It seems most cross tendency engagement devolves in to fights between leftcoms/anarchists vs AES supporters or “Dengists” vs Maoists. Anyone can point at each other and say “they started it” and avoid responsibilities. We agree on 90% of stuff but Anarchists decide to randomly call us tankies and we feel the need to defend ourselves or else look like we lost without an argument. Likewise we make memes about Anarkiddies and write texts denouncing them and they feel the same. Among scientific socialists we see China as an ally and an example to learn from while Maoists want to call out “revisionism.” There seems to be a contradiction between the history of different socialist experiments and disagreements not really mattering to our own conditions and those experiments also being vital learning experiences for us.
It’s strange to think about how we pretty much agree with Patsocs on more than almost any other tendency yet they are almost useless because they don’t understand the basic dialectical method and why have our positions beyond aesthetics and thus cannot understand the basic material conditions of this country.
We can keep trying to bring more people into our own sects and hope they do work for our own type of socialism irl, but if we’re so divided how can this happen. Of course we should all just log off and do things irl, but then some will fall into the trap of either larping or just helping their own friends without the wider goal of revolution.
We all need to remember that the feds let us speak because we spend all our time bickering. How can we unify as a revolutionary left? There are projects irl for trying to find unity as scientific socialists like ChunkaLuta, but it would be nice to be able to do the same online. In a way I’m just wishing everyone could just listen to revleft and everything could work out, but what can Lemmygrad and hexbear do for this vision?
I really believe the concept of “left unity” is part of the fed disruption of the left.
Anarchism and Marxism are diametrically opposed. There’s no realistic way to have the two peacefully coexisting, especially in the context of pre-revolution organizing.
The idea that we have to work together, and we have to join the same orgs and play nice with each other is part of the reason we’re always bickering.
The only thing we consistently agree on is the concept of anti-capitalism. Anarchists will gladly back fascist states and projects, liberal politicians and policies, anti-communist rhetoric and theory, etc. They’re not anti-fascist as a whole, they’re not anti-liberal as a whole, and they’re far more sectarian than we are. So how are we supposed to fight against any of those things when our supposed “sister ideology” will willingly work against the movement? We can’t.
The Anarchists will fracture parties, they’ll stall projects, they’ll hijack movements, all the while pretending to be the ones who’re being worked against. There’s no working with people like that, the idea that we have to is rediculous.
Instead, we need unity within Marxism. Namely within serious Marxism, so I’m not talking about leftcoms or patsocs, or any of the various groups that only serve as a means of legitimizing larping. I’m talking about actual Marxist parties and organizations. As long as groups can agree that anti-communist propaganda has no place in serious discussions, and that we have aligning goals, there’s a means of cooperating with them. That’s simply impossible with Anarchists and the soft left, but can be done with people who are serious about Marxist revolution.
In terms of the internet, Lemmygrad and Hexbear are a decent example of Marxist unity. However, cooperation between two Reddit replacements in a sphere of the internet that the average person never goes to doesn’t really do much. We need Marxist groups from across the net to come together, to maximize exposure. And we need to establish a means of communication across all of the platforms. I don’t know how realistic this concept is, but anything short of it leaves us in the situation we’ve been in. Just a bunch of blinded chickens, running around in the hopes of finding a single crumb of grain. Many unconnected parts, attempting to lead society towards a revolution that can’t come, because we’re unable to work together.
TLDR; Anarchists suck, tell your Marxist friends about Lemmygrad & Hexbear.
I’ve met reasonable anarchists, though. I don’t think we should waste our time on those who complain about tankies or any tiny authority, but they aren’t all bad. Anyway, my question wasn’t mostly about that, but with Maoists. We agree with them on pretty much everything except current day China. We are natural allies, yet when I was listening to Politics in Command when they interviewed a Maoist student group it sounded like their main priority was to convince people who found Marxism from Genzedong or Hasan that China was revisionist and they shouldn’t listen to us.
I have Anarchist friends who are surprisingly good about actually understanding propaganda, and simply disagree with philosophical concepts that Marxists uphold, and those Anarchos deserve their place among our ranks. I can respect some Anarchists, but they’re a minute minority in a sea of dogmatic anti-communists.
On Maoists, though. Working with them is impossible because they’re purposefully against AES. Which should say quite a bit about what their actual beliefs are. And why the distinction between Maoists (see: larpers) and ML-Mao Zedong Thought (see: actual comrades) is so important.
Maoists don’t actually agree with Mao’s theories, or the history that Mao himself put into motion. They care about the abstract notion that Mao was the last great revolutionary until the founder of Maoism came around (I.E. Abimael Guzmán, aka Comrade Gonzalo). Modern China, to them, stopped being communist shortly after Mao left power. Some argue it was before Deng, and some argue after.
Maoism, in the most blunt terms, is the South American form of Patriotic Socialism. Gonzalo and his goons used the aesthetic of Marxism-Leninism to get into the hearts of workers, then used their power to push reactionary policies. One of which being the murder of natives. This legacy remains, as every Maoist organization is ultimately a proto-fascist one at heart. Like, for instance, the Austin Red Guards. Who operated similarly to a cult, utilizing abusive practices against “unsatisfactory” members. They began as a somewhat based group, hosting events for the LGBTQIA+ community, but evolved into an anti-LGBTQIA+ and anti-BLM movement, that accusedly planned and launched a physical assault on Austin’s PSL wing.
Maoists aren’t our comrades, they’re grifters looking for authority.
This part is an addendum, not to QueerCommie but to anyone who’s read this and thought something along the lines of “I identify myself with Maoism, but I don’t mirror the beliefs described”. You’re likely ML-MZT, and the western left’s love of making things confusing got’cha. It’s not a big deal if this is something you’ve just not realized, but ML-MZT is the actual following of Mao’s writings and the politics of modern China.
I understand this and I’m not trying to appeal to Gonzalists, but how do we find more unity with principled MZT and other relatively principled non-ML tendencies? Not everyone’s going to think China’s socialist and they don’t need to. Is this not more “I’m the most pure leftist unlike you ultras and revisionists?”
All of the principled Marxists are already working with us, though mostly IRL.
Many people here on both LG and HexBear don’t identify their ideology with Lenin’s theories, but they’re already here civilly engaging with us. There is already unity between us, for as far as matters.
What matters more, imo, is educating new leftists on the ideology groups that seek to destabilize the left so they don’t fall into their traps.
So basically we just need to get more non-terminally online people to work with us. Get terminally online people to actually do the work. And get more unity and general strategy among principled real organizations.
more or less yeah, at least in my view.
other views on the topic are valid as hell, but the way I see it the people who’re doing the most to harm the left aren’t people who actually do anything progressive (in terms of progressing movements). Those people are also, without fail, the ones who are the most ready to fight against our unity. Those who want to see a brighter future, and have put in the work to understand theory and the way propaganda works, are already working with us. So it’s less about changing the minds of those already against us, and more about keeping those groups from talking over us.
Sure, we try to out propagandize other tendencies and deviations. I notice another contradiction, though. If we are trying to draw those who aren’t already against us into our ranks then many of those people will be “apolitical” or only mildly interested, considering many with a great interest in politics (in the west) have dived into anti-communist lore. The most politically active may be already against us while those intactive may not “activate.” I guess we shouldn’t be arguing with the most committed online anticoms at the least. Maybe the best target is disaffected liberals irl.
Maoists are really just “red anarchists”, adopting the failed tactics and organizing strategies of anarchists, while basing their entire ideology on opposition to socialist states, also like anarchists.
You have to look past what these groups call themselves, and not judge a book by its cover.
Similarly, patsocs call themselves marxists, while completely whitewashing western colonialism and indigenous genocide.
Marx, Engels and Lenin all stated in different forms, that what we need is unity among Marxists, not with anarchists and the distorters of Marxism (such as maoists).
Also a reminder that anarchism is not a socialist ideology.
Didn’t Maoist Paul try to convince anarchists to become Maoists by saying they’re basically the same and neither support AES?
I believe so, but I don’t watch too much youtube so I’m not sure.
spoiler
I used to be an absolute ardent supporter of Left Unity.
However, every passing day I see less and less in common between MLs and anarchists/leftcoms/socdems/etc.
Yes, I do think many of us share some core values: wanting to help the oppressed. But the way they fundamentally see the world, their priorities, their methodology, the narrative they are deeply invested into, the very fabric of how they think, is so radically different that they are functionally liberals to me, which is to say, are functionally fascists…they are playthings of the CIA with one purpose, catching those who fall from grace before they land in the mystical land of Actually Revolutionary Politics.
This is how I see, for example, “anarchism” more than how I see individual anarchists. Individually, I know many non-MLs who are very bright and have good hearts, we have several here on Lemmygrad. The key issue with many is simply that they have been dogmatically indoctrinated into a cult, it is that simple to me. I absolutely want to deradicalize and reeducate as many as possible…and I would say the same thing about the massive swathe of apolitical people, as well as liberals, conservatives, and fascists. Among each of these spheres, I regularly see redeemable, grossly misled people.
However, I am increasingly of the opinion that it will be easier to radicalize someone who is simply poor, much faster than it will be to radicalize all the near-Left red herrings, despite them seemingly being so much closer to us politically already. A vast number seem to be those whose indoctrination into the Compatible Left has made them violently allergic to anything even remotely associated with AES. Most times (definitely not all times!), when I try to talk to an anarchist/leftcom/socdem/etc., I am talking to someone who is oozing self-assured, contemptuous smugness, born and raised within the white petit bourgeois mentality. When I talk to poorer, less white, less suburban, more apolitical, less terminally online people, who I would describe as “center right” politically, these people actually seem (again on average) more inclined to listen in good-ish faith. Their class character certainly makes them predispositioned to believe that America is a thoroughbred liar, that food and housing are uptmost signs of a just society, etc.
Lately, when I sit and scheme or socially experiment IRL with radicalization techniques and strategies, I am much less focused lately on other “leftists” and much more focused on the apolitical poor. I’ve had much better luck that way, even though a core characteristic of apolitical people is them being, well, not that deeply interested in politics.
That said, I don’t think Left Unity is a total waste, I think there are multiple fronts to this war that all are in dire need of attention. I think I am also just very cynical from my personal experience; it’s gotten to the point that I cannot stand to be around hardly any “alternative” folk here as I regard them all as spoiled hipsters. I have a history of being bullied by such people, and I recognize my very personal hatred towards them may be clouding my rationality.
I like this perspective. These “leftists” are not to be unified with, but are pretty much more liberals to be brought to our side, and more difficult ones at that. This reminded me of how my conservative mostly “apolitical” “middle class” grandma was far more receptive than my insane anarchist aunt who thinks she literally knows everything (the income thing is flipped, but the point about “left” is still there). The annoying part is how “apolitical” people don’t want to talk about politics while those who do are harder to convince.
No unity with the distorters of Marxism. Down with them.
Feds don’t give a fuck about you having anti-capitalist thoughts or feelings. They care about real threats. Ergo it is in their direct interest and past playbooks to divert people down false paths, into Maoism, into Anarchism, into Trotskyism, even into Pat-Soc-ism. All of these are effectively anti-communists with a veneer or being progressive and anti-capitalist. It allows them to put wolves in sheep’s clothing among the workers to wreck, divert, instigate and direct most people back to supporting or being ambivalent about US imperialism and policy and being therefore ineffective at addressing capitalism or weakening it.
My problem is how do we know we’re correct? This is the same framing the Gonzalists have “we have to destroy all the revisionists.” Doesn’t every tendency think they are the most correct? Sure I’m pretty certain ML is correct but wouldn’t a trot think they’re correct in the same way? Why are we so arrogant that we know everything? In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave Socrates says the one who escaped the cave would recognize the light as truth and the sun as it’s source, but what if the people who see only shadows feel just as certain?
we certainly shouldn’t believe that all our views are “correct”, but when you come across a person who claims to be a Marxist yet denounces all AES states with vague reasoning (especially China due to its immense importance), they’re not ready for cooperation on anything but domestic issues – they’re “Marxists” at home but liberals when it comes to foreign policy, and they need to be educated
I get that. Should we not try to work with them while trying to educate them more? I’m just wary of saying “we are 100% correct and we shouldn’t even care to work with anyone who differs from us.”
if it’s for a local issue, absolutely; someone who’s actually organizing is presumably serious about improving conditions at home, and I think they’ll be more likely to be open to good-faith discussion on AES countries
A pretty easy indicator here is that maoists foreign policy is indistinguishable from US imperialists, anarchists, ultralefts, western socdems, liberals… a complete denunciation of all AES states, from Cuba, to China, to the DPRK.
Maoists clearly fall into the camp of distorters of Marxism, as described by Engels and Lenin.
Frankly if we’re talking about the western continents, it’s because nobody has seriously studied the history and conditions of the land underneath their feet. PatSocs are superficially “close” to the Communists here because they do zero investigation of the internal structures of the continent, and view outward facing Imperialism from the Americans as an obstacle to “American Socialism”. So like many of the other parties in the US, they focus on protesting foreign intervention.
Hot take, the other parties are pretty much the same. Where they differ is that PatSocs dream of a great assimilation into American so-called culture, so subjugation of Black and Indigenous peoples is a focal point, and it’s why they are willing to work with the right opportunistically. The other parties expect to take full control of the leftovers of America, but with “respecting treaties” and giving “self-determination” and the ability to “secede”, secede from what tho? If the PatSocs are settler-chauvinists then this is settler-blindness. PatSocs succeed in grifting because the other parties have yet to put out real theories on how to destroy the empire from within, so they just appeal to the American (or Canadian, Mexican) chauvinist extremes.
In ML terms the settlers are not the subject of revolution. National Liberation for the prisons of nations beneath the Empire is primary. Policing, enclosure, ecological exploitation. Spontaneity from the colonized masses and even Anarchists is focused at the symptoms of settler-colonialism, and until Communists study their conditions and give direction to these people we can only alienate and frustrate them when telling them to vote or show up to a protest at city hall. It’s extremely frustrating for Natives when they ask for solidarity from settlers against megacorps looting their lands only for the unions to back the corps for jobs and then for Communists to agitate about unionization and maybe a “land acknowledgement”.
Communists need to connect with the workers being gentrified out of their homes, connect with the Natives of their locales, unite these struggles, that’s the unity. What we think about China is a discussion to be had in a party that comes together to liberate the colonized nations. Settler-chauvinism, and setter-blindness (I also like “Left-PatSoc”) are the deal-breakers for unity.
National Chauvinism, Capitalism, and Patriarchy make up Colonialism. Gender based oppression in most places is directly rooted in Colonialism. Decolonization means attacking all fronts meaning we cannot negotiate with chauvinists, opportunists, and sexists (whether male chauvinist, TERF, NB-phobic, homophobic, etc.).
One other thing I’d like to add because I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet:
One of the main aims of imperial-core organizing should be to build a strong anti-war movement. A major focus of the US/western propaganda machine is to spends tons of resources manipulating public opinion to build support for its current and future wars.
Where do anarchists and Maoists stand on two of the west’s current primary enemies, Russia and China? Near-complete support for war on the basis of western chauvinism. Hell, If you check armed anarchist-dominated online spaces (such as /r/SRA), they’re all ready to join the US army to fight Russia.
Clearly US propagandists have gotten a return on their investment, and scored a major propaganda win, by turning the western anarchist movement (who were mildly anti-war during the bush era), into western crusaders for NATO.
Maoists (and liberals duped by western propaganda into thinking china is killing muslims just like their own countries are doing) also are serving the same role, but for the other US target: China.
An anti-war movement can only harm itself by opportunistically trying to “unite” with pro-war western chauvinists.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin were all pretty smart, and it should be noted that they all railed against Anarchism, and left-unity compromisers. Read through their arguments to learn why they did so.
You will need
- a collective leadership,
- physical base of operations,
- to do work IRL that benefits the exploited, and
- propaganda/publicity (neutral term) to attract members or supporters.
I imagine most groups online cover point 4, but lack all the rest.
Point 1: There will be no “real” unity without a single voice of authority, unless you want anarchist ways of organization.
Point 2: Building tangible things IRL is necessary as humans are not digital lifeforms.
Point 3: If there’s nothing to show beneath all the talk, then there isn’t any reason for people to support you.
Point 4: This one everyone probably understands.
I’d crosspost to !askchapo@hexbear.net too to see what Hexbear’s perspective is on this, since they’re supposed to be more of such a “left unity” space
Already on hexbear , I wasn’t sure which community to post in.
Here’s my position at this point: Left-anticommunists, sectarians, and revisionists are pretty much the same as liberals, but harder to convince. By revisionist I mean mattering to our own circumstance, not one who has a different take on history. It doesn’t matter if you’re a trot as long as you’re not a patsoc. There are reasonable people of any tendency though, especially on the ground. Thus, we should be nice and try to unite with anyone willing as scientific socialists. If you’re doing wrecker shit whether as an ML or anarchist you should get kicked. We are not at the point where most of our differences matter much, so we should try to join common orgs and simply occupy different factions. Remember the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were one until after the revolution. We should focus on radicalizing more liberals instead of bickering among ourselves. The people here who are like “only pure ML ever” should go read the hexbear comments and this article.
Finally, of course, everyone should log off and touch grass.
