist" or "left-of-center."
There is no debate to be had here.
I think you’re confusing what a State is
No. I'm not.
he argued against Anarchism vehemontly.
Yes, I know - and his arguments against anarchism is still just as as hollow as the statists that came after him.
government that uphold class society, ie private property rights.
Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
It’s in this manner that the state “whithers away.”
There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions.
As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
Hey, you have to break eggs to make an omelette - the destroyed lives of hundreds of millions of working-class and colonized peoples is nothing compared to the miracles the "invisible hand" will be delivering any day now!
Also, I wouldn’t say that control by the state is less left-wing
Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist
There is nothing leftist about social democracy - it's warmed-over liberalism that serves no other purpose other than protecting the liberal order from working class revolt. And, like all forms of liberalism, it's proponents will happily hold hands with fascism as soon as it's precious status quo is threatened from below.
Bismarck also didn’t “invent it”;
"Invent" is a strong word, I suppose... but it's a question of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. They both serve the exact same purpose and deliver the exact same result. The truth about this ideology remains the same - it is thoroughly ant-socialist and pro-capitalist... and there is nothing leftist about it except in the minds of those whose brains have been addled by "red scare" and "free market" propaganda.
Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
I'm not really sure about that - I'd say in the US reactionary politics is just far more overt than it is in other places that self-describes (optimistically) as "democracies."
They've been telling us the so-called "invisible hand" will deliver something worthwile for almost 250 years now... so the time must be almost here! I cannot contain my excitement!
Liberal, try to think critically.
Has any of the Dems conveyed to you the plans they have of dealing with the whole "inexorable-slide-to-fascism" problem other than telling you to kick the can four years down the road?
So does Jim Brown and the Weather Underground.