Is it better to vote for a red liberal or a blue liberal?
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
92 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22262 readers
8 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to [email protected].
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or [email protected].
[email protected] is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kind of weird and 3edgy4me how that's not really related to my point but go-off I guess. Kind of weird and disturbing honestly to be wishing (it seems) for their collective demise.
I'm not a trot but as someone who has known alot of them, honestly in this day and age if you're really under the impression that most people who thinks of themselves as trots are going to become neoconservatives then honestly my suspicion is that you do not actually know many. It might be worth pointing out that while the most annoying and sectarian, indeedly dogmatically detached self-described communists I've met are Trotskyist, so are several of the more serious, capable, dedicated militants I've met.
If you really wanna spend your time swinging against them instead of considering forming solidarity over a common Marxist and Leninist tradition (you might not think that they are leninists, but they certainly think they are) and discussing non-sectarian methods of organizing, then with respect comrade I really feel your point of view is limited and needs to develop, though I don't know how much experience you actually have engaging with, or actually trying to organize with, trots.
Whether you agree with them or not, most actual militants who are Trotskyists have their ideals in the right place. On a moral or ethical level, most of them are motivated by the same disgust with capitalist society and same hopes for a communist society as other communists. On a political level they are normally also self-consciously Leninist. In fact the reason they have such a tendency to splits and factions is because there's an almost theological emphasis on the need to recreate continuously that genesis of the Bolshevik through splits with those they perceive (even if metaphorically) as Mensheviks and reformists, so that the part remains in a correct revolutionary position necessary at the revolutionary conjuncture. I'm in strong ideological disagreement on a bunch of points, and don't really like their culture, including that of their interpersonal relationships, but frankly that's not a problem unique to Trotskysists (Maoists, MLs and anarchists I'm looking at you).
Also, frankly, there's no surer way to alienate potential communists from what you're doing that to be beefing over the political conflicts in the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s. I'm not really able to see it as anything other than self-indulgent, given that it seems obvious that a mature position would include very serious critiques of both Trotskyism and the USSR (for the record, if you talk to more intelligent Trots, they often have several quite scathing critiques of several of Trotsky's positions).
Oh shove off, every trot trot I've met used political events to hawk their papers and argue with organizers.
The only non-trot trots that are worth a damn are marcyite trots
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be aggressive comrade. What you've described is certainly a real and alienating phenomenon, though I'm guessing you are making reference to the American trotskyist culture, which is somewhat distinct from those in other countries, largely because the history is different, and American trostkyists seem to have been less connected to working class organizations and under even more pressure to conform to Cold War narratives and positions. I'm more familiar with the Latin American and European cases, in which they are by far the most seriously present communist groups in those countries. For example a lot of people here love repping France every time there's another episode of social unrest, but do not realize that a lot of the organization is being done by trot groups. Again, there are a lot of them, and i'd agree that most are very far from great, but they would agree with that statement themselves.
On the newspaper point: there's nothing wrong with trying to get literature out there. The question is more one of form. Again, I can think of as many ML and weird left-com and Maoist groups who do the same thing. If that's sufficient for you to judge all Trots on that basis, then it should be for those other groups, which I suspect is not the case.
I'm becoming more aggressive because of your dismissive paternalistic 'holier-than-thou' postured comments, and quite frankly it's pissed me off enough to concider blocking you.
Alright bud now you're just putting words in people's mouths.
Going through your history a lot of your comments match that emoji, by the way
There is a lot wrong with trying to get literature out there. How effective do you think the trots that showed up to an action where we tried to keep the police away from a funeral for a teen they shot? Do you think the people in mourning there wanted to be handed a pamphlet about whatever weird fucking zine the trots were handing out that week? What about the guy who stands at the corner near me who spends many hours every day with a megaphone and his stacks of literature shouting about how all of the suffering around him is the fault of capital. You think he's getting through to folks? Or the guy who hawks commie literature on the trains when people are just trying to get home from work. You think that's effective organizing?
Here's the deal with trots. Even if their heart is in the right place their efforts are so far away from the right place that they are definitely doing harm. If they spent even half of the effort they spend invading other people's spaces trying to shove their shitty newspapers in people's faces on organizing that works, nobody would care. They're pariahs in leftist spaces because the rest of us have to spend time undoing the image damage they do to the rest of us on top of all the other shit we're up against. And when the time comes to actually DO something they're never there. I've never seen a trot do mutual aid. I've never seen a trot bail comrades out of jail. I've never seen a trot tear down a statue. They're never involved in cross group organizing efforts they just show up uninvited. They're never fucking there when their actions could mean something.
Trots are fucking embarrassing. Get a clue and do literally any real organizing. Your zines are cool but nobody will read them unless you give them a genuine reason to, and showing up to co opt other people's events or shouting in the street corner like an evangelical ain't it.
I support Trots in their mission to educate the masses what little they can. I dislike the Trots for attacking actually existing communism at every opportunity, to the extent that while I tolerate them, they would not tolerate me.
This is definitely a huge issue among a huge chunk of radical leftists I've interacted with IRL. Almost all of them seem to be really well meaning people but often get hung up on petty (well mostly petty, sometimes there are real issues like sexual harassment) interpersonal bullshit and that causes a lot of friction when doing IRL organizing. I think if the western left managed to fix this we'd have like 10x more popularity, I've seen a few dozen people turn away from my local org (including myself eventually) due to the old guard constantly battling it out over the pettiest shit.
I'm maybe a bit biased, hopefully not orgs are like this but it's a pretty common pattern I've seen both IRL and online.
Yeah not to suggest that leftists have not always had something of a tendency for division and degeneration into critique to the detriment of constructive solidarity, but this is also not sufficient as an explanation in my opinion. If anything, I'd argue that the contemporary version of this phenomenon, especially in a country life America, is deeply mediated by the social groups that radical groups is emerging out of, and fact it is occurring in a cultural and intellectual climate that is still (and has been since the late 80s), not simply anti-Marxist/communist but actually post-communist. We might nuance this by noting an uptick in interest in socialism among the young and working class, but we should not overemphasize the scale or influence of this. Nor should this lead us to lose sight of the fact that a lot of the young people who identify as radical do so in a way that can be quite vague, and have more to do with individual lifestyle aesthetics than a sense of 'calling' for the militant path, nor a sense of direct exploitation. This is partly due to the greater presence or visibility in popular culture of ideas that are more just post-modern liberal identity politics marked for the sake of capitalism, and the corresponding greater influence of radleft and anti-marxist poststructural thinkers in what is presented as radical thought. Which should remind everyone that Marxist and Communist politics are not going to be bred in Universities any more. Marxist historians don't control the history department as much as they used to in some placed. This is not a personal criticism of all these people but more a recognition of the different reasons, conditions and paths that form of the context of people's experience of radical politics or thought.
What is more significant is the increased level of labor movement activity. A bolshevik style party cannot simply be willed into existence. It is not a vanguard phenomenon (by definition) because it is 'above' or separate to the working class like a set of generals or the state, which would be to misunderstand the military metaphor, but because it is supposed to position itself at the forefront of working-class struggle. It is suppose to identify the key areas of struggle and potential and to act accordingly. So it strikes me that American Bolshevism (album title) would have to be born more fully out of the concrete struggle between an emerging American labor movement, in conjunction and synthesis with groups who also emphasize imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism, racist and gender and LGBT+ struggles.
Alot of these dynamics reinforce themselves in vicious ways too. Bad interpersonal relationships can generate bad politics and vice-versa.
For what its worth, by far the least sectarian environments I've encountered where ones where different militants from different orgs had to collectively organize or help on the group in relation to on-the-ground labor struggles in work places.