Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.
Yeah pretty much this. There are perhaps people that call themselves anarchists and think this way, but they are terribly misguided.
I think it is more accurate to say that people in the west are driven to anti-capitalism out of disillusionment and they are often more scared of the word socialism than anarchism and so many land at the latter without ever really examining the total scope of the task ahead of us.
the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex
This is mixing and matching. Anarchists align with engaging in prefigurative politics (something Marxists and others smear as "utopian"); social democrats align with building out of the most robust economies and electoral systems. These are not really compatible with each other.
The main commonality between anarchist and demsoc politics is the sense of being able to tangibly move forward incrementally both in the present moment before the revolutionary "threshold", and afterwards too.
cw: could be interpreted as sectarian
from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
deleted by creator
Yeah pretty much this. There are perhaps people that call themselves anarchists and think this way, but they are terribly misguided.
I think it is more accurate to say that people in the west are driven to anti-capitalism out of disillusionment and they are often more scared of the word socialism than anarchism and so many land at the latter without ever really examining the total scope of the task ahead of us.
This is brilliant, thank you
This is mixing and matching. Anarchists align with engaging in prefigurative politics (something Marxists and others smear as "utopian"); social democrats align with building out of the most robust economies and electoral systems. These are not really compatible with each other.
The main commonality between anarchist and demsoc politics is the sense of being able to tangibly move forward incrementally both in the present moment before the revolutionary "threshold", and afterwards too.