I won’t speak for Geneva (Geneva isn’t a Marxist) but Marxists advocate for revolutionary party building. You can’t force a revolution into happening, but you can absolutely prepare for one and build the organ needed to carry it out. Herr’s a good diagram:
This explains the role of the party in forming a vanguard. This is the historically proven revolutionary strategy that has established socialism in many countries around the world.
So in other words you do nothing except write quippy comments on the internet.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo, you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
You aren’t talking to a Marxist-Leninist, Geneva doesn’t identify as such and does not read theory nor practice in a communist party. I do think Geneva’s critique rings hollow, considering that.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
This is bullshit. MLs say we need to act and think more, and do so by organizing in communist parties. From the Black Panther Party to PSL in the US, communist parties have been doing real organizing work, and that’s not to mention the orgs that have already succeeded like the CPC.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo
This is blind, vibes-based critique. “Authoritarian mindset” isn’t a thing. The problems with organizing in the west are not due to lacking in imagination, to the contrary, western “left” anti-communists let their imagination lead them to opposing real, existing socialism.
you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
This is further bullshit. Marxists of the past that successfully established socialism weren’t “pretending” to do so. Ironically, it’s yourself that is idealizing them into “Great Men of History,” and cutting out the billions of people that organized to create real socialism. MLs do not idolize Marxist figures, we study them, their contributions, their struggles, their successes and their failures, so that we can continue to sharpen our theory to guide our practice. Marxism is a science, not a dogma.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
I agree, though most of us that are committed enough are already organizing in real life too.
You do condemn those fighting the empire, though. That’s why it’s necessary to both read and practice, not coast by on instinct alone. You have decent political instincts, but instead you obsess over Bad Empanada thought and treat it as a substitute for reading, and posting as a substitute for practice. It’s ultimately online progressivism at best, and is why it rings extraordinarily hollow when coming from you, especially as you haven’t given any indication of reading or practicing, let alone both.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics. Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics.
No? Marxists argue against purity politics all the time. “Left” anti-communism on the basis of existing socialist states not being perfect wonderlands is one of the biggest problems we have to tackle. Whenever a socialist country makes an error, or has not yet sufficiently advanced to the point of erasing problems caused due to uneven development, this is used as evidence that said socialist country is unworthy of support and therefore imperialist aggression is passively justified. MLs must relentlessly combat this.
Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
Rejecting electoralism as a viable path does not mean doing so on the basis of “purity,” but practicality. Vote in the primaries all you want, the ML argument isn’t that this will make you “sinful,” but that it won’t ever be capable of enacting the change that is necessary.
If I need to change a lightbulb 20 feet in the air, and you come with a 4 foot stepladder, the lightbulb isn’t changing even if you get closer. You have to drive to the hardware store, buy the 20 foot ladder, take it back, set it up, and then change the lightbulb. The stepladder being closer doesn’t actually mean it gets you closer to your goal, that path is a dead-end to begin with, you cannot raise that 4 foot stepladder to a 20 foot lightbulb.
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Sure, and studying theory and applying it to our practice tells us what strategies actually work in the short and long term.
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Condemning the world’s largest resistance in its fight against the empire because of some “theoretical future” where Anarchists once again are incapable of organising any armed uprising because they don’t have a leadership structure is the only thing that happens.
Some people want a revolution and some people want their community fed. These are not mutually exclusive and I’m happy people are doing anything at all instead of hooking themselves up to the short form content IV every night like the vast majority.
Usually, both Marxists and anarchists are aligned on believing systemic change is necessary, not just individual and local charity to patch holes in the existing system.
bro wat - I’m yet to see a socialist party group turn up to an anti-fash protest and put themselves in harms way to protect vulnerable groups instead of standing on the side lines selling political newspapers and dipping out as soon as their leaders decide they’d like to go home
There are plenty of Socialist revolutions but they happen outside of the first world. Coincidentally anticolonial movements are often opposed by Anarchist because the victims aren’t perfect enough.
yeah that’s fair - but I feel they serve different purposes?
like I see anarchism as a form of counterbalance to state power irrespective of where it is - without needing to be dogmatic
as in undeniably Uruguay is materially much better now than its ever been (while still being at the peak of it’s colonial project even under socialist governance)
same with Bolivia giving relative power to indigenous peoples while improving living conditions even under a corrupt government
neither is perfect but vastly better than western powers seizing their resources and wage enslaving their populations - same goes for other socialist Global South countries
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism in that it should continue to challenge all governments when the time is right - even socialist ones - as at the end of the day we all want a stateless society - and until then I dont see why anarchism and socialism can’t strive to achieve that through productive structural tension?
Anarchists are a lot better than Liberals. But when push comes to shove, such as Iran getting invaded, many Anarchists are all too happy to hop on the imperialist fence and hold both-sides stories like it’s a moral high-ground
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism
That sounds fun and all but who is going to fight imperialism then? Are colonized countries going to free themselves because Anarchists blocked a weapons shipment but then the Anarchist opposes the resistance force fighting against the colonists? Fidel Castro sent fighters to support the imperfect ANC. Now that was some actual solidarity. Though we don’t see much of that from “socialist” countries anymore either.
idk what anarchists you’re around but all the ones I hang out with are vocally pro Iran even if they dont approve of the Ayatollah on principle - but yh I’d take mls over liberals any day of the week - I feel part of it is that anarchists aren’t a solid block so while some may block shipments other might fight against what they see as oppression that on a geopolitical scale can result in helping colonial forces - idk we’re all imperfect so I hope we can recognize that and through different means still continue to erode imperialism instead of fighting with each other at the benefit of colonizers
Reality:
Anarchists have been robbing large oligopoly supermarkets in my city and redistributing the food to “community fridges” for a good couple years now.
That’s cool and all but that’s local tier good-samaritan stuff. While it’s good, it will never overthrow the system.
OK, so what are you doing to make a revolution happen?
I won’t speak for Geneva (Geneva isn’t a Marxist) but Marxists advocate for revolutionary party building. You can’t force a revolution into happening, but you can absolutely prepare for one and build the organ needed to carry it out. Herr’s a good diagram:
This explains the role of the party in forming a vanguard. This is the historically proven revolutionary strategy that has established socialism in many countries around the world.
I’m not condemning those actually fighting the empire for a start.
So in other words you do nothing except write quippy comments on the internet.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo, you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
You aren’t talking to a Marxist-Leninist, Geneva doesn’t identify as such and does not read theory nor practice in a communist party. I do think Geneva’s critique rings hollow, considering that.
This is bullshit. MLs say we need to act and think more, and do so by organizing in communist parties. From the Black Panther Party to PSL in the US, communist parties have been doing real organizing work, and that’s not to mention the orgs that have already succeeded like the CPC.
This is blind, vibes-based critique. “Authoritarian mindset” isn’t a thing. The problems with organizing in the west are not due to lacking in imagination, to the contrary, western “left” anti-communists let their imagination lead them to opposing real, existing socialism.
This is further bullshit. Marxists of the past that successfully established socialism weren’t “pretending” to do so. Ironically, it’s yourself that is idealizing them into “Great Men of History,” and cutting out the billions of people that organized to create real socialism. MLs do not idolize Marxist figures, we study them, their contributions, their struggles, their successes and their failures, so that we can continue to sharpen our theory to guide our practice. Marxism is a science, not a dogma.
I agree, though most of us that are committed enough are already organizing in real life too.
So in other words you like to conclude a lot from no info of what I do.
Anarchists try to not pretend to have the moral high ground while doing absolutely nothing to fight the empire difficulty level: impossible.
Answer my question then.
What idiot would snitch on their own activities for online karma points? Wait let me guess: Anarchists.
You do condemn those fighting the empire, though. That’s why it’s necessary to both read and practice, not coast by on instinct alone. You have decent political instincts, but instead you obsess over Bad Empanada thought and treat it as a substitute for reading, and posting as a substitute for practice. It’s ultimately online progressivism at best, and is why it rings extraordinarily hollow when coming from you, especially as you haven’t given any indication of reading or practicing, let alone both.
It’s absurd to not help someone now because you could also do something highly theoretical and better in the future. Both things should happen.
Its a common thing with the
.mlto identity an issue and not act due to purity politics. Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
No? Marxists argue against purity politics all the time. “Left” anti-communism on the basis of existing socialist states not being perfect wonderlands is one of the biggest problems we have to tackle. Whenever a socialist country makes an error, or has not yet sufficiently advanced to the point of erasing problems caused due to uneven development, this is used as evidence that said socialist country is unworthy of support and therefore imperialist aggression is passively justified. MLs must relentlessly combat this.
Rejecting electoralism as a viable path does not mean doing so on the basis of “purity,” but practicality. Vote in the primaries all you want, the ML argument isn’t that this will make you “sinful,” but that it won’t ever be capable of enacting the change that is necessary.
If I need to change a lightbulb 20 feet in the air, and you come with a 4 foot stepladder, the lightbulb isn’t changing even if you get closer. You have to drive to the hardware store, buy the 20 foot ladder, take it back, set it up, and then change the lightbulb. The stepladder being closer doesn’t actually mean it gets you closer to your goal, that path is a dead-end to begin with, you cannot raise that 4 foot stepladder to a 20 foot lightbulb.
Sure, and studying theory and applying it to our practice tells us what strategies actually work in the short and long term.
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that
mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it standsmltypes won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.Condemning the world’s largest resistance in its fight against the empire because of some “theoretical future” where Anarchists once again are incapable of organising any armed uprising because they don’t have a leadership structure is the only thing that happens.
Some people want a revolution and some people want their community fed. These are not mutually exclusive and I’m happy people are doing anything at all instead of hooking themselves up to the short form content IV every night like the vast majority.
What do you think anarchism is all about…?
Usually, both Marxists and anarchists are aligned on believing systemic change is necessary, not just individual and local charity to patch holes in the existing system.
Failing to overthrow the system
Ferb, I know what we’re gonna do today!
bro wat - I’m yet to see a socialist party group turn up to an anti-fash protest and put themselves in harms way to protect vulnerable groups instead of standing on the side lines selling political newspapers and dipping out as soon as their leaders decide they’d like to go home
There are plenty of Socialist revolutions but they happen outside of the first world. Coincidentally anticolonial movements are often opposed by Anarchist because the victims aren’t perfect enough.
Anarchist 'zines are literally a meme term
yeah that’s fair - but I feel they serve different purposes?
like I see anarchism as a form of counterbalance to state power irrespective of where it is - without needing to be dogmatic
as in undeniably Uruguay is materially much better now than its ever been (while still being at the peak of it’s colonial project even under socialist governance)
same with Bolivia giving relative power to indigenous peoples while improving living conditions even under a corrupt government
neither is perfect but vastly better than western powers seizing their resources and wage enslaving their populations - same goes for other socialist Global South countries
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism in that it should continue to challenge all governments when the time is right - even socialist ones - as at the end of the day we all want a stateless society - and until then I dont see why anarchism and socialism can’t strive to achieve that through productive structural tension?
Anarchists are a lot better than Liberals. But when push comes to shove, such as Iran getting invaded, many Anarchists are all too happy to hop on the imperialist fence and hold both-sides stories like it’s a moral high-ground
That sounds fun and all but who is going to fight imperialism then? Are colonized countries going to free themselves because Anarchists blocked a weapons shipment but then the Anarchist opposes the resistance force fighting against the colonists? Fidel Castro sent fighters to support the imperfect ANC. Now that was some actual solidarity. Though we don’t see much of that from “socialist” countries anymore either.
idk what anarchists you’re around but all the ones I hang out with are vocally pro Iran even if they dont approve of the Ayatollah on principle - but yh I’d take mls over liberals any day of the week - I feel part of it is that anarchists aren’t a solid block so while some may block shipments other might fight against what they see as oppression that on a geopolitical scale can result in helping colonial forces - idk we’re all imperfect so I hope we can recognize that and through different means still continue to erode imperialism instead of fighting with each other at the benefit of colonizers
I think this joke is only 40% true, but also still very funny.