You must log in or register to comment.
Organized left = isn’t part of the cult
You’re just saying that because of the time the communists took a break from a revolution against monarchists to shoot at other communists. Or because of the other time they did that
“Vote blue no matter who”
Sadly this is true, but it’s more true and worse with the right.
I personally hate tucker, he is a scummy hypocrite puppet, and I personally hate the right and disagree with most of their selfish policies which often serve selective class, corporations or entities… but imo Tucker’s statement was right here. If he wasn’t, the US would have more than a two-party system. The DNC snupped Bernie in 2016, and pretty much forced him to endorse Hilary, the opponent who conspired against him and had vastly different stances on almost everything he campained for, and made him sell “vote blue no matter who” while conceding and pretending it’s the same as voting for Hilary. If this was not true, he would’ve been able to fight and speak out.
With that being said, the right do the exact thing 10 times worse. Their main strategy is to oppose the left and block every proposed senate bill by them just because. The GOP is also full of senetors who opposed Trump then endorsed him and again it’s all because of the two-party bullshit
What’s the old Trotskyite joke? Two members, three parties?
Funnily enough, many online leftists think something similar is true for the right.
The right may not have great organization, but they have an astounding ability to put their blinders on for the Ten Minutes’ Hate when it’s called for. The right’s problem is that when they smell blood in the water, THEN the unity falls apart. It’s power games for them.
Parts of the left, or what passes for it in this country, would prefer martyrdom to cooperating with heretics.
This is because “the left” tries to unite groups that ultimately are at odds with each other. Anarchists of all types work very well with each other usually, but not with Auth left because they have bad praxis and care about being in control of the movement. Likewise it’s difficult to align with social democrats who think electoralism and reformism is a solution and stifle direct action.
Likewise Auth left and social democrats tend to infight, even within themselves, because their hierarchical praxis causes power play friction.
I take great offense in you saying that tankies and socdems infight, lol. (I mean, I get it, they are both statists, but I feel on a emotional level most socdems feel more for anarchism than for leninism.)
Well if meant to in the context of the occasional big tent movements. I don’t think most socdems think much about anarchists at all except when it comes time to scold us for not voting.
Was under the impression that most anarchists are aware that voting is still important. like it or not, we are still citizens of some state for the time being, but we can use that to promote useful change or to exercise damage control, as part of the overall praxis arsenal. especially with some organization within your local groups, it can be a good tool.
We are, surprisingly enough, not very unified on that point. I used to be a non-voter, annoyed at the anarchists that would harangue me to vote. Now I’m a grudging voter, annoyed at the anarchists that harangue me *not* to vote. xD
Both then and now, I maintain that anarchists should either vote or not, and then shut the hell up about it. The whole argument is just a lot of pointless bikeshedding about the most marginal effects.
I think there’s a lot more agreement among anarchists that we shouldn’t get involved in or donate to electoral campaigns. We have better things to do with our time and resources.
How does one then answer the question “If you think elections don’t work, then why do you participate?” by a non-anarchist?
You’ve made plenty of good points throughout the article about the problems with the system. I don’t see why that can’t be your answer. There’s no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.
But if they “work a little” for an anarchist, certainly they would work a lot for a non-anarchist.
How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another. The difference in opinions is on which solution will work, not on what you’re trying to achieve.
This post borders on sovcit levels of delusion.
Yes, and I think that when together in a big tent, socdems would associate more easily with anarchists than with leninists. Especially with syndicalists, for example.
I would be an anarchist if I weren’t socdem. The problem with anarchism is that it only works on a very small scale, where people know each other well enough to work on mutual understanding. That wouldn’t work on a very large scale due to people having their own ideas. I was told before that anarchism is basically the norm for most of human history and thus it could be implemented. Well, look around, aren’t we already living in anarchism under the nation-state model? Even though there is the United Nations, most of their power is non-binding and could easily be ignored by a more powerful member. And thus we are already living in anarchism; and it’s not working as idealised.
Generally speaking, anarchy isn’t some lost golden age that anarchists want to return to, it’s something new that we want to create. Both past and present societies have anarchistic elements that we can draw inspiration from, but none of those societies really live up to our ideals.
There are some that characterize anarchism as equivalent to direct democracy. I disagree with that, but I do think it can be categorized as a further evolution of democracy. Autonomous democracy, if you will. It retains the idea that everyone is equal and that we don’t need monarchs to govern us. However, where democracy sets up a centralized apparatus for majoritarian, society-wide rule-making and enforcement, in anarchy the rules are created and applied in a decentralized fashion where they are needed, by mutual agreement.
anarchism isn’t the lack of rules. Nor is it many little kingdoms.
I’m more anarchistic in personal beliefs but am willing to embrace social democrats to get some benefit.
The idea of the greatest social good for the largest group is more important than trusting everyone to follow the correct policies when given power. I also personally think that state power is incompatible with anarchist beliefs.
It’s simpler than that - the left has principles, while the right has unity and message discipline driven by deference to authority, a victim complex fear, hate, and thirst for power.
You’re mistaken that the right is unified. The fight among each other quite a lot. They can only manage to unite under a charismatic strongman, but quickly fall into infighting when that falters.
They’re not unified, they’re unified …now?
The fact that they have conflicting ideologies (e.g. Nazis and Zionists as I said below) and continue to push in the same direction is pretty straightforward evidence of this.
The unification pre-dates Trump - the rise of the tea party saw ideological rifts, but they all fell in line when the time came. Bush wasn’t a charismatic strongman… nor was McConnell for that matter.
You only think they’re pushing in the same direction because you’re on the outside looking in. As the op points out, they think the same about leftists.
What issues is the left actually coordinated on? The non-specific “weird” narrative. Access to reproductive healthcare maybe.
Where is there meaningful dissent on the right?
-
It’s not the obvious “stolen” election bullshit
-
Even the Nazis are backing Israel
-
They’re fighting regulation of firearms
-
They’re all pushing for austerity broadly
-
They want to restrict immigration
-
They want to deregulate companies
-
They want to outlaw trans people
-
They broadly support Russia with a bit of surface-level sabre-rattling
-
Right. It doesn’t take long to find reasons that conservatives should be divided. Libertarians hyper-capitalists only care about taxes and eliminating government regulations, but are happy to ally with Christian Dominionists. Christian Dominionists, in turn, would only benefit from bringing traditionally black and latinx churches under their philosophy, but they’re also allied with racists who only care about religion and libertarian hyper-capitalism if it provides a way for white people to dominate all others. You can categorize any given conservative by which policy they choose when a contradiction comes up.
None of these groups fit together at all, and there are obvious contradictions between them. Racists will happily add regulations that black people can’t sit in the same diners as white people, which the libertarians ought to hate. Libertarians end social programs that help people, which Christians ought to hate. They’re masters of ignoring all that to get their party into power.
See also: Nazis and Zionists.
That one may be less contradictory than you think. Depends on the brand.
Historically, there were many Christian Zionists who thought “we should give the Jews their homeland so we can kick them out of Europe”. Likewise, certain white nationalists argue that every race should have their own homeland (granted, this may be a ploy more than a real conviction), and Bibi often finds himself in friendly company there.
Reasonable, but understanding that doesn’t solve for the core “sinister Jewish cabal” narrative, I think it comes down to simple ideological alignment - far-right fascist autocracy with genocidal tendencies. There’s not much they disagree on.
I’m not particularly far left compared to the Lemmy Lunatics, but I suspect that is far more true for the right than it is for the left.
I’ve seen people go from “are all these COVID precautions necessary?”, and tumble down a rabbit-hole to “we need to kick the foreigners out, Trump is the best choice for the US, and Russia is entitled to Ukraine” in a matter of months.
They’re very good at keeping people on message. They grab people on one issue and make them go all-in.
The liberal to fascist pipeline is a thing ofc, but it doesn’t represent unity of action.
I’d say fuckers problem isn’t that we are organized but maybe; we’re not a bunch of rock sucker’s mixed in with a bag’o’rascists.
Is “rock” a typo? Don’t get me wrong not cursing is cool too, just curious.
I assumed it was slang for crack cocaine users.
I support this new saying. What’s wrong with people literally fitting the original label? I think we generally appreciate those people, right?
Every time a right wing pundit talks about the left wing hive mind it’s a clear tell that they have no understanding of their political rivals at all…
I think by “left” he means very slightly less right.
“The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.” - 4th World Congress of the Communist International
Basically the thing Trump does where he hears some antiquated information and then his brain re-interprets it into a pre-school level understanding.
Ah yes “please for the love of shit stop fighting each other and fight the people we all agree are the problem instead” “see the left has always been unified”
Wtf dude 😆
If the left were even a fraction as organized as claimed, Bernie would have blown the primary out in 2016 and ridden into the whitehouse with solid majorities in both houses.
It honestly roils me how impotent the left is, because an active organized left could grab this country by the balls and drag it into a whole new era, but all we have is a million headed hydra with each neck pulling in a different direction because nobody can get over themselves for long enough to fall in line behind a common objective.
The Democratic party is still controlled by the rich just like the GOP. Different rich people, possibly with better morals, but they’re still protecting their financial interests even when it isn’t beneficial to the progressive policies they claim to support. So it wasn’t “the Left” that ended up letting Trump win and fucked us for generations with a corrupt SCOTUS but the rich donors controlling the Democratic party.
Yeah because all those people that had zero turnout energy during the primary were actually paid off by the rich. That’s why they didn’t vote in the primary!
Fuck right off with this DNC conspiracy bullshit. Progressives owe their cause turning out, you don’t get to blame everyone else for not doing the revolution for you while you’re sitting on the couch instead of doing the literal barest minimum to actually materially support what you claim you believe in.
Fuck your words. Give the cause your actions, or can your empty platitudes about how it’s everyone else’s fault your side refused to vote.
Seriously the left would steam roll these yokals into oblivion
Yeah, a lot of the stuff that the “Left” fails on seems to be because it hits “well it’s not exactly perfect and good for absolutely anybody do we’re not gonna do it”
Whereas the “Right” is basically ‘well it came from my guy so… seems good’
I think we’re also over-estimating the strength of the left in the US. I think a century of propaganda and witch hunts is still weighing on the prospects of anything overly pro-labor making it to the mainstream.
They’re poor that’s why.
Uneducated, low resources, no time, no money or means.
Wealth has nothing to with it. A lot of them are middle ‘class’
That’s still working class. It isn’t wealth it is life. Wealthy people have time, working folk don’t. Can’t educate or organize the same and certainly don’t have financial capacity to act.
Many middle class folk do not have friends, a place to entertain or amass others or time.
Not saying impossible just that is why I think we have issues there, the progressive folks are busy holding society together. Too busy to organize.
Man, I can’t even agree with myself most days.
I’m imagining you doing the Gollum thing arguing with yourself about theory and both sides accusing the other of being a revisionist
Some people are more in love with the process than the progress. It’s a common failing in organized people.
I wish you were further from the truth.
And you as well?
Well, I think that there’s actually something to this. I’ve been involved in a lot of organizing spaces, and there’s this “our backs are all up against a wall so we have to work towards a common goal of achieving a workers state and not dying due to climate change” vibe going around lately.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA why is everything they say pure projection? The left is a mishmosh of 1000 different pet causes with little to no leadership and the DNC has the strategic computing power of a tiger handheld. The right are the ones that can come together and tow the party line. It’s just Trump that has made everything a bit more chaotic and given the left a clear target to unify against.
But look back to the Obama days and how solidly they blocked everything.
I think this just generally highlights the importance of opening a book and reading. There have been centuries of Leftist thought, questions have been raised and they have been answered. Many considering themselves “left” can sympathize with Leftist goals, or even jab at the sources of modern struggles structurally, but lack the organizational and practical knowledge obtained from Theory and applying theory to practice.
The more you read, the more you realize how little you actually know.
What books specifically would you recommend?
To me, the most influential contribution in the last few decades would be “Capitalist realism: is there any alternative?”
Its very heavily influenced by Marx but it’s more like a philosophical intervention where I would see das kapital as more of a historical intervention. As in “erm no, this is the story of how we got here” (das kapital). Although, there’s plenty of philosophy of course. Its only about 5 pages long and there’s free readings of it on YouTube.
Although, imo, the real origin story of capitalism covered in das kapital, on a national scale, is something everyone should be much more aware of.
What are you familiar with, what do you feel weak in? I’m a Marxist, so I can recommend some generally good introductory works, but if you have specific interests or pre-existing knowledge I can make specific recommendations.
Otherwise, I will always recommend the famous Yellow Parenti Speech.
I wish we had complete solidarity
