Does anyone else ever suffer disillusionment from debating?

[Questionable]

When I first started reading about communism/Marxism and studying it, it became a passion for me. For the first time, I'd found an ideology that made so much sense of everything. It was so illuminating. I spent hours studying all these different books. Then I got on the internet, and I started reading about Leninism and Left Communism and Trotskyism and Stalinism, and now everything is just confusing and muddled again.

All these different tendencies and criticisms seem so huge, I feel like I'll never have enough knowledge to tackle them all. I'll start out reading a new book by Lenin, but in the back of my head I'll be thinking "You know, what if the Left-Coms are right and this is all just a load of crap?" then I'll start reading something else, but I won't agree with it, so I'll try to find something new, then the cycle goes on until I finally just get frustrated with everything and give up.

I know this all seems silly, but basically I've just reached the point where I can't even study Marxism without feeling like I have to "choose a side" first. Has anyone else ever experienced this feeling? If so, how do I deal with it and get back to actually studying and learning real Marxism instead of just worrying about Trotsky vs. Stalin every time I try?

[roy]

Just try to be objective, I guess. I wouldn't worry about it too much because the learning process is constant. All the leftist sects will be irrelevant come the revolution, anyway.

[daft punk]

Questionable, what you are displaying is a rare bit of honesty, not seen very often in left wing politics. You are showing a desire for the truth. Don't worry about it.

My advice is keep it simple. Think of Trotsky in the middle, Stalin on the right and the leftcoms/anarchists on the left. Trotsky was more or less identical to Lenin after April 1917. So think of them as the same after this date.

So compare Trotskyism and the Left Opposition with Stalinism on the one (right) hand, and Trotskyism/Leninism with left communism/anarchism on the other (left).

What are the main differences in each case?

Trotskyism vs Stalinism.

Split this into three periods
1. 1924-8
2. 1928-34
3. 1934 onwards.

This is because from 1928-34 Stalinist policies swung drastically in a different direction (at exactly the wrong time in Trotsky's opinion). This middle period was the Third Period. Google that plus "social fascism".

To get an idea of the differences between Trotsky and Stalin in the period 1924 -28 read the Intro from Platform of the Left Opposition.

After 1934 google Two Stage Theory and Popular Fronts. Read about Spain and the Purge, plus the aftermath of WW2 and Stalin's aim of establishing capitalism in countries outside the USSR.

Left Communism/anarchism
Regarding left coms, this is the more serious debate in my opinion, and there are a few on here who can debate it reasonably. But I have been far from convinced by any of their arguments, they mostly seem so extreme. There are various strands from mild criticism of the Bolsheviks to outright opposition, plus there are the impossiblists who say the revolution should not have happened and conditions were immature. Read up on Kronstadt, the Workers Opposition etc. One good source is Victor Serge who was an anarchist who joined the Bolsheviks but sometimes criticised them.

Read basic Marx & Engels and make sure you understand the concept of historical materialism, the role of the individual, and Trotsky's Permanent Revolution. Try to see how Permanent Revolution fits in with reality and with what Marx and Engels wrote.

This can take you years, decades, to understand and get right, so dont worry about being a bit confused at the moment, it's actually healthy.

Don't choose a side if you aren't ready, there is no need to. The worst thing is people who believe in a strand of though mainly because they joined a party. This is when it becomes a bit cult-like sometimes.

[daft punk]

All the leftist sects will be irrelevant come the revolution, anyway.

In what way?

[Rocky Rococo]

Don't worry ab0out the debating. Learn what seems applicable, remember, some of the "classic" texts and polemics have been passede by by the material progress of history. A lot of the hair-splitting argumentation you see among the sectarians is precisely over those vestiges of an earlier era.Learn to see how the turning of the historical wheel has created new contradictions, new structures of socialization and alienation, see from real life how these things play out in the lives and minds of your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers. Learn to apply the theoretical knowledge you've gained in a practical, inclusive, non-preachy way with your peer groups. When you get there, then you become an effective radical. It won't happen right away, although probably faster than it did for me. It took me most of 35 years from the time I first studied Marx until I was able to make a difference in the way those around me see things. Finally in the past couple of years I've noticed more people listening up than tuning out. Let it come as it's going to come.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, i feel just like you. I think that the point that we are at now, after having understood the basic evils of this system, is really just a matter of what is more probable to succeed. Who knows, but i would tell you that we should always have the goal of world revolution at the forefront, Trotsky is more famous for this, but it is in my opinion the most important goal to propagate and keep in mind. Also i would tell you that collectivisation, communist class structure, and anti-revisionism should be our main goals for communism. That means concretely: collectivisation through revolutionary sovietisation, workers control over production becoming producers/appropriators of their surplus, and getting rid of the market until it is obliterated. Once it it, we can get rid of exchange, money.

[roy]

In what way?

You're either gonna fight for proletarian revolution or against it. The working class isn't going to adopt this or that tendency; it's going to fight for its own liberation. Coup d'etats are obviously a different story, but that's not workers' revolution.

[daft punk]

You're either gonna fight for proletarian revolution or against it. The working class isn't going to adopt this or that tendency; it's going to fight for its own liberation. Coup d'etats are obviously a different story, but that's not workers' revolution.

Yeah, I suppose it does all boil down to that.

But, suppose you were back in Russia in the period 1918 to 1922. The left coms might describe the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionary, some seem to on here anyway. Whereas the Bolsheviks might say the left coms are somewhat counter-revolutionary in terms of what would happen if they got their way.

Obviously Stalin simply was counter-revolutionary, but he still managed to convince lots of people that the LO were in some way counter-revolutionary, enough so that in the end he could get away with the Moscow Show Trials.

[roy]

Yeah, I suppose it does all boil down to that.

But, suppose you were back in Russia in the period 1918 to 1922. The left coms might describe the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionary, some seem to on here anyway. Whereas the Bolsheviks might say the left coms are somewhat counter-revolutionary in terms of what would happen if they got their way.

Obviously Stalin simply was counter-revolutionary, but he still managed to convince lots of people that the LO were in some way counter-revolutionary, enough so that in the end he could get away with the Moscow Show Trials.

Yep, coup d'etat. The USSR was just another bourgeois state by that stage. Should revolution sweep the globe, no vanguard party separate from the working class is going to establish control. It's not like post-revolutionary society is going to be organised according to the will of anarchists, Trots or whatever tendency.

[Railyon]

I know this all seems silly, but basically I've just reached the point where I can't even study Marxism without feeling like I have to "choose a side" first. Has anyone else ever experienced this feeling?

Getting into Marxism was like opening a giant treasure chest for me. But I think looking at things critically is not bad at all. Accepting everything that is force-fed to you is not in the vein of critical thinking we should engage in, right?

On the topic of "disillusionment from debating" though, it seems I'm talking to a wall more often than not, people I debated with were either uncritically swallowing the free market bullshit or succumbing to capitalist realism. Those in the latter category usually argue for a petty-bourgeois ethical capitalism, that seems to be a problem where I live...

[black magick hustla]

plus there are the impossiblists who say the revolution should not have happened and conditions were immature.[/QUOTE]

thats not impossibilism

[gorillafuck]

In what way?because revolution is not the result of everyone following unknown political ideologies.


But, suppose you were back in Russia in the period 1918 to 1922. The left coms might describe the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionary, some seem to on here anyway. Whereas the Bolsheviks might say the left coms are somewhat counter-revolutionary in terms of what would happen if they got their way.left communists are pro-bolshevik and were in the bolshevik party.

[Ocean Seal]

When I first started reading about communism/Marxism and studying it, it became a passion for me. For the first time, I'd found an ideology that made so much sense of everything. It was so illuminating. I spent hours studying all these different books. Then I got on the internet, and I started reading about Leninism and Left Communism and Trotskyism and Stalinism, and now everything is just confusing and muddled again.

All these different tendencies and criticisms seem so huge, I feel like I'll never have enough knowledge to tackle them all. I'll start out reading a new book by Lenin, but in the back of my head I'll be thinking "You know, what if the Left-Coms are right and this is all just a load of crap?" then I'll start reading something else, but I won't agree with it, so I'll try to find something new, then the cycle goes on until I finally just get frustrated with everything and give up.

I know this all seems silly, but basically I've just reached the point where I can't even study Marxism without feeling like I have to "choose a side" first. Has anyone else ever experienced this feeling? If so, how do I deal with it and get back to actually studying and learning real Marxism instead of just worrying about Trotsky vs. Stalin every time I try?

CHOOSING A SIDE IS A BAD IDEA
That's probably one of the few things that I will type in all caps. Trotsky and Stalin are both dead and there is nothing to say that upholding their rather dated party line will be of any use to the left in the future. Goodness knows it isn't any good today. Don't get sucked into this bullshit. Here's the thing. Lenin isn't full of shit, he's also not deprived of shit. So when you read Lenin instead of thinking of what the Left-Coms would say, try reading what he wrote and figuring out yourself whether or not you think that he's full of shit, or what parts of his writings are full of shit.

[ACAB]

I think talking to communists is depressing, revolutionaries have virtually no part to play, we make up about 0.0001 percent of the population, Revolution will come when the vast majority awake from their slumber, we have no way of shaping it, all we can do is hope it arrives quick enough for us to benefit from the changes that will come as the chains of capitalism break.

Till then just fucking have as much fun as you can and stop reading shitty books on economics!

[daft punk]

"
plus there are the impossiblists who say the revolution should not have happened and conditions were immature."

thats not impossibilism


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403501&postcount=148

"Tendency: Impossibilists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=597)"

" Socialism was not only impossible because Russia was an "isolated backward country", socialism was impossible because, as well as that, the subjective factor - mass socialist consciousness and the desire for a genuine socialist society (not your state owned economy) - was more or less entirely absent"

[daft punk]

because revolution is not the result of everyone following unknown political ideologies.

left communists are pro-bolshevik and were in the bolshevik party.
Yes, and to some extent the Bolsheviks banned their factions.

[daft punk]

CHOOSING A SIDE IS A BAD IDEA
That's probably one of the few things that I will type in all caps. Trotsky and Stalin are both dead and there is nothing to say that upholding their rather dated party line will be of any use to the left in the future. Goodness knows it isn't any good today. Don't get sucked into this bullshit. Here's the thing. Lenin isn't full of shit, he's also not deprived of shit. So when you read Lenin instead of thinking of what the Left-Coms would say, try reading what he wrote and figuring out yourself whether or not you think that he's full of shit, or what parts of his writings are full of shit.


This is a very garbled and naive post. Understanding the difference between Trotsky and Stalin is vital and anyone who says otherwise is politically clueless. We have to be able to explain the 20th century and learn from it. Pretending it never happened is a non-starter. As for the bit about Lenin I'm not really sure what your point is.

Popular Front anyone?

[ACAB]

This is a very garbled and naive post. Understanding the difference between Trotsky and Stalin is vital and anyone who says otherwise is politically clueless. We have to be able to explain the 20th century and learn from it. Pretending it never happened is a non-starter. As for the bit about Lenin I'm not really sure what your point is.

Popular Front anyone?

shut up you moron, all you do is spew verbal Diarrhoea for fucks sake!

this is you:

"HUR DUR, choosing a side in a debate between two long dead peado looking authoritarians is an importantz thing in teh workers struggleh"

[robbo203]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403501&postcount=148

"Tendency: Impossibilists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=597)"

" Socialism was not only impossible because Russia was an "isolated backward country", socialism was impossible because, as well as that, the subjective factor - mass socialist consciousness and the desire for a genuine socialist society (not your state owned economy) - was more or less entirely absent"


FFS - here we go again. More Daft Punk distortions. Saying a socialist revolution could not have happened is NOT the same thing as saying a socialist revolution should not have happened. It would be absolutely wonderful if an actual socialist revolution did actually happen but the preconditions for it simply did not exist. Only an unrealistic fool or daydreamer would think otherwise

You never learn, do you? You put your foot in it every time and live up to your name. Are you a mascochist, perchance, who enjoys being hauled over the coals and made to look a plonker repeatedly?

[daft punk]

FFS - here we go again. More Daft Punk distortions. Saying a socialist revolution could not have happened is NOT the same thing as saying a socialist revolution should not have happened. It would be absolutely wonderful if an actual socialist revolution did actually happen but the preconditions for it simply did not exist. Only an unrealistic fool or daydreamer would think otherwise

You never learn, do you? You put your foot in it every time and live up to your name. Are you a mascochist, perchance, who enjoys being hauled over the coals and made to look a plonker repeatedly?

Maybe you should have made the distinction before, as we have discussed it several times.

Regardless, you are wrong anyway, as socialism could have happened if Russia had spread internationally.

You are like the mirror reflection of another 'left com' on here, I cant remember who, who says that the backwardness of Russia was irrelevant and only the isolation mattered. Both of you think one half of the story is the whole story.

However, disregarding the politics, I dont like your tone. There is no need.

[daft punk]

shut up you moron, all you do is spew verbal Diarrhoea for fucks sake!

_______________________
Dont ever pay people out or put people down. Instead just put yourself up and let the haters do their thing. Id rather be a person thats hated on, than a person that does the hating. A wise man one said...

Haters gonna hate!



what a hypocrite

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

@ the OP. I second what others have said about not taking sides in historical or tendency conflicts until you are sure where you stand yourself. I think you need to figure that out honestly and with and open mind. It´s useful to get an understanding of the historical and material situations those marxist writers were responding to at the time. What was the basis of those different conclusions? Another useful question is to try to honestly evaluate how relevant they are for today´s conditions and ask yourself if history has proved them right? There is no shortcut to this I think. By all means don´t describe to a certain tendency prematurely, until you think your sure.
I myself relate quite a lot to what you´re saying in the OP. It´s easy to become overwhelmed when studying marxism. However, there is no urgent hurry for you to make up your mind on all things. Taking a break from reading marxist/communist stuff and become preoccupied with other things in my spare time for a while has worked quite well for me. It has meant that I approach it again with a fresh pair of eyes when I get back to it.
Today, I don´t feel disillusioned with marxism as a social science or my communist convictions. In fact, they get firmer as I get older. I do however feel chronic disillusionment in the movement and far left politics in general, even a sense of hopelessness at worst. But I guess it´s something I´ll have to live with for now.:)

[Art Vandelay]

@OP

Fuck the statists. Just keep your nose in your books and you will be fine. Find the general tendency that makes sense to you and go from there. If you have been leaning to anarchism read everything you can get your hands on, you will only find what is right for you through reading. You do not want to end up like alot on here, simply spewing tendency or party lines and unable to engage in critical reflection.

[daft punk]

@OP

Fuck the statists.

You do not want to end up like alot on here.....unable to engage in critical reflection.

So, you tell a relative beginner to fuck the 'statists', and then slag off a ''lot on here' for being 'unable to engage in critical thought'.

It's a bit contradictory if you ask me.

Maybe better if you think up a good reason to fuck the 'statists'.

[Art Vandelay]

So, you tell a relative beginner to fuck the 'statists', and then slag off a ''lot on here' for being 'unable to engage in critical thought'.

It's a bit contradictory if you ask me.

Maybe better if you think up a good reason to fuck the 'statists'.

Indeed I do, which is why my politics are what they are. I find the majority of statists on here, not all of them however, clinging to dead dudes and like I said:"Unable to engage in critical reflection."

Where is the contradiction?

[daft punk]

I just told you. As for clinging to dead dudes, obviously Marxism and 20th century history has gone straight over your head.

[Art Vandelay]

I just told you. As for clinging to dead dudes, obviously Marxism and 20th century history has gone straight over your head.

No clarification when asked, purposely obscure. Interesting that you can tell Marxism and 20th century history went over my head from two off hand remarks; it says more about you then it does about me.

[daft punk]

The contradiction is that you begin by dismissing most communist tendencies with 'fuck the statists' and then complain that the 'statists' do not engage in critical reflection. 'Fuck the' does not exactly conjure up images of critical reflection. The word 'statist' lumps together two opposite schools of thought.

You then justify it by saying the statists cling to dead dudes. This is probably not too helpful to the OP. By ignoring or trivialising the differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism, you actually say the same as the bourgeois, and in some ways the Stalinists. The bourgeois and the Stalinists both like to say that Stalinism grew naturally from Leninism. My guess is you would agree.

Therefore, if I am right, you agree with the capitalists and the Stalinists.

What is the critical reasoning behind that?

[Kronsteen]

People get into marxism for all sorts of reasons.

Some are more into fighting the police than fighting capitalism. A lot want to be told the absolute truth by some authority figure - and given a readymade enemy in the form of another sect.

Many - perhaps the majority - are attracted by the implicit moral framework of a future socialist society, and the moral rightness of opposing unjust corporations.

Some are into one issue, like ecology, and find the local marxists are the closest existing group to what they want.

And there's never a shortage of outsiders who want to stay outsiders but also want a support network of fellow outsiders.

Oh, and there's even a few whose main focus is trying to create a world revolution.

The OP seems to be a searcher for truth. A philosopher, someone who finds marxist writers give them intelligible answers from a coherent theoretical framework. That's what got me into marxism, and eventually what estranged me from my own tendency. Not to say that'll inevitably happen to Questionable.

My little piece of advice is: You don't have to chose a side, you just have to stay true to your intellect and your conscionce. If your tendency won't let you do that, you're better off without them.

But stick with reading the theory, and the protests if they appeal to you. Marxism may not be perfect, and certainly not complete, but it's by far the best we've got.

[Art Vandelay]

The contradiction is that you begin by dismissing most communist tendencies with 'fuck the statists' and then complain that the 'statists' do not engage in critical reflection. 'Fuck the' does not exactly conjure up images of critical reflection. The word 'statist' lumps together two opposite schools of thought.

I do not consider "most communists" as you put it, communists; and definitely do not think that they are in anyway helpful to the actual goal of bringing about communism.


You then justify it by saying the statists cling to dead dudes. This is probably not too helpful to the OP. By ignoring or trivialising the differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism, you actually say the same as the bourgeois, and in some ways the Stalinists. The bourgeois and the Stalinists both like to say that Stalinism grew naturally from Leninism. My guess is you would agree.

I do not think that all statists cling to dead dudes, in fact there are many anti-statists who do as well.


Therefore, if I am right, you agree with the capitalists and the Stalinists.

What is the critical reasoning behind that?


Ad hominem.

The fact that every argument that you are involved with delves into a trotsky-stalinist circle jerk makes me not want to converse with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine; if the OP wants clarification on either he can ask.

[daft punk]

I do not consider "most communists" as you put it, communists; and definitely do not think that they are in anyway helpful to the actual goal of bringing about communism.



I do not think that all statists cling to dead dudes, in fact there are many anti-statists who do as well.



Ad hominem.

The fact that every argument that you are involved with delves into a trotsky-stalinist circle jerk makes me not want to converse with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine; if the OP wants clarification on either he can ask.

Not impressed. Vague, silly, no substance. Your shit posting makes me not want to converse with you.

[Art Vandelay]

Not impressed. Vague, silly, no substance. Your shit posting makes me not want to converse with you.

You are very grumpy gramps, I thought we could at least be civil, oh well; does this mean I get to go up on your wall of fame now too?

Oh wait, I see you have taken it down, what a shame.

[daft punk]

No, it means I cant be arsed, you gave me nothing to go on.

for instance:

"I do not consider "most communists" as you put it, communists; and definitely do not think that they are in anyway helpful to the actual goal of bringing about communism."


Who? Why?

"I do not think that all statists cling to dead dudes, in fact there are many anti-statists who do as well."

Again who? What do you mean by clinging to dead dudes?

"The fact that every argument that you are involved with delves into a trotsky-stalinist circle jerk makes me not want to converse with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine; if the OP wants clarification on either he can ask. "

And you call me grumpy? You dont have to get involved in any debates re Trotskyism and Stalinism, but they are central to the whole of 20th century history. You can sit on the sidelines taking pot shots with your air rifle, or you can try to get a serious grip on the subject.

[aty]

People get into marxism for all sorts of reasons.

Some are more into fighting the police than fighting capitalism. A lot want to be told the absolute truth by some authority figure - and given a readymade enemy in the form of another sect.

Many - perhaps the majority - are attracted by the implicit moral framework of a future socialist society, and the moral rightness of opposing unjust corporations.

Some are into one issue, like ecology, and find the local marxists are the closest existing group to what they want.

And there's never a shortage of outsiders who want to stay outsiders but also want a support network of fellow outsiders.

Oh, and there's even a few whose main focus is trying to create a world revolution.

.

Or you are into marxism because it is a great tool in the classwar, and helps the working class struggle.
That is what led me to marxism. For me the base is always the working class, what can we do as workers to get as good lifes as possible. It is for the most a materialist question for me. And I think it is too this basis we have to return, more economics and less moral/utopian questions.

Just look at Marxs labour theory of value, and how he proved with this theory how it is the capitalists that exploit the workers labour. And how the bourgeoisie had toabandonthis theory for the marginalist theory just so they could keep motivating the bourgeoisie property relations.
But I nearly never see any socialists actually today trying to counter todays bourgeoisie economics and the marginalist theory. Just in the last year or so I have seen some marxists started with this.

It is to these arguments we have to return. Not to lenin, stalin, trotsky or some other irrelevant dudes for the time we live in.

[Zukunftsmusik]

@OP

Fuck the statists. Just keep your nose in your books and you will be fine. Find the general tendency that makes sense to you and go from there. If you have been leaning to anarchism read everything you can get your hands on, you will only find what is right for you through reading. You do not want to end up like alot on here, simply spewing tendency or party lines and unable to engage in critical reflection.

Generally I agree with your post. There are just a few points, however, where I disagree:
1. Keeping your nose in books is a good idea: read as much as you can, but read things from as many theorists and tendencies as possible. But to engage in debate is also useful - you test your own views and are presented to new ones. Keep your nose in debates as well.
2. Don't pick a tendency and "go from there". Start reading whatever you come over, and start from there. Learn, ask questions. Take the tendency part later, if you're comfortable with it. Tendencies often offer "an easy way out"

[daft punk]

By the way, OP, I was a Trot for years and one day I phoned up one of the local leading cmrds and said I say having an anarchist moment. He came round and we had a long chat about it all. I had been inactive so was a bit cut off. Anyway, just saying, people can have doubts years down the line let alone when they are quite new. As I say. It's healthy. What's not healthy is people on here who were never even alive when the USSR existed putting M-L as a title and then refusing to actually discuss it in any serious manner.

[Zukunftsmusik]

By the way, OP, I was a Trot for years and one day I phoned up one of the local leading cmrds and said I say having an anarchist moment. He came round and we had a long chat about it all. I had been inactive so was a bit cut off. Anyway, just saying, people can have doubts years down the line let alone when they are quite new. As I say. It's healthy. What's not healthy is people on here who were never even alive when the USSR existed putting M-L as a title and then refusing to actually discuss it in any serious manner.

This might be the only post I agree with that has been written by Daft Punk, ever.

As he says, experiencing disillusionment as you call it, is a part of learning and realising new thoughts and ideas.

[Art Vandelay]

for instance:

"I do not consider "most communists" as you put it, communists; and definitely do not think that they are in anyway helpful to the actual goal of bringing about communism."

Who? Why?


Stalinist, Maoists and to a certain (lesser) extent Trotskyists. Now I do not like classifying an entire tendency into one little set of beliefs, but in reality that is what a lot of tendencies are (this plays into what I was saying about critical reflection). Instead of promoting skepticism and self-criticism, they promote heeding to party or tendency "lines," if you will.

If your idea of communism is what played out in the 20th century in the USSR (stalinists) or China (maoists) then I consider you nothing but blatant capitalists who have a fetish for the aesthetic and regurgitate rhetoric.



"I do not think that all statists cling to dead dudes, in fact there are many anti-statists who do as well."

Again who? What do you mean by clinging to dead dudes?


You would fall into this category. I have lost count how many times you have posted walls of texts from Trotsky. I get that you can use a source from him and sometimes I even agree with what you are saying. But just because Leon said it, does not make it true. As materialists we should view any historical character, for example Trotsky, as being a product of his time and the material conditions; just as Marx was. Quote wars prove nothing and again this plays into the whole self criticism and self reflection thing.




"The fact that every argument that you are involved with delves into a trotsky-stalinist circle jerk makes me not want to converse with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine; if the OP wants clarification on either he can ask. "

And you call me grumpy? You dont have to get involved in any debates re Trotskyism and Stalinism, but they are central to the whole of 20th century history. You can sit on the sidelines taking pot shots with your air rifle, or you can try to get a serious grip on the subject.

Just cause I do not hold the same opinion as you means I do not have a serious grip on the subject? Thanks for proving my point about you being grumpy. I have read about 20th century history, my conclusions are simple different then yours.

By the way, that horse is dead and not everything revolves around the (on-going?) stalinist-trotskyist circle jerk.

[Art Vandelay]

Generally I agree with your post. There are just a few points, however, where I disagree:
1. Keeping your nose in books is a good idea: read as much as you can, but read things from as many theorists and tendencies as possible. But to engage in debate is also useful - you test your own views and are presented to new ones. Keep your nose in debates as well.
2. Don't pick a tendency and "go from there". Start reading whatever you come over, and start from there. Learn, ask questions. Take the tendency part later, if you're comfortable with it. Tendencies often offer "an easy way out"

I agree, I more meant it in a "do not go looking on revleft for a tendency" type of way. I should of been more clear however. I more meant pick a general area of interest and start from there. I think when people come to revolutionary left politics they can generally feel out a niche where they fit the most, from there they can branch out; hell I started out as a trot and look at me now:D.

[The Idler]

By the way, OP, I was a Trot for years and one day I phoned up one of the local leading cmrds and said I say having an anarchist moment. He came round and we had a long chat about it all. I had been inactive so was a bit cut off. Anyway, just saying, people can have doubts years down the line let alone when they are quite new. As I say. It's healthy. What's not healthy is people on here who were never even alive when the USSR existed putting M-L as a title and then refusing to actually discuss it in any serious manner.
I take it you were talked out of anarchism and into CWI?

[Left Leanings]

When I first started reading about communism/Marxism and studying it, it became a passion for me. For the first time, I'd found an ideology that made so much sense of everything. It was so illuminating. I spent hours studying all these different books. Then I got on the internet, and I started reading about Leninism and Left Communism and Trotskyism and Stalinism, and now everything is just confusing and muddled again.

All these different tendencies and criticisms seem so huge, I feel like I'll never have enough knowledge to tackle them all. I'll start out reading a new book by Lenin, but in the back of my head I'll be thinking "You know, what if the Left-Coms are right and this is all just a load of crap?" then I'll start reading something else, but I won't agree with it, so I'll try to find something new, then the cycle goes on until I finally just get frustrated with everything and give up.

I know this all seems silly, but basically I've just reached the point where I can't even study Marxism without feeling like I have to "choose a side" first. Has anyone else ever experienced this feeling? If so, how do I deal with it and get back to actually studying and learning real Marxism instead of just worrying about Trotsky vs. Stalin every time I try?

It is very overwhemling, that's for sure. And it's easy to get bogged down. As for choosing sides. There is only one side, and you are already on it: the arrival at class consciousness, and the desire to defeat the bosses and their system of economics, which destroys the lives of millions of us.


Don't worry ab0out the debating. Learn what seems applicable, remember, some of the "classic" texts and polemics have been passede by by the material progress of history. A lot of the hair-splitting argumentation you see among the sectarians is precisely over those vestiges of an earlier era.Learn to see how the turning of the historical wheel has created new contradictions, new structures of socialization and alienation, see from real life how these things play out in the lives and minds of your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers. Learn to apply the theoretical knowledge you've gained in a practical, inclusive, non-preachy way with your peer groups. When you get there, then you become an effective radical. It won't happen right away, although probably faster than it did for me. It took me most of 35 years from the time I first studied Marx until I was able to make a difference in the way those around me see things. Finally in the past couple of years I've noticed more people listening up than tuning out. Let it come as it's going to come.

This is what it is actually all about, and is very sound advice. Academic Marxism is all well and good, but for some people, to debate this point, or that point, and go 'yah boo sucks!' to those who take a different line, is a way of life in and of itself. It's also a load of fucking bollocks.

The point the comrade above me makes is essential. Go out there, armed with the basic arguments for revolutionary socialism, and bring it to the attention of your friends, neighbours, fellow students or workers, where and when you can. Often they will answer your points with the reactionary ideas that are promulgated by the bosses in the schools, media. Counter them. Show them the relevance of Marxist analysis and prescriptions, to their everyday lives. Provide them with an ideological framework to make sense of their everyday lives. Marx took the view that the point of the world was not simply to interpret it, but to change it.


@ the OP. I second what others have said about not taking sides in historical or tendency conflicts until you are sure where you stand yourself. I think you need to figure that out honestly and with and open mind. It´s useful to get an understanding of the historical and material situations those marxist writers were responding to at the time. What was the basis of those different conclusions? Another useful question is to try to honestly evaluate how relevant they are for today´s conditions and ask yourself if history has proved them right? There is no shortcut to this I think. By all means don´t describe to a certain tendency prematurely, until you think your sure.
I myself relate quite a lot to what you´re saying in the OP. It´s easy to become overwhelmed when studying marxism. However, there is no urgent hurry for you to make up your mind on all things. Taking a break from reading marxist/communist stuff and become preoccupied with other things in my spare time for a while has worked quite well for me. It has meant that I approach it again with a fresh pair of eyes when I get back to it.
Today, I don´t feel disillusioned with marxism as a social science or my communist convictions. In fact, they get firmer as I get older. I do however feel chronic disillusionment in the movement and far left politics in general, even a sense of hopelessness at worst. But I guess it´s something I´ll have to live with for now.:)

Same here lol. I know the feeling only too well. There is still a world to win, though. We just have to keep our chins up, and keep chipping away at the coal face yeah :)

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

OP, maybe this can help you. There were several things that "disillusioned" me in debates and beyond. I'll try to prescribe possible solutions.

1.) I used to comment on things, get it wrong, and leave myself open to weakness. My parents were particularly adept at exploiting this, as well as those insufferable adherents of Ludwig von Mises. Always refrain from commenting on anything you don't know about. Oh, and be honest that you don't know. That will only help you to learn more.

2.) Allowing emotion to overpower. You must not let this happen. This is not to say that emotion should be entirely rejected, but it should be used sparingly, according to your best judgment. I have been dismissed many times as having only an emotional attachment to socialism rather than a political and intellectual attachment. That...well, it hurt badly. In general try to stay as cool-headed as possible. If you have studied your facts, usually you will win out in the end.

3.) Strictly for the purposes of studying, never trust anybody's thoughts but your own. Be single-minded in absorbing a text before accepting or dismissing it. Also bear in mind that you have a pace in learning, so take your education one step, or text, at a time. These "left-coms" you speak of can hurt you in all sorts of ways but they cannot decide how you think. Do not allow them that privilege.

4.) You feel as though you have to choose a side. Please don't. If you haven't adopted a tendency yet because you're learning, then the only side that should matter to you is the side of the proletariat. As long as you strictly place yourself on their side, you have a good chance of finding the right way for yourself. You're looking at the big picture (which is good) but you yourself can only enter it by means of the small picture. Don't incapacitate yourself before you begin.

Hope that helps. If not I apologize.