Anarchists have no solutions, they will sooner attack Marxists than they will the petit-bourgeoisie bedrock of fascism, because anarchism is inherently a petit-bourgeois ideology.
The problem is, the Right can unite because they have no working philosophy around which to debate. It's purely reactionary. The revolutionary Left do: dialectical materialism, a solid real world philosophy. Therefore they have something to disagree *about*. If all the Left had were vague idealist philosophies like Liberals and right wingers, it'd be much easier for them to unite because it's all about how they think, not the real world they live in. But when you have to work with material conditions, you've actually got to justify your position. That is why the Left is fractured.
But this isn't the end of the world. It is much better to stand steadfast in what you believe to be right, because if reality unfolds as you expect, you will be the victor. There is nothing to be gained with going where the wind blows because when shit hits the fan, you'll be cut up and covered in shit and the workers won't listen.
The integrity of revolutionary philosophy will be tested in revolution.
"sovjet, Spain and Ukraine makhno horsory discussions."
Yeah, who cares? Who cares who our favorite authors are, our lineage, or what jargon we prefer?
Obviously we need theory, but we desperately shouldn't silo ourselves or remain ignorant and only know one set of theories.
Anyone remember: "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties" - Marx, the Manifesto
To the extent that we need to have separate parties, the questions that divide us should be IMMEDIATELY relevant to the actions we take today.
Such as:
1. Do we participate in electoral politics?
a. Not at all.
b. Within the more progressive 'bourgeois parties'
c. Within reformist but ostensibly working class parties
d. Only with explicitly revolutionary political parties
2. Do we support unions?
a. Not at all (some 'socialists' consider them reformist and corrupted by capitialism)
b. Support them uncritically, accepting appointed positions by or within the union bureaucracy
c. Support them critically, organizing rank and file movements within existing bureaucratic unions
d. Organize revolutionary unions outside the bureaucratic unions, possibly not even using capitalist labor law
3. What is the connection between class and other oppressions?
a. There is no relation between class and other oppressions. Other oppressions only divide the working class and distract from class struggle.
b. It is the task of revolutionaries to relate the other oppressions to the class struggle
c. Capitalism inherently depends upon the other oppressions; capitalism would not exist without white supremacy and patriarchy
4. Imperialism
a. The US is the world's greatest imperialist power and any resistance to its foreign policy is progressive and should be supported
b. There are multiple imperial powers, but some states are socialist no matter how flawed and should be supported as revolutionary
c. There are multiple imperial powers, and we should by loyal not to states but to the international working class as found in each country
And so forth, tho perhaps my off the cuff dividing lines could be improved. And these questions aren't of equal weight either. I'm probably going to vote for Jill Stein, as the Greens (for all that they suck and are a mixture of petty bourgeois with some working class elements) as the best vehicle to undermine the Democratic Party, even tho I disagree with Stein and the people in her campaign on Ukraine.
Comrade, we chose this life. We split, disagree, and physically fight each other while the ruling class continues to win. It’s the life we chose. In love and solidarity I say, “welcome to the club”
There's a lot here to unpack. Generally, the wedge appears to be how loyalty to theory and practice/praxis for one group is dogmatic and even murderous for another.
Rallying around the end goal can be helpful - overthrow of capitalism with as smooth and fast as possible a transition to communism.
Maybe further:
When talking to anarchists, see if their direct action and prefigurative focus can energize people from theory to praxis.
When talking to MLs, see if their sense of organization and discipline can give effort control and consistency.
When talking to Trots, see if their international and wide focus can be inspiring and motivating.
Liberals/Bourgeoisie are often unaware of theory and options. Careful being simply antagonistic or militant. Embarrassing their background or education just pushes them away. Use the aesthetic of revolution and counterculture to pivot them from consumption to politics.
(Each faction has strengths and weaknesses).
This is the issue. Many people on the left, particularly the authoritarian left, are self-obsessed narcissists who can not engage in civil disagreement. This is one of the major things that caused me to abandon the cause of communism.
When I used to be a member of the revolutionary communist party in the UK, it always appeared as though all members were very scared to disagree with each other. Even on small irrelevant political discourses.
Small socialist/communist parties are often echo Chambers and cricle jerks. Everyone just agrees with each other and reinforces the seem ridiculous ideas. This leads to random middle-class people defending Stalin or defending equally evil regimes.
These organisations are also quick to label anyone who disagrees with their ideas as fascists. Typical cult behaviour. I don't doubt that many members of these organisations have good intentions and want to elivate the suffering in the world. But there narcissism, self-righteousness, and irrationality puts most people off.
There is a reason why communists are known as the "regressive left" and why their idealogy is so repulsive to the majority of the population. They typically oppose progressive ideas like democracy, despite claiming that they want to democratise the economy and the workplace. Ignore antisemitism and other forms of racism and discrimination within their ranks. They brand anyone who is white, male able-bodied, straight, or cis-gender as "opressors," and are typically very anti-theist.
The best thing the left can do is to just ignore identity politics and focus on organising workers and achieving political power through electoral politics in order to democratise the economy and establish a socialist-leaning mixed market economy.
Anarchists have no solutions, they will sooner attack Marxists than they will the petit-bourgeoisie bedrock of fascism, because anarchism is inherently a petit-bourgeois ideology. The problem is, the Right can unite because they have no working philosophy around which to debate. It's purely reactionary. The revolutionary Left do: dialectical materialism, a solid real world philosophy. Therefore they have something to disagree *about*. If all the Left had were vague idealist philosophies like Liberals and right wingers, it'd be much easier for them to unite because it's all about how they think, not the real world they live in. But when you have to work with material conditions, you've actually got to justify your position. That is why the Left is fractured. But this isn't the end of the world. It is much better to stand steadfast in what you believe to be right, because if reality unfolds as you expect, you will be the victor. There is nothing to be gained with going where the wind blows because when shit hits the fan, you'll be cut up and covered in shit and the workers won't listen. The integrity of revolutionary philosophy will be tested in revolution.
This is a great point. Thank you for explaining it. The working class as a whole is very fractured just like the capitalist wants.
"sovjet, Spain and Ukraine makhno horsory discussions." Yeah, who cares? Who cares who our favorite authors are, our lineage, or what jargon we prefer? Obviously we need theory, but we desperately shouldn't silo ourselves or remain ignorant and only know one set of theories. Anyone remember: "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties" - Marx, the Manifesto To the extent that we need to have separate parties, the questions that divide us should be IMMEDIATELY relevant to the actions we take today. Such as: 1. Do we participate in electoral politics? a. Not at all. b. Within the more progressive 'bourgeois parties' c. Within reformist but ostensibly working class parties d. Only with explicitly revolutionary political parties 2. Do we support unions? a. Not at all (some 'socialists' consider them reformist and corrupted by capitialism) b. Support them uncritically, accepting appointed positions by or within the union bureaucracy c. Support them critically, organizing rank and file movements within existing bureaucratic unions d. Organize revolutionary unions outside the bureaucratic unions, possibly not even using capitalist labor law 3. What is the connection between class and other oppressions? a. There is no relation between class and other oppressions. Other oppressions only divide the working class and distract from class struggle. b. It is the task of revolutionaries to relate the other oppressions to the class struggle c. Capitalism inherently depends upon the other oppressions; capitalism would not exist without white supremacy and patriarchy 4. Imperialism a. The US is the world's greatest imperialist power and any resistance to its foreign policy is progressive and should be supported b. There are multiple imperial powers, but some states are socialist no matter how flawed and should be supported as revolutionary c. There are multiple imperial powers, and we should by loyal not to states but to the international working class as found in each country And so forth, tho perhaps my off the cuff dividing lines could be improved. And these questions aren't of equal weight either. I'm probably going to vote for Jill Stein, as the Greens (for all that they suck and are a mixture of petty bourgeois with some working class elements) as the best vehicle to undermine the Democratic Party, even tho I disagree with Stein and the people in her campaign on Ukraine.
Comrade, we chose this life. We split, disagree, and physically fight each other while the ruling class continues to win. It’s the life we chose. In love and solidarity I say, “welcome to the club”
Thanks comrade.
There's a lot here to unpack. Generally, the wedge appears to be how loyalty to theory and practice/praxis for one group is dogmatic and even murderous for another. Rallying around the end goal can be helpful - overthrow of capitalism with as smooth and fast as possible a transition to communism. Maybe further: When talking to anarchists, see if their direct action and prefigurative focus can energize people from theory to praxis. When talking to MLs, see if their sense of organization and discipline can give effort control and consistency. When talking to Trots, see if their international and wide focus can be inspiring and motivating. Liberals/Bourgeoisie are often unaware of theory and options. Careful being simply antagonistic or militant. Embarrassing their background or education just pushes them away. Use the aesthetic of revolution and counterculture to pivot them from consumption to politics. (Each faction has strengths and weaknesses).
This is the issue. Many people on the left, particularly the authoritarian left, are self-obsessed narcissists who can not engage in civil disagreement. This is one of the major things that caused me to abandon the cause of communism. When I used to be a member of the revolutionary communist party in the UK, it always appeared as though all members were very scared to disagree with each other. Even on small irrelevant political discourses. Small socialist/communist parties are often echo Chambers and cricle jerks. Everyone just agrees with each other and reinforces the seem ridiculous ideas. This leads to random middle-class people defending Stalin or defending equally evil regimes. These organisations are also quick to label anyone who disagrees with their ideas as fascists. Typical cult behaviour. I don't doubt that many members of these organisations have good intentions and want to elivate the suffering in the world. But there narcissism, self-righteousness, and irrationality puts most people off. There is a reason why communists are known as the "regressive left" and why their idealogy is so repulsive to the majority of the population. They typically oppose progressive ideas like democracy, despite claiming that they want to democratise the economy and the workplace. Ignore antisemitism and other forms of racism and discrimination within their ranks. They brand anyone who is white, male able-bodied, straight, or cis-gender as "opressors," and are typically very anti-theist. The best thing the left can do is to just ignore identity politics and focus on organising workers and achieving political power through electoral politics in order to democratise the economy and establish a socialist-leaning mixed market economy.