I would recommend reading this and sending this to any radlibs/DSA/anarchists you know
Fidel stayed in Cuba as leader of the Cuban Revolution and all of the contradictions of this process. Today he is viewed as a bureaucrat, without charm or appeal, by many if not the majority of the western left
fucking what
Thankfully my country is p woke on Cuba. Lol we even claim that Che was one of us haha.
Same here lol
Ah yeah I figured that might be the one, I remember the Irish Che thing from when I visited Dublin.
Generally here (Greece) people are slightly less scared of the USSR as well as other places, because we had some succdem leaders who at least maintained somewhat good relations with these countries from the 80s onwards, even with Gaddafi and Iran etc. It's only Turkey that everyone here is perpetually pissed about.
For some reason many Greeks like the Irish a lot. Also lots of Irish artists are very popular in Greece, like Rory Gallagher and Dropkick Murphys (yeah I know basically everyone likes them but I'd definitely say their success here was larger than elsewhere, I also remember watching a DM livestream and like half the people there were Greek lol). Idk why but there is some sort of weird affinity that doesn't make that much sense, given how separated the countries are. But yeah, I liked Dublin, I could live there. I couldn't live in the UK.
This article accepts, wholesale, the idea of a coherent "west", and also doesn't negotiate the large fault line between Catholicism and American Protestantism, which are hugely different.
What I found valuable though was that if Allende, if Sankara, if Hampton and the Panthers, if Ho and Mao, if Lenin, etc. were defeated, either through violent rupture or long-term rot and co-optation, then we should not praise them for their nobility, their sacrifice, their innocence, their willingness to play by the rules. If we are serious about taking and holding power, then there must be serious measures made to do so. Defeat is failure. As noble and inspirational as we might find movements of the past, they have all failed to kill Capitalism. Each and every one. The fact that the USSR no longer exists is a failure of that project. We must examine why it was defeated, or why there was social rot and fundamentally broken institutions, and plan to resist those things in the future.
we should not praise them for their nobility, their sacrifice, their innocence, their willingness to play by the rules
are they doing those things for the proletariat, or are they bourgeois virtues?
The problem with this article is that the author seems to think that western Marxists are some big group. Fact of the matter is, the left is very very small. We still have a lot of work to do in the US to build class consciousness and a movement around it. This kind of shit is what keeps dividing the left into petty infighting over... surprise surprise, stupid shit.
Well seeing how this is from black agenda report we might as well take as an example the Black Panthers . They were 10 times smaller than the DSA and other such orgs at best and were still 10 times more successfull in challenging the status quo and threatening the system and moving with great spead towards working class movement and revolutionary class conciousness. All in the midst of the cold war. Maybe self crit like this is meant to analyse why socialist organization in the west has gravitated away from the strategies and structures and ideologies that made such movements successfull both domesticaly and abroad and into an outright rejection of such practices or ideologies by large parts of the left.
DSA has no power at all. At most, you have "the squad" in the house and they hold several state offices, mostly in comfy blue states where they aren't really challenged. Most people outside of left subcultures, see DSA as a bunch of rich college kids just wanting free shit in the words of "socialism is when the government does stuff".
I dont understand the “the left is small so such attempts as analysis are counterproductive”. The “left” is much larger than it was in the times of the BPP or way larger than it has been for decades. Just amassing numbers without any ideological coherency and consistency and without an efficient and challenging to the status quo strategy and structure shouldnt be the priority. The american and western left is still in large part directionless, fragmented , cant muster strong anti-imperialist stances, without a plan or marxist strategy to approach electoralism and propaganda, entering this new cold war with a both sides position and getting swept up as a result in entryism to the democratic party and fighting for social democracy.
The left is very small. It's a fact. We don't have a party, we don't have a working class movement, our labor and worker's rights have been completely destroyed after decades of bipartisanship between both political parties absolutely destroying it. We don't have a left movement, instead what we have is a bunch of people arguing over identity politics, and that's what the author of this article is doing as he blames everything on Christianity.
We would have to start over from scratch building a new working class movement and there hasn't been any real push to that. No one wants to sit down and actually talk to the working class. That is proven time and time again with all the arguments about purity politics (only thing that the article gets right) and dividing everyone up with identity politics.
Hey maybe instead of spending hours on here talking about how amazing capitalist China is in the name of quote on quote "anti-imperialism" maybe start talking to people you work with? Talk to your coworkers about how you're all getting fucked by your boss and how we deserve better than living pay check to pay check, struggling to provide for ourselves and our families and how miserable this system is. You'd get a lot further with people if you actually relate to them and show them that it don't have to be like this. Most leftists don't seem to want to talk to working class out of fear that they are chuds or something. But if you don't talk to them, someone else will. And that someone else is going to be fascists. We should've figured that after Trump, but we didn't.
There absolutely is not going to be a leftist revolution here in the US for the same reason there isn't going to be one in Britain. There is no class consciousness. The left is too divided and infighting over stupid shit to actually pull their heads out of their collective asses and unite under the banner of working class. If we couldn't get a movement out of Trump and figure this shit out in the past 4 years, I don't see it happening in the next few years while the GOP is getting ready to run a competent fascist. We're counting down the days for when shit hits the fan.
You didn't get the point of the article if you think he's using identity politics. You're agreeing with the author when you say that we need to spread class conciousness by talking to coworkers. Thats an example of practical strategy, and also a dangerous strategy, if your boss finds out youre unionizing you get fired. Its easy to say these things but incredibly harder to actually do and face the consequences.
How to unionize without instantly getting fired? Thats an example of a very relevant and practical discussion that is absent in leftist circles. Instead we have Zizek talking about the hidden symbols in Hollywood movies, or Chomsky telling people to vote for Biden etc.
DSA has no power at all. At most, you have “the squad” in the house
go back to /c/electoralism
Is there anything specific that you don't disagree with? What part of his analysis leads you to believe that he thinks its a big group? I certainly did not get that impression. I do agree with you that inaction on the part of leftists is the main reason for its small size. I don't consider this infighting, Im not trying to make a chapo.chat2 and I'm not arguing in favor of any tendency. Just saying that there is a constant problem of lack of concrete action related to acquiring real political power
His whole part about Bolivia and the reaction to Morales coming back, is some serious nitpicking. He's looking for a reason to lash out at whatever he deems "western Marxists".
anyone who isn’t an academic is probably what many would call a “doomer” for fetishizing the idea of dying for a cause
translation: "Anyone who isn't a friend of Jeffrey Epstein in the academic complex is a disposable worker"
Generally a bad article. It has a good point that western leftwing radicals fetishize their moral purity over results which does stem from christian dogma, but then applies that to all western Marxist for no reason. His only evidence is that there has been no successful western Marxist revolution, therefore his explanation for their failure is correct because they failed.
Except Cuba, which is somehow not western and immune from Christian infulence for no explained reason. (Because it was successful?)
I've been working on this idea that liberalism is largely shaped by modern secular Christianity.
For example, liberal environmentalism is driven by individual sin (not recycling) and redemption (buying electric car) and conservatives are seen as individual sinners with no context making bad choices etc.
I think Marx's Capital is about the base, but modern capitalist mythology gains legitimacy through being a mythos actualized through its connection with the base, but isn't actually referential to the base as such.
Like in the era after Marx you have this era of people like Max Weber and so on trying to take what Marx says and bend it in a way that isn't antagonistic to the social relations that are connected to the base, but the social relations of capitalism inherently form an antagonistic contradiction that is simply papered over by liberal/conservative myth making.
or something.
Well, I didn't state it explicitly, but my point is that the superstructure, Christianity, interacted with the base, capital, to create new superstructure, liberalism, related to the older superstructure, but shaped by the base.
As a side note, Mao also said that the superstructure can take a dominant role over the base as well, but that it's an exception.
"Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role." -Mao On Contradiction
Also when I said isn't referential to the base I meant explicitly referential. Although free markets and private property are foundational to liberalism it's rarely emphasized.
liberalism is largely shaped by modern secular Christianity.
The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity by Eugene McCarraher https://b-ok.cc/book/5288094/3badf7
Far from displacing religions, as has been supposed, capitalism became one, with money as its deity. Eugene McCarraher reveals how mammon ensnared us and how we can find a more humane, sacramental way of being in the world.
If socialists and Wall Street bankers can agree on anything, it is the extreme rationalism of capital. At least since Max Weber, capitalism has been understood as part of the "disenchantment" of the world, stripping material objects and social relationships of their mystery and sacredness. Ignoring the motive force of the spirit, capitalism rejects the awe-inspiring divine for the economics of supply and demand.
Eugene McCarraher challenges this conventional view. Capitalism, he argues, is full of sacrament, whether or not it is acknowledged. Capitalist enchantment first flowered in the fields and factories of England and was brought to America by Puritans and evangelicals whose doctrine made ample room for industry and profit. Later, the corporation was mystically animated with human personhood, to preside over the Fordist endeavor to build a heavenly city of mechanized production and communion. By the twenty-first century, capitalism has become thoroughly enchanted by the neoliberal deification of "the market."
I interesting. Seems like a broader view. Would be interesting to think of conservativism as old testament (interesting link with zionism/conservativism getting along) and Liberalism being new testament with its focus on sin and forgiveness.
Never really connected capital with god. Just about balling, but interesting to think in terms of the trinity. Money as the son, markets as the holy ghost and constitutionalism as the father.
Look how marvelous Bolivia is today. Every day an activist is murdered or jailed, but they have the moral consolation of not have been repressive or authoritarian with the Bolivian bourgeoisie.
This is a point I really like. Bolivia not being authoritarian enough ended up producing a worse outcome than being authoritarian would have. Same with Sankara, Allende, even Makhno maybe? People like to smugly point out “the stick isn’t better if you call it the People’s Stick!!!!” but I would argue that left-wing authoritarianism is vastly preferred to a right-wing authoritarianism following a reactionary coup.
While there are good points about purity politics, fetishization of defeat, and the "Christianisation of praxis", the point about the Catholic church is devoid from reality. If it was written 50 years ago it would be correct, but Christianity, both protestant and Catholic, is playing much less of a direct role in people's beliefs than before. Every year in the US and Europe less and less people self identify as Christian, the influence of the church is less than before. There's also the issue that the Catholic church is inherently an institution that would appose any form of revolution, due to the structure of the Vatican and the Pope. Christianity has been used to push reactionary ideas in the west as well, such as discrimination against LGBT people, anti-communism and the "prosperity gospel". There's also the fact that the article makes no mention of the Protestant - Catholic divide, which can be quite substantial at times
the Protestant - Catholic divide, which can be quite substantial at times
You have a talent for understatement lol
Yeah it can be an absolutely massive issue. I once met a evangelical protestant Christian that did not believe that Catholic people were Christian because they "prayed to statues" and that was against the 10 commandments about false idols or something. They actually thought of Catholics as less than human, as demons. It was quite something to be honest
I said I thought that analysis was good, and I agree with it. It's just the part about Catholicism that doesn't make sense
What if they say “ americans have literally nothing of value to say about politics”?
There is some truth to the lasting effect of Christianity on not only Marxist but leftist thinking in general. Anti-Marxists, such as Löwith, Bultman or Kołakowski knew this even better than Marxists themselves. They were perfectly right in pointing out that many concepts in leftist political thought are secularizations of Christian ideas.
But the problem with them as well the argument in this article is that they consider certain analogies between these traditions as real historical continuities with explanatory value. Martyrdom, paradise, saints, apocalypse, and synod all had their Marxist counterparts, but they did not develop directly out of Christian origins. In fact, in every country where Marxist or Marx-inspired political parties became popular before WWI (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium) their success relied on the secularization of their working class constituents. Marxism for them fulfilled a main function of Christian religiosity: giving hope and a historical perspective, and Marxism was rarely practiced as a theory (this is why the most prolific theorists in this time came from the east: Kautksy, Rosa, Lukacs and Lenin for example). But there was little by way of contact between Christianity and Socialism and it only emerged after WW2 in the form of Liberation Theology.
The second argument that western Marxists would disregard historical socialist formations because of some Christian-inspired purity is mostly horseshit. First, the Catholic Church does the exact opposite of what western leftists do according to the author. The church teaches that no moral transgression vitiate the truth of the dogma and therefore the Church can embrace all sorts of assholes. Western leftists on the contrary operate from a moralist platform and abandon their political position if immoral behavior can be associated with it (as they did in 1956). Many pointed out in this thread that the reason for the moral purism of western leftists is not their Christian background but their weakness. Generations of defeat and failure conditioned them to appreciate martyrdom.
All this goes back to the paradox of the current, unprecedented historical situation. Today, Marxist theory is flourishing everywhere but there is no international working class political movement to which it could attach. There is a wide gap between the mostly college educated practitioners of this theory and those classes and actors which could form a revolutionary subject. That is perhaps a greater issue than what the author focuses on. It is not the job of western Marxist to write apologia about various state-capitalist regimes, but participating in the creation of a working class consciousness should be.
Edit: grammar, syntax
I would say its more than just anarkids because majority of leftists I know are like this. The point I really liked is how academic and conventional leftist discussion is less about the practical aspects of siezing political power or understanding political economy, but more about asthetics, electoralism, esoteric disscussions of ideology, psychoanalysis etc. This translates to a very Christianized praxis of "helping", as in donating, running food banks, shelters, offering moral support etc, rather than a more useful but also messy and dangerous praxis of unionization, strikes, forming militias , civil disobedience etc
You seem to really hate anarchists, but are also advocating for things that anarchists are spearheading. The IWW is one of very few radical unions in the US. John Brown Gun Club is taking the issue of gunning the left very seriously. The IWW-GDC is doing the work to make the activities you're talking about safer. I'm sure PSL is also doing these things, but not anywhere near the scale of the similar anarchist projects.
The criticism applies to the general left, including anarchists. You cant use the example of a tiny union with 9000 members as proof that the criticisms are wrong.
I agree with the criticisms, the US left is absolutely mired in Protestantism. I was pointing out that in the US anarchists (the most organized revolutionary milieu in the US), are doing exactly what you're advocating for.
I think anarchists are allergic to martyrs, and their Protestantism shows up more in their mythmaking (revolution is often interchangeable with heaven with anarchists), and their emphasis on avoiding mediating forces (like mass media, or money).
I will say that part of the reason is probably because actually fighting the military is a really fucking scary prospect right now and we’d need actual left support from the working class to do that. Which unfortunately because a lot of America seem unable to accept the concept of supposedly “leftist” policies that benefit them with barely any downside so I have a hard time seeing them willing to risk their life for it
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is criticized in the article. Instead of turning yourself into a defeatist martyr ("Nobody seems to listen to my truthful Gospel" ), think about the problem is a more practical manner. For example, make a plan how to effectively unionize your workplace and try to execute it. If it fails, see why it failed, and repeat again with necessary changes. If people dont listen to leftist ideas, try to approach them in different manners and see which method works. Try to form an organized militia with armed leftists, try to convince them the necessity of discipline and organization.
Attempts at unionization will likely get you fired. Trying to spread leftist ideas will get you ridiculed. Forming an organized militia will likely get you on the list. So my point is, real effective praxis is dangerous, its messy, things wont go the way you want to. You'll probably have to compromise in many ways. But you keep at it anyway, and do it in a pragmatic manner.
Actual leftist work is incredibly dangerous and produces little ROI. This is why Western leftism has retreated into constant production and reproduction of ideological substitution for real praxis (reading theory, debating, posting online), and whatever actual praxis is done usually avoids any kind of direct conflict with capital, and is therefore mostly useless.
Western leftism has retreated into constant production and reproduction of ideological substitution for real praxis (reading theory, debating, posting online)
But what is this based on? Is this a survey? Is this just judging by things said online? I mean if you look online and find a bunch of shitposters, it's not really fair to say that all or even most of what exists are shitposters. Of course one finds a lot of arguing and reading online. These are fairly passive as is being online. Of course you're not going to see people going through the steps of forming a union, because that happens offline. Like we're not going to take pictures and video of filling out paperwork and going to court and filling out union cards. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We should be critical of ourselves but the criticism should be based on rational observations and solid reasoning. It shouldn't be a prejudice formed because it's funny to view westerners as big pampered babies while leftist movements in other places are protesting for months straight and dying in the streets. The whole point of unionizing and all that stuff is to try to stave off the bloody part for as long as possible. If you can strike and get your way, then that's better than dying from a drone bombing 10 mins into the bloody revolution you started.
I'm making more of a general obervation. My evidence is based on the lack of militant union activity, lack of organized and armed communist movements, and low penetration of communist ideas in western countries, as compared to say, 70 years ago, or compared to some modern third-world countries.
It shouldn’t be a prejudice formed because it’s funny to view westerners as big pampered babies while leftist movements in other places are protesting for months straight and dying in the streets. The whole point of unionizing and all that stuff is to try to stave off the bloody part for as long as possible. If you can strike and get your way, then that’s better than dying from a drone bombing 10 mins into the bloody revolution you started.
You have a severe misundersanding of unionization. Firstly, it is an end in itself, it gains economic power and real benefits to the standard of living of workers. Secondly, it gives real political power to the union members, beyond anything that electoralism can provide. The threat of a bloody revolution is lessened the more military power you have, which is why you need to form organized militias that wards off any potential military action by the state.
No, when I say "that's the whole point of unionizing" I don't mean that's the only point. I'm trying to say that unions are a way of avoiding an immediate armed conflict. At some point they're not going to tolerate unions and then it will be time to fight. My point isn't that you don't fight, or avoid fighting forever. I'm responding to the idea that the western left, whatever that means, is bad because it's not militant enough, ie it's not actively seeking armed conflict with the police/military. And we don't yet know that simply having a strong labor movement won't work. So it's a bit premature to say that union action without some undefined threshold of militancy won't work.
Can you explain specifically in what ways union activity needs to militant? Do you mean just having guns and walking around or do you mean unions should be physically engaging Jeff Bezos in a firefight? Do you think a communist militia marching on Elon Musk's home right now would benefit western leftism? If the criticism is we don't talk about the practical considerations of taking power, we can do that. What action are you talking about that needs to take place and how does it directly benefit the movement?
A militant union occupies workplaces when companies try to shut down to avoid dealing with the union. It organizes strikes regularly, not just for its own purposes, but as solidarity for other striking workers or related movements. It forms picket lines when striking and beats up scabs etc.
Okay so you're saying that because you don't see unions in the west striking regularly, occupying workplace, forming picket lines, and assaulting scabs, then they're not militant enough. And a lack of militant unions is a sign of how weak western marxism is?
Why don't they do these things? Why don't they strike regularly? Why don't they occupy private property? Why don't they assault scabs? Do you think it's just fear?
My opinion- fear, lack of class conciousness, present unions being kinda shitty with their collaborationism, lack of organisation,
but it fails to realize the reason why it’s true is because people just don’t have (enough) of a material reason to revolt right now.
Please rid yourself of this notion completely from your mind. You are trying to divert blame from the Left for its lack of effective work put into organization, spreading propaganda, unionization etc, and instead just handwaving it using the excuse of material conditions. The left is far stronger in countries like Finland or Denmark, with their strong unionization and worker solidarity, inspite of having great material conditions. While the Left is destroyed and weak in countries like America or UK, where the material conditions are really bad for the workers, and have been for decades.
You are also preoccupied with revolution and martyrdom, when the focus instead should be on rational activities like acquiring political power, achieving real gains etc.
(reading theory, debating, posting online)
consumption of politics spectacle is literally /r/breadtube
This translates to a very Christianized praxis of “helping”, as in donating, running food banks, shelters, offering moral support
"The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity" https://b-ok.cc/book/5288094/3badf7
Their crits of the State Dept-friendly/Jacobin-style/Imperialist Left (who say things like "socialist countries aren't socialist, Sanders and Corbyn are the only true socialists") seem pretty accurate
I don't totally agree with the connection to catholicism, it seems tenuous on some points (since I'm neither white nor catholic; also wouldn't the US being a predominantly protestant nation kind of undermine that? idk)
Not sure what they were on about with Bolivia, definitely written before the triumphant comeback of MAS and also completely ignores the imperialist meddling from the US that led to the coup in the first place.
Still, the thing that stuck out to me was the martyr analogy, which was probably the strongest connection, since Western Left (and radlib) orgs love to turn resistance into an end in and of itself, and do fetishize defeat.
As an anarchist, I felt called out at first, but then I remembered that some "anarchists" can't be happy that some people have liberated themselves from neoliberal capitalism and have functioning decentralized local community rule ( like Vietnam )
Good essay. The left in the imperial core broadly and specifically the US left has rejected scientific socialism for nearly a century and it's time we bring it back.
I've been thinking about this but I felt like I'd sound like a fucking dumbass so I've kept it to myself. Instead of reason and the scientific method, the left in the imperial core has embraced idealism and this kind of irrational how-dare-you-ism that allows bad faith actors to use identity politics to hijack movements and ostracize valuable comrades.
Instead of reason and the scientific method
Unironically doing the Ben Shapiro bit.
