If the concept of “Pan-Leftism” isn’t in some way COINTELPRO, I would be very strongly surprised.
Everywhere it’s enforced becomes nothing more than a liberal echo chamber, wherein discussions that inconvenience liberal ideology or biases get shut down. Thus continually drifting the talking point of the group towards the comfort zone of left-liberals.
Who are these left-liberals who benefit so strongly from Pan-Leftism? To put it bluntly, Anarchists, Social-Democrats, Trotskyists, and all other counter-revolutionary lifestylists. These are the groups that dominate discussions in these spheres, these are the people who get the final say on important issues. When Marxists get established in these communities, they get pushed out by the left-liberals. Often on illegitimate grounds, with strawman arguments and vast misunderstandings on Marxist stances.
Supposed “comrades” are, currently, fully backing the western propaganda out of Poland about Russia “”“targetting”“” Poland with a missile. These same supposed “comrades” refuse to acknowledge that backing Ukraine demands the defence of Nazism. They further believe defending Russia, China, the DPRK, or any other enemy of western imperialism means you’re “anti-freedom”, or otherwise against democracy.
When people of differing viewpoints assemble together, the ones with the most to lose from revolutionary speech are the ones who have the loudest voices. This is inherent, aside from having a revolutionary vanguard to purge counter-revolutionaries there is no way around it. When anti-capitalists gather, the ones who benefit the most from the discussion are those who are the most disenfranchised by the capitalist system. Such as minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, and so-on. “Pan-Leftism” inherently silences these voices, simply because allowing them to speak threatens the privileged straight whites who do not truly want a fair world, but would rather have a world that treats specifically them better. It should be no surprise that when Cuba abolished the nuclear family, these communities hardly even talked about it. And those who did controlled the narrative to either delegitimize the great victory for minority rights, or to delegitimize Cuba as being a communist state. (I.E. saying Cuba is liberalizing). Nor should it be a surprise that these communities often celebrate Rojava, but rarely mentioned the Donbas until the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Further, it shouldn’t be a surprise that talk of the Donbas is mostly oriented towards calling it a “Russian satellite”, rather than a revolutionary struggle against the genocide of their people.
Pan-Leftism, if it can even be called that if they exclude Marxists so easily, is a scourge on the western left that must be opposed where found. There are many roadblocks in the west in the struggle towards revolution, this is one of them. As long as new leftists flock to pan-leftist communities while they’re learning the ropes of revolution, they will be tainted by counter-revolutionary talking points with no means of understanding why these talking points should be avoided.
This is a great question. IMO it depends. I prefer to be around people that are jaded by partisan politics instead of entrenched in it.
However, some people have developed ideas and are not merely deconstructing capitalism or liberal partisonship. These people are usually more entrenched in their ways, seeking to empower their agenda more than discovering a path forward. (Or are adventurists, valor seekers, or virtue signalers)
There is also the problem of having a viable process of history that can bring revolution. Many leftist traditions are actually the products of liberalism, colonialism, or anti communism, so expecting people entrenched in these traditions to be effective anti colonial revolutionaries is actually a tough ask. Thist forces us to rethink the lines of “our side” and after deconstructing our ideas of the political spectrum we might find it doesn’t serve socialist construction or anti colonial resistance to keep our lines too open for those who are actually against us despite the assertion and rhetoric that we have similar goals.
I understand. Some kinds of people can be more of a burden for the revolutionary movement, rather than help bring it to fruition. But do you think it is viable to eventually convert them to a favorable ideology?
The issue with the logic of “converting” people on the western left is that as people learn about leftism, their sources lean away from our viewpoint. Thus enrooting anti-communism within the core of their views. If we want people to come around to our view, they either have to get here on their own or we have to get to them before the counter-revolutionary left can.
With the existence and popularity of “pan-leftism” the latter is virtually impossible at scale. There is no “converting”, only screaming at a screen in the hopes that one person out of 100 listens. And in the communities where anti-communists hold the power, there is no “converting” because our voices are actively removed.
In most cases, it doesn’t matter how many times you explain the living conditions of the USSR or debunk anti-communist propaganda. Western leftists would rather death-grip onto anti-communism than ever budge an inch to a “tankie”. Those who end up on that side of the left are essentially forced to educate themselves and radicalize out of the tarpit of “pan-leftism”.
edit; an additional point to “educate themselves”
Often those who fail to leave said tarpit end up going so deep into it that they make their anti-communism a concrete part of the ideals. This has the effect of either making them a permanent anti-communist anti-capitalist (better known as an individual who knows what is needed but refuses to do anything to achieve it), or they leave anti-capitalist ideology and drift back to the right wing. The former often taking the monicker of “post-leftist”, and the latter often being referred to as “social-democrats” in the best case, or altogether falling into Fascist ideology blocks (as anti-authoritarianism in the US is deeply rooted in the Nazi movement. If you are anti-authoritarian but not anti-capitalist the likelihood is very high that you’ll spend time in Free-Market Libertarian spaces - an ideology that took the hatred of the American Nazi movement, but removed the desire for a strong government). “Pan-Leftism” can, effectively, function as a pipeline for young people to have their valid anger distorted against them, pushing them back into supporting the system that created the things they radicalized into the left in the first place.
You can not convince these people to read Marx unless they choose to, because these spaces are filled with people telling them to read anti-Marxists, or worse telling them that reading is “ableist” and therefore not something they should do. You can not convert from Pan-Leftist spaces, at best you can only hope to find people who want to know about the things those spaces refuse to talk about honestly, and help them radicalize.
Are these only online spaces you say its near impossible to reason with them? Cause in my school ive been making headway with at least a good amount of agitation and debunking. Asking to see if its an in person thing, or if i am figuring out a method for radicalization and should probably keep doing that, lol.
Yeah, good explanation, thanks a lot. I guess if we need to convince anybody, that won’t be pan-leftists for sure. I just don’t take into account the amount of resistance to change they would offer.
You’re thinking of things in individual terms. You as a single person will never accomplish anything significant. May sound harsh, but it’s true. So the question really is what should the direction of a vanguard be? In that case, the party will have limited resources that need to be used as efficiently as possible. The party should not be wasting resources on fellow travelers.
That’s reasonable… Even if I can bring 3 new members, there’s no guarantee other people will do the same, so that’s still just 3 members. Do you think we marxists should focus on mass media, informative pamphlets, etc.?
Mass media is everything in the 21st century. If marxists aren’t using mass media, you can be certain that the enemies of marxism are making great use of it. But even in this case, the party is important, otherwise there is just a diaspora of different messages being put out there that contradict and nullify each other.
You are right, being united for a common good requires organization. But idk, I see there are usually multiple socialist parties/organizations in most areas here. I feel like a lot of effort is wasted fighting against each other rather than actually working together. Have you experienced something similar?
“Socialist” is a broad term. Friedrich Engels identified socialisms such as “bourgeois socialism” and “reactionary socialism.” You could take the Great Reset plan to redistribute wealth as a kind of bourgeois socialism. I think it is worth fighting these ideologies first to draw a distinction between them and a real worker’s socialism, and then to frustrate their agenda if possible.
Lenin says “Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.”
Thank you. This was really helpful.
Not sure. It probably depends on the person, their experiences, and their willingness and capacity to unpack their own moral compass, culture, class interests etc.
It certainly can happen, but at some point we must recognize that not everyone thinks the strategic goals of Marxism-Leninism or anti colonial resistance align with their own strategic goals. Sometimes this is for reasons we may find interesting and constructive to our cause. Other times they may only motivated by moral purity, local or self interests, chuavanism, or perhaps something else.
Interesting, I have seen this phenomenon often, but hadn’t actually thought about it until now. Well, I should probably do some research on this.