Even if a communist can colloquially describe themselves as being on the left, there’s a distinction between communism and “the left.” This is implied right in the title of Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Whereas the left, a big tent term for a myriad of incompatible ideologies, aims merely to act as an opposition towards the present order for the sake of it, communists have a coherent vision for how to defeat the system: by advancing history’s development to the next stage. The left, because of its lack of commitment to that central Marxist goal, naturally takes on an opportunistic role. Because when you want only to build a movement as an end in itself, rather than use this movement as a means for defeating the system, you become nothing more than an actor who benefits from discontent without helping solve the problems behind that discontent.

This will probably be one of Rainer’s most controversial articles to date.

  • @freagleEnglish
    -1•11 months ago

    Why would I expand my knowledge outward when you have not satisfied the rudimentary?

    I mean, this all that needs to be said, isn’t it? There has been so much scholarship on this topic. So much written. So much conflict in the CPUSA on this topic that eventually led them to full on revisionism. And yet, you won’t read Haywood, Crenshaw, Fanon, Freire, Tuck and Yang, Newton, X, because I personally haven’t managed to get through your rhetorical smokescreen?

    Why would you expand your knowledge? Because you claim to be a Marxist. What you demonstrate, however, is that you are a chauvinist.

    a nation is not a race and so it is not liberalism to advocate they govern. Yes, this makes sense, we must simply train them in Marxism.

    This is chauvinism.

    I am white however I have seen racism first hand with friends and family. You misjudge me.

    I mean, I don’t know what to say anymore. I have clearly stated that racism is not what your friends and family do, that it is a super structural system, and you make noises with your rhetoric to pretend like you understand what I’m saying. And then you say this? I mean, at this point I just walk away.

    • @Lemmy_MouseEnglish
      0•11 months ago

      “you won’t read Haywood, Crenshaw, Fanon, Freire, Tuck and Yang, Newton, X, because I personally haven’t managed to get through your rhetorical smokescreen?”

      Correct, but fret not, I am likely to come across their works in my own studies regardless, and so if there is such merit in these works my theory will improve and reflect this merit in time.

      “This is chauvinism.” Chauvinism is placing one’s nation or social group above anothers on false pretenses and the implications that follows it. Discussing nations in terms of their differentiating characteristics and the sovereign importance of this when speaking on Lenin’s point of national self determination in relation to the tribal nations and America is not chauvinism.

      " I mean, at this point I just walk away."

      I believe this is best. We do not seem to be moving in a direction of mutually beneficial resolution…unless perhaps one considers the notion to save us both the headache the other seems to be causing.