[French writer Anatole France is drawn wearing a flowery tie]
The law,
in its majestic equality,
forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
-Anatole France
[French writer Anatole France is drawn wearing a flowery tie]
The law,
in its majestic equality,
forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
-Anatole France
Thanks for describing some of your ideas. The “liberals” I was referring to are more like other working class normies, not thought leaders. My actual political strategy is to split the liberals, like the petty capitalists will have to be split by developing the conditions of struggle, along a material class basis, not with ideas.
Im not defending liberalism, I just think a lot of liberals are working class normies who aren’t as theoretically developed as you are. I’d say you are anti theory from your comments but that doesn’t seem to be the case either. You are contradictory, just like the rest of us, and in contradiction there is the possibility of change.
I follow your definition of ideology, it’s a good working definition. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is worth reading if you haven’t. But dont go off YouTube, nobody understands his actual theory. I can send you the essays im referring to, if interested. Only a working class normie, who learned critical thought by criticizing our own experiences could understand it. I’d like to say we have some things in common, I’m no academic and I’m too much of a contrarian to get along with party leaders. Im as self educated a person as youll ever encounter.
But i think there is advantages to being openly socialist, and I think that condemning theory and theorists is a far cry from being correct, especially when someone commits themself to being oppositional and judgemental at the earliest sign of possible disagreement. Intellectual elitism isnt a quality of the working class, its a quality of the bourgeois liberal. Mirroring elitism with “negative” elitism is playing by the same rules with different referees. But also people have to come to it on their own. You can’t convince a liberal to be leftist, something has to change for them, so I think we might agree that there is little use in bending over backwards over them. But I think we can represent a positive alternative, well meaning liberals can be won to socialist principles. But they can also end up disaffected fascists or apolitical bullies. It really takes a party, not an individual; but the party is made of individuals, so there is a dynamic to navigate imo.
I’ve read The History of the German Revolution by Pierre Brouè, so I wasn’t thinking about the spartatacist uprising like an event, more like a 10 year period, so thanks for clarifying. There are a lot of really great lessons from that time, although unfortunately, many cautionary tales. But one thing that I took from it is the necessity (inevitability?) to split the major moderate factions, like the split between the SPD and the USPD, and later, the KPD and the KAPD, into actual fighting forces for the working class. Unfortunately, it shows how crucial education and deep roots in the working class are to success. Maybe if the Spartacists had done more to prepare for the 1917 split then the working class wouldn’t have been so disorganized in the following years. The Vorwards uprising was a result of police agitators taking control of a disorganized movement, Rosa clearly saw the problems with a putsch, and sure enough, the failed action led to the death of her and Liebknecht at the hands of fascist police. If they had survived, the left may have actually seized state power, and Luxemburg’s sharp criticisms of Bolshevism may have lead to a dramatically different outcome in Russia as well – not to mention suppress the rising fascist movement in Germany.
Two questions, you dont think reactionaries are wrong about liberals? What they hate about it are its progressive qualities, by and large they support private property. You reject private property, do you reject communism? And if so, then what?
If we are going to go forward with this, we will have to agree to draw a sharp distinction between members of the working class whose heads have been filled with liberal propaganda from birth - which, to a higher or lesser degree, essentially includes all of us who grew up in the liberal world - and true liberals who fetishize the “correctness” of their private domination over the means of production (and unspoken but de facto domination over the working class who makes all the production happen) because the key to their power and privilege is enshrined in the core tenet of liberalism itself (that’s tenet - singular - because they only really need one).
Now, you can call these liberal elites capitalists if you wish (and if you really want to creep a working class normie out, you can use the term “bourgeoisie”), but remember… separating the capitalist from his chosen ideology - which is liberalism, not capitalism - has done more to hinder the left than it has helped. In fact, it has allowed liberal media to essentially immunise the working class against anyone who even uses the term “capitalist” in their narratives.
You can test this for yourself. Ask most working class people what a “liberal” is, and most of them will get it half-right (very few will describe Donald Trump, for instance, as a liberal - though, to be fair, plenty of leftists fails to recognise that as well). Ask them what a “capitalist” is and… well, all bets are off. Most people I talk to thinks it’s somebody who works in finance.
That is how the left has missed the boat on liberalism - by separating the capitalist from liberal ideology, the left has disempowered itself and the wider working class from even recognising liberal political machinations to protect the liberal status quo for what they are.
It has made the left politically clumsy.
Not really. I just think that leftists should perhaps double-check said theory before deciding that it’s the working class’ fault for not embracing them.
Perhaps it’s because I’m an old… but I just don’t feel the need to wear a political “brand” as part of my identity. Besides… I have zero tolerance for purity testing.
I think there is a deap-seated (and thoroughly justified) disaffection with liberal elites amongst the working class - and this disaffection is, with good reason, not just limited to those who can be strictly classified as capitalists. It is the liberal elite themselves which have harnassed this disaffection - at the end of the day, all reactionary politics is designed to protect the status quo.
The dilemma for the liberal elite is not complicated - manage the working class by tossing more crumbs from the table (so-called “progresive” liberals) or manage the working class through greater repression (whom I call fundamentalist liberals). The carrot or the stick. This is why you see the fundamentalist liberals roiling up those elements of the working class that have already been prepared and empowered to violently repress the wider working class for the protection of the status quo, and this is why you see progressive liberals constantly giving ground to the fundamentlist ones - the lies (ie, the carrot) is becoming less and less effective. The idea that Donald Trump is a fascist is a ludicrous one - the liberal does not do the dirty work of protecting their ill-gotten private property themselves and wouldn’t know how to do so if their lives depended on it. They outsource that to the hencherproletariat - actual fascism, which is always a working class phenomenon. There’s a good reason why you don’t see the rich sending their children off to become cops.
Yes. The concept is far too esoteric for my liking.