LONG LONG POST (I RECOMMEND COMRADES WHO COME FROM IMPERIALIST NEO-COLONIAL CENTERS OF POWER TO READ- also don’t let my labor go to waste) :
Completely agree with the this post. Also its not very difficult to see in which ways MLM has tried to intergrate elements of various leftist traditions (the entire concept of mass line tries to get rid of this opposition between vanguard party and the people overall).
I think we’d all be better off if we understood that elements of the various traditions all need to be used. Generally most people I’ve met who are actually in the field are willing to concede different things. My anarchists friends have admitted that intergrating and using social organisms or institutional frameworks (when it comes topics such as immigration, public education, mental health, health care) need to be used and taken advantage of. While I (and I think any serious ML) will admit that anarchist praxis overall, when organised outside the state to destabalize it, is very useful atm in several parts of the world.
Still I think the issue lies elsewhere, and if I’m honest I think this debate (even if spread worldwide) is most present in western eurocentric circles. Best example is you using the Zapatistas and claiming they are anarchists while they themselves have answered they aren’t (I’ll put the link below, personally not my cup of tea but still recommend all comrades whether anarchists or ML/MLM to read it). The real issue, and I mean this only with love, is that this debate usually ends up manifesting itself in some kind of form of ideological neo-colonialism (albeit ‘progressive’). The real issue is that people are too stuck up in their ways and see themselves as being the manifestation of past political successes and representatives of current ones, which is bs, since most people aren’t doing shit. Same with Rojava, MLs or anarchists won’t hesitate to jump and say ‘its more this cus party … its more this cus Bookchin’ which is ridiculous.
If we look at what have been the greatest successes in starting the path towards communist societies they have been outside the imperialist centers. And because of it have reclaimed their own specific regional identities in some shape or form and actualised communist politics while drawing inspiration from many international traditions/theories. African socialists began describing themselves as socialists precisely because westerners were trying to co-op their movements. Pinning different politically successfull groups against each other because of their ideologies might be some of the most reactionary shit possible, even more so when people are themselves not engaging in any revolutionary struggle.
That’s my personal beef with many modern day anarchists, since its an ideology that claims universality and yet doesn’t concretely theorise specificity. BUT that was also what was reproached by many communists across the globe to the european MLs during the 20th century (even if indeed cold war ect. ect.).
Once we get rid of this Western lense of a universal MLs approach or a universal anarchist approach (which still have some western imperialist tendencies since they proceed from percieving starting from the ‘centers’ and moving to the ‘outsides’) we can move forward. If you look at the EZLN, you look at Nepal, you look at Rojava, Burkina Faso, Maoist China, ect… they each successfully express themselves as they should in the territories they inhabit (same could be said about different anarchist projects and movements or others such as the Black Panthers). And if successfull in putting/inacting revolutionary politics then who gives a fuck what ‘team’ they belong to, fight along with them.
Its not suprising considering what the chapo demographic is, still, it remains problematic that there’s generally a lack of reflection on this topic even if theoretically peeps are down w anti-imperialism and decolonialism. Seems to me people are really undermining what it means to be engaged in revolutionary politics whatever expression it may take by immediately denouncing it as ‘not the right way’. Some MLs need to stop pretending that the most they can do politically is argue for a vanguard party and some anarchists need to stop projecting and essencialising the state apparatus as something ‘bad’ (in cases such as Bolivia it is directly related to giving power to indigenous people and therefore decolonial).
MLs should stop bashing anarchist comrades for some of the great work they’re doing even if they aren’t in a political party. Anarchists should
stop seeing isolated local politics as sufficient to develop general public goods (education, health care ect…). EDIT: Completely agree w OP in that we should all remember we are communists before bickering, as to at the very least recognise we all want a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
PS: I’ll prob repost some variation of this onto main, since i’ve generally seen some reductionist anti-imperialist, neo-colonialist, decolonialist takes and I think this is a discussion worth having.
Much love to you all
EDIT2: replaced ‘come from’ for ‘live’, still not sufficient since depending on the person reading in question this may or may not be more or less relevant
EDIT3: grammar
LONG LONG POST (I RECOMMEND COMRADES WHO COME FROM IMPERIALIST NEO-COLONIAL CENTERS OF POWER TO READ- also don’t let my labor go to waste) :
Completely agree with the this post. Also its not very difficult to see in which ways MLM has tried to intergrate elements of various leftist traditions (the entire concept of mass line tries to get rid of this opposition between vanguard party and the people overall).
I think we’d all be better off if we understood that elements of the various traditions all need to be used. Generally most people I’ve met who are actually in the field are willing to concede different things. My anarchists friends have admitted that intergrating and using social organisms or institutional frameworks (when it comes topics such as immigration, public education, mental health, health care) need to be used and taken advantage of. While I (and I think any serious ML) will admit that anarchist praxis overall, when organised outside the state to destabalize it, is very useful atm in several parts of the world.
Still I think the issue lies elsewhere, and if I’m honest I think this debate (even if spread worldwide) is most present in western eurocentric circles. Best example is you using the Zapatistas and claiming they are anarchists while they themselves have answered they aren’t (I’ll put the link below, personally not my cup of tea but still recommend all comrades whether anarchists or ML/MLM to read it). The real issue, and I mean this only with love, is that this debate usually ends up manifesting itself in some kind of form of ideological neo-colonialism (albeit ‘progressive’). The real issue is that people are too stuck up in their ways and see themselves as being the manifestation of past political successes and representatives of current ones, which is bs, since most people aren’t doing shit. Same with Rojava, MLs or anarchists won’t hesitate to jump and say ‘its more this cus party … its more this cus Bookchin’ which is ridiculous.
If we look at what have been the greatest successes in starting the path towards communist societies they have been outside the imperialist centers. And because of it have reclaimed their own specific regional identities in some shape or form and actualised communist politics while drawing inspiration from many international traditions/theories. African socialists began describing themselves as socialists precisely because westerners were trying to co-op their movements. Pinning different politically successfull groups against each other because of their ideologies might be some of the most reactionary shit possible, even more so when people are themselves not engaging in any revolutionary struggle.
That’s my personal beef with many modern day anarchists, since its an ideology that claims universality and yet doesn’t concretely theorise specificity. BUT that was also what was reproached by many communists across the globe to the european MLs during the 20th century (even if indeed cold war ect. ect.).
Once we get rid of this Western lense of a universal MLs approach or a universal anarchist approach (which still have some western imperialist tendencies since they proceed from percieving starting from the ‘centers’ and moving to the ‘outsides’) we can move forward. If you look at the EZLN, you look at Nepal, you look at Rojava, Burkina Faso, Maoist China, ect… they each successfully express themselves as they should in the territories they inhabit (same could be said about different anarchist projects and movements or others such as the Black Panthers). And if successfull in putting/inacting revolutionary politics then who gives a fuck what ‘team’ they belong to, fight along with them.
Its not suprising considering what the chapo demographic is, still, it remains problematic that there’s generally a lack of reflection on this topic even if theoretically peeps are down w anti-imperialism and decolonialism. Seems to me people are really undermining what it means to be engaged in revolutionary politics whatever expression it may take by immediately denouncing it as ‘not the right way’. Some MLs need to stop pretending that the most they can do politically is argue for a vanguard party and some anarchists need to stop projecting and essencialising the state apparatus as something ‘bad’ (in cases such as Bolivia it is directly related to giving power to indigenous people and therefore decolonial).
MLs should stop bashing anarchist comrades for some of the great work they’re doing even if they aren’t in a political party. Anarchists should stop seeing isolated local politics as sufficient to develop general public goods (education, health care ect…). EDIT: Completely agree w OP in that we should all remember we are communists before bickering, as to at the very least recognise we all want a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
PS: I’ll prob repost some variation of this onto main, since i’ve generally seen some reductionist anti-imperialist, neo-colonialist, decolonialist takes and I think this is a discussion worth having.
Much love to you all
EDIT2: replaced ‘come from’ for ‘live’, still not sufficient since depending on the person reading in question this may or may not be more or less relevant EDIT3: grammar
https://iaf-fai.org/2019/05/05/a-zapatista-response-to-the-ezln-is-not-anarchist/