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.
“Pan-Leftism” is just yet another word for Left Anti-Communism. At best they are today’s Bernsteinists and Kautskyites, though even that analogy is giving most of them too much credit, in reality most of the ones who are not straight up Cointelpro are just run of the mill imperialist liberals who like to cosplay in a revolutionary aesthetic.
Well said. Marxists shouldn’t give a damn about pushing for the leftist ideology along an ideological spectrum. Instead, they should care about what is left wing of the real dialectic of political difference, which from what I can see, relates to global imperialism. And leftist ideologues, regardless of what ideology they espouse, serve imperialism in effect.
very good points, yet this seems more like pan-online-ism than pan leftism.
at least for my local area, we are the most active and apparent Marxist party. anarchists get along with us, join our reading groups (sometimes) and actions (frequently) because we actually do things. we rarely discuss anything that isn’t about our work, and people choose not to be involved with us rather than demand we change our tactics and education. liberals are afraid of us, they don’t interact much, and it’s usually them just gathering intel on us when they do. some of them complain that we don’t support liberal actions enough, well sorry maybe if you listened to workers instead of this bullshit “they’ll come around to us” mentality you’d actually be helping. we had a local radio segment recently, but the more radical component of housing rights was edited out.
If there’s 100 people and only 1 wants a revolution, they won’t be getting it, no matter how hard they try. At some point, they’ll need to convince enough other people, and that’s a problem I’m seeing far from solved. Not to dismiss your point, but don’t you think it’s easier to get others onboard when they have already taken a few steps in the right direction?
don’t you think it’s easier to get others onboard when they have already taken a few steps in the right direction?
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.”
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.
Alright. Im gonna turn all y’all into MLG thought.
You got some hungry people. Answer. Feed them.
Contradiction: people who prevent people from eating
Synthesis: kick their ass and chase them off
Contradiction: Distribution
Synthesis: Fix roads. Streamline supply chains. Adjust for weather conditions.
It’s that simple. You dont need a long hard discussion over these things. At no point does the necessary way to move forward require that liberals feel free about it.
This is what I call Marxism-Leninism-Gloriousism
It’s that simple. You dont need a long hard discussion over these things.
You’ve reinvented anarchism is what I’m picking up
What Im trying to say is that material conditions should be the authority.
So if someone needs a glass of water; you turn on the tap. You dont quibble over weather liberals feel free about how one just got provided a glass of water.
deleted by creator
Glasses for everyone. Even those with perfect vision. They get complimentary cosmetic glasses so they dont feel left out.
Beautiful. Good point, comrade.
I’ve got to ask where you’re seeing this trend of “pan-leftism” this is a term usually meant for socialist parties under communist governments like the fatherland party of vietnam that’s exclusively anti-capitalist, but incorporates lots of different socialist groups, most specifically religious organizations. I’ve never heard pan-leftism used in the context you’re describing. Sounds like normal run of the mill white western liberalism
you must not spend a lot of time on leftist discords/forums or in leftist communities outside of Marxist-Leninist ones if you’ve never heard it in this context.
not really no, sounds like “thou shall not speak ill of a fellow republican” but with nazis replaced with communists
It’s been a few years now, but I don’t distinctly remember the moderators intimidating MLs on the last ‘unity’ server that I was frequenting regularly, but eventually I left it because of everybody’s increasing silence and disinterest. I was in another ‘unity’ server previous to that, but I don’t remember anything except for one anarchist explicitly ragequitting.
On the other hand, I have seen the moderators on one server behaving negligently when anarchists and state socialists had another petty squabble, resulting in some of the latter (and me) leaving voluntarily. That was maybe five years ago.
In any case, Discord, and social networking in general, are awful; the community’s political alignment is only part of the issue.
deleted by creator
There are many contradictions. No one is born a Communist. No one is perfect and all are prone to errors and deviations. One has to look at this dialectically.
Online “communities” (are they even real communities? I don’t believe they are) are hardly representative of the real world. I don’t spend any time in any of them anymore except maybe this place and another, and the discussion is all among comrades. From what I’ve seen, nothing substantial in real life comes from online discussion alone. People face to face are generally more receptive to ideas and reason, especially when it comes to material conditions that actually matter to them personally. It is not always easy to see the forest for the trees.
Like you even said, there is a ton of anti-communist propaganda shoved in our faces constantly; if our path is the correct one, it is our duty to patiently demonstrate through actions (almost impossible to do online) rather than words alone.
Also, the topic of foreign policy is rife with contradictions due to the nature of states and many have not spent years analyzing history, geopolitics, diplomacy and trends like some of us may have. I believe it’s best to keep things on a more local level and concentrate on workers struggles (guided by Marxism).
As Marxists, we know that the only unchangeable fact is that everything is constantly changing. We have a long intellectual history standing behind us. I hope to guide people to see this in my praxis.
