I think we might be mostly in agreement here. I’m not 100% with the specifics of the OP but broadly agree that left-unity is important and that the mud-slinging on both sides is Fed shit. I’m in favor of cooperation between Anarchists and MLs but whether those can be synthesized into one ideology is more or less up to the masses. Below I’m going to nitpick on some things but that’s just a reply to those specific points and not necessarily to your message overall.
Agreed. Left unity on the street , on unionizing and on the struggle and activism is very much achievable if you leave brainworms out. I just see the specific sentiment op expressed of striving for "centrism between the two" and "meeting in the middle" on a theoretical/practical level misguided,confused and not something to focus
Irregardless of what the actual historical facts are, the perception of ML states by most western people (including many anarchists) is of rampant poverty, corruption, and oppressive state violence, and it’s going to take a lot of work to deal with that perception. We’d also need to contend with the fact that, if western states relinquish their imperialist tendencies the quality of life of their citizens will fall, on average, as a result of transforming resource extraction into fair and equal trade.
The later part of your point is 100% correct. Well the first is too but thats unavoidable. The perception of anything revolutionary or actualy anti capitalist is a giant hill to climb and full of semi confused, semi misinformed, semi red scared obstacles, even if all MLs decided to become anarchist just in order to not have to deal with talking about the USSR and Cuba and whatever
This doesn’t really negate what I said. The fact of the perception is exactly my point.
Yeah i didnt try to negate your point of mistrust and why "mls are mls and not anarchists". Just to put it imo, in more fair terms
I agree. But I’m not talking about theorists here, I’m talking about the greater community. Theorists understand these differences in material conditions but this message doesn’t get passed down to the general population and is often modified by liberal propaganda along the way in order to destabilize the movement. It’s the same kind of lazy take as “nordic countries are socialist and we should emulate them.
Well im not talking about theorists either. But im neither talking about extremely online MLs nor about how its modified and presented by the media sphere and hegemony outside of the "non terminaly online MLs" that espouse and push for it. Again thats a universal issue of trying to pass a clear, accurate and fair representation of your strategy and vision of the future as radical leftist (ml , anarchist or whatever) inside a brain broken political system, media sphere and population in the imperial core
Because a lot of western baby leftists right now are learning the basics of leftism online and the loudest voices are shills advocating for Great Man Theory or reifying the preconceived notions that liberals already have as “theory”. Most of these takes rely heavily on influencers making their followers feel comfortable and complacent in their current situation. MLs are waiting for some big smart guy to centralize everything for them and Anarchists are being pulled back into social democracy because “at least it’s not as bad as tankie authoritarianism”. And this comfort-seeking is where the two tendencies create the most public conflict. These views, even if only held fully by the most terminally online get spread out into the greater community. Fedposting is designed to feel legitimizing to the person making claims while distancing themselves from opposing ideologies that involve doing actual praxis. Examples of fedposting are then held up as examples to the opposite side, warning not to associate with “tankies” and “anarkiddies”.
Agreed 100% about the important issues on the larger leftist community and "pipelines" in anglosphere. But since my original post was replying to OPs take on what the left "should do" on the ground and as an organizational and strategy building approach (chasing some enlightened centrism with synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and "marxist material analysis"), i focused on how this is a confused a vague plea and that the MLs should just look inwards in the successes and huge contributions(and also mistakes) a lot of their movements and theories made on these aspects (in this case as you mentioned relationship and understanding of peasants domesticaly and worldwide and ways to localy organize around vulnerable groups). And applying their own theories correctly would lead to better unity with anarchists and other orgs and better united struggle and less bad takes. So no diverting focus into trying to "synthesize" with "anarchist praxis" and reinvent the weel
As you said previously, all revolutions are going to have unique and somewhat unreplicable conditions. My point wasn’t that western revolutionaries should adopt the Zapatista model exactly, but simply that their existence shows that it’s possible. Anarchism is extremely popular with antifascists in western countries, I’d argue they’re probably more numerous than MLs. So success in western countries would mean finding out why anarchism appeals to the masses and adapting revolutionary theory to work with that. Even if their ideas are currently untenable, we have to treat western antifascists as intellectual equals and not like children who have to be re-educated. Incorporating lessons from the Zapatistas, Rojava, and other decentralized projects may be necessary to understanding how to direct their energy in a constructive manner.
Yeah i agree that more decentralized and less heavy handed approaches to liberating people and building socialism would be more mainstream and valuable in western movements, again mainly angloshpere and western europe, based on the way more "advanced" social and material conditions and backgrounds these countries have compared to the third world. But not because we should accept the situation that a hundred years of violently suppressing 10s of millions of western communists, infiltrating and undermining thousands of communist parties and orgs and engaging the most piercing and catholic propaganda attack in human history has created , as the basis for judging "what the masses want or are attracted to". The fight against the cultural hegemony is the fight against capitalism. What the masses in any country want and support is and should be discovered in the process and struggle and by what framework can do the most to liberate them , benifit them , give them the tools to actualize and protect their gains. And MLs, just as anarchists should follow their experiences and theory to built their framework that will do so ,when chance arives if they believe it is the one that can do those things. And they should resist and not adopt frameworks that they believe on good analysis that they are untenable and a dead end. Same with how you resist democratic socialism as a framwork of theories and approaches, even if its more supported than anarchism and Ml in some western countries.
And what people want or are open to will suprise you in a momments , in a crisis more appropriately notice. Gauging it rn while looking from a desert devoid of these things, based on the margins of a political and ideological life and opinion shaped by the 100 years of anti communist hegemony i described isnt wise. Inspirations and ideas should come from all frameworks and projects but should be resisted existing in the context of "these are the good radical leftists and ideas and not the bad radical leftists ides", reinforcing and feeding of the capitalist oppressive framework's narrative and hegemony that has brough leftist organization on this low point.
My point was not about some sort of perfect synthesis of all tendencies but rather to say we don't need to. There are many different approaches we can take in attacking the beast that is capitalism. We don't know which will work best in which condition, all we can do is attempt to apply them. What we must do is act in solidarity across organizations insofar as possible. What we need to avoid is undermining others attempts.
This is where critical support for places like Syria comes in. They aren't even leftist, but their struggle is against the same empire we are against and so we must have very critical support.
deleted by creator
Agreed. Left unity on the street , on unionizing and on the struggle and activism is very much achievable if you leave brainworms out. I just see the specific sentiment op expressed of striving for "centrism between the two" and "meeting in the middle" on a theoretical/practical level misguided,confused and not something to focus
The later part of your point is 100% correct. Well the first is too but thats unavoidable. The perception of anything revolutionary or actualy anti capitalist is a giant hill to climb and full of semi confused, semi misinformed, semi red scared obstacles, even if all MLs decided to become anarchist just in order to not have to deal with talking about the USSR and Cuba and whatever
Yeah i didnt try to negate your point of mistrust and why "mls are mls and not anarchists". Just to put it imo, in more fair terms
Well im not talking about theorists either. But im neither talking about extremely online MLs nor about how its modified and presented by the media sphere and hegemony outside of the "non terminaly online MLs" that espouse and push for it. Again thats a universal issue of trying to pass a clear, accurate and fair representation of your strategy and vision of the future as radical leftist (ml , anarchist or whatever) inside a brain broken political system, media sphere and population in the imperial core
Agreed 100% about the important issues on the larger leftist community and "pipelines" in anglosphere. But since my original post was replying to OPs take on what the left "should do" on the ground and as an organizational and strategy building approach (chasing some enlightened centrism with synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and "marxist material analysis"), i focused on how this is a confused a vague plea and that the MLs should just look inwards in the successes and huge contributions(and also mistakes) a lot of their movements and theories made on these aspects (in this case as you mentioned relationship and understanding of peasants domesticaly and worldwide and ways to localy organize around vulnerable groups). And applying their own theories correctly would lead to better unity with anarchists and other orgs and better united struggle and less bad takes. So no diverting focus into trying to "synthesize" with "anarchist praxis" and reinvent the weel
Yeah i agree that more decentralized and less heavy handed approaches to liberating people and building socialism would be more mainstream and valuable in western movements, again mainly angloshpere and western europe, based on the way more "advanced" social and material conditions and backgrounds these countries have compared to the third world. But not because we should accept the situation that a hundred years of violently suppressing 10s of millions of western communists, infiltrating and undermining thousands of communist parties and orgs and engaging the most piercing and catholic propaganda attack in human history has created , as the basis for judging "what the masses want or are attracted to". The fight against the cultural hegemony is the fight against capitalism. What the masses in any country want and support is and should be discovered in the process and struggle and by what framework can do the most to liberate them , benifit them , give them the tools to actualize and protect their gains. And MLs, just as anarchists should follow their experiences and theory to built their framework that will do so ,when chance arives if they believe it is the one that can do those things. And they should resist and not adopt frameworks that they believe on good analysis that they are untenable and a dead end. Same with how you resist democratic socialism as a framwork of theories and approaches, even if its more supported than anarchism and Ml in some western countries.
And what people want or are open to will suprise you in a momments , in a crisis more appropriately notice. Gauging it rn while looking from a desert devoid of these things, based on the margins of a political and ideological life and opinion shaped by the 100 years of anti communist hegemony i described isnt wise. Inspirations and ideas should come from all frameworks and projects but should be resisted existing in the context of "these are the good radical leftists and ideas and not the bad radical leftists ides", reinforcing and feeding of the capitalist oppressive framework's narrative and hegemony that has brough leftist organization on this low point.
My point was not about some sort of perfect synthesis of all tendencies but rather to say we don't need to. There are many different approaches we can take in attacking the beast that is capitalism. We don't know which will work best in which condition, all we can do is attempt to apply them. What we must do is act in solidarity across organizations insofar as possible. What we need to avoid is undermining others attempts. This is where critical support for places like Syria comes in. They aren't even leftist, but their struggle is against the same empire we are against and so we must have very critical support.