Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1344 readers

1 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

141

Self-styled “anarchists” decrying revolutionary violence as “authoritarian” and “oppressive” are so on my nerves. (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

147 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That being said, there's merit to the idea that lockstep dogmatism to a 175 year old definition of a political model isn't necessarily a successful model for any given present day era.

This is why I'm wary of "read theory." Sure, read theory, but don't treat it like a Bible. Expand, adapt, update, adjust.

Besides, like all science, theory should be reproducible without need for the text. Theory after all means "best guess," and it's supposed to be vulnerable to new realities and discoveries.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every communist should be familiar with the core philosophy and principles of Marxist analysis. That information and methodology is very hard to just naturally luck into without reading the theory -- especially if you grew up in a sea of liberalism.

Our adherance to past principles of organizing needs to be dynamic and not dogmatic though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

That being said, there’s merit to the idea that lockstep dogmatism to a 175 year old definition of a political model isn’t necessarily a successful model for any given present day era.

Theory is useful to learn how to figure out what to do. Some of Marx's predictions ended up being wrong, most notably his prediction that the already industrialized countries would be first to revolution. However, his work on how to understand how society works and how to change it isn't outdated. To make an analogy, any scientific theory may be proven wrong, but the scientific method will always remain a valid tool for understanding the world.

This is why I’m wary of “read theory.” Sure, read theory, but don’t treat it like a Bible. Expand, adapt, update, adjust.

Coincidentally enough, there is theory about this very issue. Dogmatically following theory when it is not applicable to your material conditions is a problem Marxists regularly grasp with.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

True, there is a great danger in dogmatism. That’s why Marxists emphasize the scientific and changing nature of our worldview. “Read theory” shouldn’t mean “just read Marx and Lenin” it means you should also read Mao, Amin, Horne, and so on. Read it critically, notice changes, notice contradictions and consider different perspectives.

Bookchin argues we toss out Marxism as a whole because not everything Marx says can have held up. However, Marxists recognize that and critique and change the theory. We adapt to our conditions. Bookchin denies the method of proletarian revolution which we still uphold because we see it worked. He does not see it worked because he accepts the anti-communist alternative history.