I was an anarchist for a huge part of my life (most of my teenage years) and kinda began to get more connected with M-L and stuff like that, and I would call myself a marxist. Yet, everytime I talk with other leftist I either get called a tankie or an anarkiddie. If I recommend Das Kapital, I’m a state bootlicker or a left wing fascist. If I talk about how I prefer direct democracy but know that the process to communism is slow and needs some help of a state, I get called an anarkiddie. Anyway, I just find exhausting the infighting. I already struggle a lot with mental health just to be poorly treated by other people that, supposedly, want the same as all of us. Anyway you guys in lemmygrad have been always so nice, thanks btw. Have a nice week and thanks for reading my small rant.

  • miz
    25•4 months ago

    The mass popular election of the supreme executive of a nation is a ritual so deeply ingrained in the western psyche that it is possible that any kind of Socialism with Western Characteristics will simply opt to maintain it indefinitely. We should, however, understand that under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is simply a pressure valve for discontent. Figures around the globe that have advanced against Capital while playing completely by the constricting rules of electoral democracy have all quickly found that Capital will soon abandon pretense and move against them in a gangster fashion when able. Some examples that illustrate this pattern are Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Salvador Allende, Olof Palme, Enrico Mattei, and Mohammad Mosaddegh.

    In addition to open gangsterism, we can also observe the steady erosion of the ability of any of these venerable political institutions to challenge Capital. Consider term limits. The US Constitution was amended to enforce term limits in direct response to FDR’s popular 12-year presidency (he died in office, going on for 16). As a policy, it is self-evidently quite anti-democratic (robbing the people of a choice), but nevertheless it has been conceptually naturalized to the extent that the 2019 coup against Evo Morales was premised explicitly on the idea that repeated popular electoral victories constituted a form of dictatorship. If rotation was important to avoid corruption or complacency, corporations and supreme courts would institute term limits too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes a rebellious political executive, they won’t be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporate vehicles manned by CEOs with decades of experience. Wolfgang Schäuble, a powerful advocate of austerity policy in Europe, succinctly summarized the extent to which electoral democracy is subordinate: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.” One Party States and Democratic Centralism are not the result of lack of sophistication or cronyism, they are a proven bulwark that acknowledges that political power will often need to be exerted against the will of Capital, and so the wielders of said power must necessarily undergo a much more serious vetting process than a popularity contest.

    from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/