I feel like I've hit a road block with my politics

[Ostrinski]

Where to start. It seems like I can't make up my mind on where my political views as a communist fall. You all probably see me as a really fickle person because in the past year I've been interested in two different tendencies. Honestly I'm really unfavorable of what I would call tendency culture and how it is perpetuated here on revleft i.e. having the tendency function on all of someone's posts. It encourages newcomers to join one of the clubs so to speak because it looks appealing and it discourages actual learning by compartmentalizing all ideas in with each other and into certain camps.

But for me it's like all the different approaches make sense, but at the same time none of them do. I don't find any of them convincing, but at the same time I find them all convincing in their own way. It's about more than the tendencies I think because while I sympathize with the "fuck the tendencies" sentiment the formulation of an actual political outlook and analysis must also be taken into account. Sometimes it's just a cop out to dismiss it all just because some people in their immaturity turn into a club vs. club atmosphere.

I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.

[CryingWolf]

I think we should make a group called "Proletarian" and anyone who doesn't make it their primary tendency would be restricted.

[Anti-Traditional]

Check out the political profile thread and attempt to form some views around each question. This will also help you to decide how to prioritize which texts to read, for example, if you wanted to reach a position re. The vanguard party you might decide to read WITBD. Once you've formed some educated positions on each question compare your profile to each individual tendancies and see which fits your view most closely and stick with it for a prolonged period, if after all this you still have doubts then perhaps try again. Incidentally i always thought your politics were fairly clear, up there with Ghost Bebel and l'Enferme. I also think Tim Cornelis is probably the best Anarchist on here.

[Ocean Seal]

Where to start. It seems like I can't make up my mind on where my political views as a communist fall. You all probably see me as a really fickle person because in the past year I've been interested in two different tendencies. Honestly I'm really unfavorable of what I would call tendency culture and how it is perpetuated here on revleft i.e. having the tendency function on all of someone's posts. It encourages newcomers to join one of the clubs so to speak because it looks appealing and it discourages actual learning by compartmentalizing all ideas in with each other and into certain camps.

But for me it's like all the different approaches make sense, but at the same time none of them do. I don't find any of them convincing, but at the same time I find them all convincing in their own way. It's about more than the tendencies I think because while I sympathize with the "fuck the tendencies" sentiment the formulation of an actual political outlook and analysis must also be taken into account. Sometimes it's just a cop out to dismiss it all just because some people in their immaturity turn into a club vs. club atmosphere.

I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.
Create your own tendency. Really, if you want to learn put forth an idea on this site, and have it challenged, challenge it back, and you'll be good.

[Omsk]

You are young, it's normal. Just don't abandon leftist politics.

[Grenzer]

Well it's mostly like this in the real world too. Your politics must be just so, or you won't be able to be in the organization. I guess the main exception with this is ultra-leftism, which is pretty eclectic. I don't have a problem with that; we should be able to go back and take what was good and reject what was bad, so long as you can have a coherent framework at the end of the day. The sectarian wars and shit we see here, it's actually a lot like that in real life too.

For a bit of context folks, this has come in the wake of the recent anti-DNZs stuff in the Bordiga thread, and revelation of DNZ's weird hybrid Stalinism. It's always been obvious for most people of course, but I suppose we just pretended that it wasn't as bad as it was. For me, it was mainly because I desperately wanted to believe that we as leftists could actually make a relevant and powerful political organization through our actions as activists, but on some level I always recognized that as wishful thinking. I think this desperation is what leads to a lot of the shitty politics of "the left", and we can see this reflected in DNZ's adoption of bizarre and reactionary theories, espousal of personality cults as a means for political organization, etc.

I feel pretty much the opposite of what you've stated: I've read and learned a ton of shit and have a pretty clear idea of where I'm going. Marxism itself was born out of the context of bourgeois society, and always, to some degree in the beginning, kept elements of bourgeois ideology. It's true Kautsky was the founder of political Marxism, but a political Marxism that bore with it elements of bourgeois ideology. Revolutionary theory emerged once again from the wreckage of the failure of that brand of Marxism through the actual practice of class struggle, not the wistful dreamings of intellectuals. Trying to resurrect it can't be anything other than a reactionary project in my opinion.

Basically this weird idea of "orthodox Marxism" is an ideology developed in isolation form actual class struggle. Genuine communism is not an ideology, which is an abstraction, but the actual articulation of the revolutionary being of the proletariat, not weirdo theories that are hatched up on a coffee table in mom's basement.

Kautskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism.. these are more or less all just the aborted failures of the past, all of which are inextricably linked to the limitations of the historical context in which they emerged, and I don't think any of them are relevant today, no offense intended to any of the Trots around here..

Stalinism today and many of these old-ass leftist currents can only take the form of role playing clubs today. I'm not sure whether it's more sad or funny that we see these people like senile old men wandering through the ruins of the past, stooping down to pick up an odd piece of rubble here or there, imagining that the glories of the past will be rebuilt upon that. Look at the people around here, they actually believe that there's going to be some sort of Stalinist wonderland, or "workers' states" led by the Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard in the future. Truly incredible to me that someone could be so far out of touch with reality.

[The Idler]

Ask not what you can do for a tendency, but what a tendency can do for you.

[Let's Get Free]

Follow and study the glorious revolutionary path of Marxism-Kimism

[Blake's Baby]

Tendencies are only a guide anyway. I used to describe myself as a Luxemburgist. Now I describe myself as a Left Communist. My politics haven't changed - at their core, they haven't changed so much since I was an Anarchist-Communist 20-odd years ago. I still believe the same things - the working class needs to overthrow capitalism and the state, everywhere in the world; revolutionaries need to organise to be part of that process; the revolutionary organisation cannot however take power over the working class. That's the basis of it, everything else is just understanding the implications better. Reading but not feeling it's helping is fine. Better than not reading and not knowing it wasn't helping I reckon. Discussing is good too. Reflection is fine, questioning is fine, really.

If you want to remove your tendency from your profile, you can do two things:

1 - create a group called 'Ostrinskists'; join the group; set the group (using the Group Tools function) to be your tendency; delete the group. This will mean that the flag for tendency will point to a group that doesn't exist, and no tendency will be shown.

2 - create a group called 'No Tendency'; join the group; set the group (using the Group Tools function) to be your tendency. Your profile will show 'Tendency: No Tendency', and this group can then also be used by anyone else from now on in with the same dilemma, until an over-active mod deletes it at least.

[#FF0000]

words

Hey what's up what is it like being me?

I am in the same situation but what has helped me is not looking at these things from the "tendency" lens. Figure out where you stand on the issues that divide the tendencies and on overall strategy, you know?

[Crux]

Speaking from a personal point of view, while I did a lot of theoretical studies before that and did already consider myself a marxist, my political views didn't really take full shape until I got politically active. I think the best way of developing your political positions is to actually try and implement them practically.

[Zeus the Moose]

Where to start. It seems like I can't make up my mind on where my political views as a communist fall. You all probably see me as a really fickle person because in the past year I've been interested in two different tendencies. Honestly I'm really unfavorable of what I would call tendency culture and how it is perpetuated here on revleft i.e. having the tendency function on all of someone's posts. It encourages newcomers to join one of the clubs so to speak because it looks appealing and it discourages actual learning by compartmentalizing all ideas in with each other and into certain camps.

But for me it's like all the different approaches make sense, but at the same time none of them do. I don't find any of them convincing, but at the same time I find them all convincing in their own way. It's about more than the tendencies I think because while I sympathize with the "fuck the tendencies" sentiment the formulation of an actual political outlook and analysis must also be taken into account. Sometimes it's just a cop out to dismiss it all just because some people in their immaturity turn into a club vs. club atmosphere.

I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.

I think a simple answer would be to not have a primary tendency, but join all those you feel like you sympathise with, and talk within them. I'm not a particularly active forum-user, but I generally don't bother much with the tendency groups, and find the discussions on the main forums to be more interesting. Of course you'll get tendency wars on those threads with possible derailment, but that's a risk with any open discussion like this, and as long as people can balance confidence in their own perspective while at the same time at least being open to running up against problems or contradictions within them.

This said, I think it can be poisonous to be engaging with politics and other socialists solely or primarily through RevLeft. There is an isolation from the application of those politics which can reinforce both a sense of political stagnation and a feeling that none of your learning actually matters. If you can, try to get involved with a group that's at least somewhat local, even if you have disagreements with their politics. It could help with having people offline to talk politics with, and give insight into how those politics are applied to real-world struggles. Then self-evaluate six months or a year or so down the road.


Well it's mostly like this in the real world too. Your politics must be just so, or you won't be able to be in the organization. I guess the main exception with this is ultra-leftism, which is pretty eclectic. I don't have a problem with that; we should be able to go back and take what was good and reject what was bad, so long as you can have a coherent framework at the end of the day. The sectarian wars and shit we see here, it's actually a lot like that in real life too.

For a bit of context folks, this has come in the wake of the recent anti-DNZs stuff in the Bordiga thread, and revelation of DNZ's weird hybrid Stalinism. It's always been obvious for most people of course, but I suppose we just pretended that it wasn't as bad as it was. For me, it was mainly because I desperately wanted to believe that we as leftists could actually make a relevant and powerful political organization through our actions as activists, but on some level I always recognized that as wishful thinking. I think this desperation is what leads to a lot of the shitty politics of "the left", and we can see this reflected in DNZ's adoption of bizarre and reactionary theories, espousal of personality cults as a means for political organization, etc.

I feel pretty much the opposite of what you've stated: I've read and learned a ton of shit and have a pretty clear idea of where I'm going. Marxism itself was born out of the context of bourgeois society, and always, to some degree in the beginning, kept elements of bourgeois ideology. It's true Kautsky was the founder of political Marxism, but a political Marxism that bore with it elements of bourgeois ideology. Revolutionary theory emerged once again from the wreckage of the failure of that brand of Marxism through the actual practice of class struggle, not the wistful dreamings of intellectuals. Trying to resurrect it can't be anything other than a reactionary project in my opinion.

Basically this weird idea of "orthodox Marxism" is an ideology developed in isolation form actual class struggle. Genuine communism is not an ideology, which is an abstraction, but the actual articulation of the revolutionary being of the proletariat, not weirdo theories that are hatched up on a coffee table in mom's basement.

Kautskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism.. these are more or less all just the aborted failures of the past, all of which are inextricably linked to the limitations of the historical context in which they emerged, and I don't think any of them are relevant today, no offense intended to any of the Trots around here..

Stalinism today and many of these old-ass leftist currents can only take the form of role playing clubs today. I'm not sure whether it's more sad or funny that we see these people like senile old men wandering through the ruins of the past, stooping down to pick up an odd piece of rubble here or there, imagining that the glories of the past will be rebuilt upon that. Look at the people around here, they actually believe that there's going to be some sort of Stalinist wonderland, or "workers' states" led by the Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard in the future. Truly incredible to me that someone could be so far out of touch with reality.

I've always seen DNZ's views on "Third World Ceasarian Socialism" and some degree of this pro-Third Period politics as kind of a weird hybrid Stalinism. In my view it doesn't change much his points on pre-WWI social democracy, which I think are still quite good, but there's a lot of what he says that I think even folks in the self-described "Revolutionary Marxist" tendency would disagree with. As for the rest, I broadly agree, though I would argue that the attempt of a resurrection of orthodox Marxism is more a recognition of the "aborted failures of the past," with a consequential need to re-examine our entire history, and not treat the politics and actions of any major leader as presumptively true or presumptively false.

[Le Socialiste]

Speaking from a personal point of view, while I did a lot of theoretical studies before that and did already consider myself a marxist, my political views didn't really take full shape until I got politically active. I think the best way of developing your political positions is to actually try and implement them practically.

I can't begin to emphasize how true this is.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm actually kinda surprised by this, cause you've always striked me as consistent, intelligent and well read.

The OP also sounds completely like my own thoughts.

[Q]

...
What to say. The search for 'truth' is a lifelong quest. Like others have said, the point is not to dogmatically follow this or that line; but to try a scientific approach, work out what works and what doesn't, educate yourself, be active where possible. Any tendency that helps best in this is a worthwhile endevour.


Sometimes it's just a cop out to dismiss it all just because some people in their immaturity turn into a club vs. club atmosphere.
Agreed. The latest anti-Kautsky vs anti-Trotskyist fad is, while fun for a while, not serious. It is Chit-Chat material.


I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.
I thought like that until I decided that, while hardly knowing everything, I'm an individual with my own ideas and I should pursue them. I can only advise you to do the same.

Oh, and I'm serious about the study thing: Look up a pal or perhaps even a group of people of likeminded interest and dig in those books. After putting it off for the better part of a decade I recently started in Capital and all that time I thought it would be so hard I'm now thinking why on Earth I didn't start with it earlier... C'est la vie, I guess, but what started me moving is that I did find a study pal.

After Capital part 1 (only part 1 in translated in Dutch...) I'm wondering if I could easily switch to English for part 2 and 3. After that I'm thinking about actually finishing Lenin Rediscovered, Blood Relations and other big works that have big ideas that I've been putting off for much too long now.

[svenne]

It seems a lot of people has a tendency (lolz) to change their political positions drastically, just overnight. While i've gone through pretty much the same changes (i think i've called myself everything except maoist and primitivist), you get stuck with one, sooner or later. In my case it was the combination of operaist marxism coupled with being a member of Swedens local youth federation for anarcho-syndicalists that won. While it wasn't that big of an organisation (around 300 members is the last i heard), it worked kinda okay, really. While we had some fights over ideological issues, we mostly organized around practical issues, and being in the same picket line as people whose theories you find worthless puts a perspective on things.

[Red Commissar]

This said, I think it can be poisonous to be engaging with politics and other socialists solely or primarily through RevLeft. There is an isolation from the application of those politics which can reinforce both a sense of political stagnation and a feeling that none of your learning actually matters.

This is what I was about to post too. Problem here with our political nerding is that we get so caught up in the stuff on this forum that we sometimes forget how any of this matters in real life. I mean yeah there are differences between these tendencies but frankly a lot of people outside of revleft could give a rat's ass about any of this and it's probably more humorous more than anything to them.

The whole "tendency" thing is be very overwhelming I think, since a lot of newcomers to this forum often mention that they don't know where they'd fit in- like they actually need to declare their "tendency" of choice. Unless you're really committed to one for what ever reason I don't think it should be seen as necessary to identify yourself as one. It might seem like sometimes on revleft this is all that matters but I think it tends to narrow your scope of actions. I mean if you're going to be working and doing something in the real world but then just get ultra sectarian and narrow your list of allies in an already small group of people, it's not going to make you feel much better.

I used to get fixated over this when I first came here but over time I came to the realization that at the end of the day these tendency bouts don't really matter outside of the forum.

[Art Vandelay]

I must say that I find alot of these political shifts odd; although I'm far from one to really talk here, as I made a fairly drastic switch from anarchism to Marxism recently (it probably seemed more drastic than it was in reality however, I began to question my convictions probably well over a year before the switch).

The one reason I have my tendency set to the 'Revolutionary Marxist' user group is due to its non-sectarian approach; it's not so much that the tendency is a set group of theories one must abide by, but rather simply that you identify there being some worth in the politics associated with the 2nd international that many overlook. To me it was a sort of a back to the basics moment. We have members which come from varying different backgrounds: Q coming from a Trotskyist background and currently a member of the CWI (who comrade Ghost Bebel, although apparently no longer holding the same politics, always chastised), Paul Cockshott, considering himself a Maoist of sorts (sorry if this is a mis-labeling as I am not entirely familiar with your politics), myself approaching my current political stance coming out of anarchism, DNZ apparently holding a belief in some sort of "bizarre hybrid Stalinism" as people here have been claiming.

However alot of the changes in "tendencies" if you will, although I don't see how the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group is a specific tendency since its merely a broad group for Marxists of varying political stripes, are quite drastic and seem quite odd to me. Comrade GB, who I do indeed like as not only a person but also consider immensely well read and as someone who has helped me along in my political development, was with me in the old "Fuck Lenin" usergroup having chats about Stirner; while we both moved on from that rather infantile political dismissal of Lenin, he jumped into Left Communism (with a bit of an interest in Bordiga and De Leonism as well I believe). From there he moved onto 'orthodox' Marxism, generally stating the claims that Left Communism hadn't made a significant break with Bakuninism. Now apparently your tendency is set as "Anti-Kautskyist" coming out of an 'orthodox Marxist' background? I just don't see how fundamental political positions such as these, can change so drastically and quickly.

Ultimately I don't understand how any of this is either productive or beneficial. The whole point, or at least what I felt like was the point and the reason I have the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group set as my tendency, was that as Marxists we should be able to take any given political figure (Kautsky for example) and take what's good and leave the rest, to not be dogmatic about these issues. Kautsky is dismissed by the majority of the left and yet for many years before he reneged, was the primary Marxist theorist after Marx & Engels death. Plekhanov, to use another example, eventually sided with the Mensheviks; however this does not dismiss the fact that his writings on materialism are some of the best that I personally have ever seen.

I'm not really sure what my point is with this rant and I have no idea if I am getting my point across at all, but dear god people the left is so damn sectarian and it can indeed be discouraging. Ostrinski you claim that there are issues you are in accordance with, for every tendency; congratulations, I have no idea why you would consider this a bad thing. In my opinion that is exactly the non dogmatic approach we need to see more often, that is exactly what the left needs. Whatever you do, just don't drop leftism, I know the feeling quite well, but the left needs a bright and well read young comrade such as yourself, whatever tendency you choose to associate yourself with. I simply refer to myself as a Marxist generally, especially in real life; worst case scenario you can always drop some acid and join Avanti and the neo-anarchists.

[Let's Get Free]

I would say just o your own thing. There is no crystal ball to tell you how the struggle will turn out, nor any 150 year old wise sage whose books we can read to tell us the future. This is a different historical period entirely, and we have to basis our analysis and revolutionary action on the social conditions of today. Cast aside all illusions and reject all old Left dogma.

[Paul Cockshott]

Where to start. It seems like I can't make up my mind on where my political views as a communist fall. You all probably see me as a really fickle person because in the past year I've been interested in two different tendencies. Honestly I'm really unfavorable of what I would call tendency culture and how it is perpetuated here on revleft i.e. having the tendency function on all of someone's posts. It encourages newcomers to join one of the clubs so to speak because it looks appealing and it discourages actual learning by compartmentalizing all ideas in with each other and into certain camps.


I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.
Tendancies are not that important what is important is trying to understand things that really exist in the world.

[Crux]

I must say that I find alot of these political shifts odd; although I'm far from one to really talk here, as I made a fairly drastic switch from anarchism to Marxism recently (it probably seemed more drastic than it was in reality however, I began to question my convictions probably well over a year before the switch).

The one reason I have my tendency set to the 'Revolutionary Marxist' user group is due to its non-sectarian approach; it's not so much that the tendency is a set group of theories one must abide by, but rather simply that you identify there being some worth in the politics associated with the 2nd international that many overlook. To me it was a sort of a back to the basics moment. We have members which come from varying different backgrounds: Q coming from a Trotskyist background and currently a member of the CWI (who comrade Ghost Bebel, although apparently no longer holding the same politics, always chastised), Paul Cockshott, considering himself a Maoist of sorts (sorry if this is a mis-labeling as I am not entirely familiar with your politics), myself approaching my current political stance coming out of anarchism, DNZ apparently holding a belief in some sort of "bizarre hybrid Stalinism" as people here have been claiming.

However alot of the changes in "tendencies" if you will, although I don't see how the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group is a specific tendency since its merely a broad group for Marxists of varying political stripes, are quite drastic and seem quite odd to me. Comrade GB, who I do indeed like as not only a person but also consider immensely well read and as someone who has helped me along in my political development, was with me in the old "Fuck Lenin" usergroup having chats about Stirner; while we both moved on from that rather infantile political dismissal of Lenin, he jumped into Left Communism (with a bit of an interest in Bordiga and De Leonism as well I believe). From there he moved onto 'orthodox' Marxism, generally stating the claims that Left Communism hadn't made a significant break with Bakuninism. Now apparently your tendency is set as "Anti-Kautskyist" coming out of an 'orthodox Marxist' background? I just don't see how fundamental political positions such as these, can change so drastically and quickly.

Ultimately I don't understand how any of this is either productive or beneficial. The whole point, or at least what I felt like was the point and the reason I have the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group set as my tendency, was that as Marxists we should be able to take any given political figure (Kautsky for example) and take what's good and leave the rest, to not be dogmatic about these issues. Kautsky is dismissed by the majority of the left and yet for many years before he reneged, was the primary Marxist theorist after Marx & Engels death. Plekhanov, to use another example, eventually sided with the Mensheviks; however this does not dismiss the fact that his writings on materialism are some of the best that I personally have ever seen.

I'm not really sure what my point is with this rant and I have no idea if I am getting my point across at all, but dear god people the left is so damn sectarian and it can indeed be discouraging. Ostrinski you claim that there are issues you are in accordance with, for every tendency; congratulations, I have no idea why you would consider this a bad thing. In my opinion that is exactly the non dogmatic approach we need to see more often, that is exactly what the left needs. Whatever you do, just don't drop leftism, I know the feeling quite well, but the left needs a bright and well read young comrade such as yourself, whatever tendency you choose to associate yourself with. I simply refer to myself as a Marxist generally, especially in real life; worst case scenario you can always drop some acid and join Avanti and the neo-anarchists.
If you by "tendency" understand which sub-group on RevLeft you are a member of, you have already lost.

[Art Vandelay]

If you by "tendency" understand which sub-group on RevLeft you are a member of, you have already lost.

Isn't that exactly what I was trying to say is part of the problem? I don't feel like that accurately characterizes my position on the matter at all

Edit: This is actually funny coming from a Trotskyist.

[Zeus the Moose]

worst case scenario you can always drop some acid and join Avanti and the neo-anarchists.

I've done acid before and I even during the height of the trip I never approached Avanti's politics. Maybe I did something wrong?

[Art Vandelay]

I've done acid before and I even during the height of the trip I never approached Avanti's politics. Maybe I did something wrong?

Yeah I've done acid too and I don't know what the fuck avanti is ranting about the majority of the time.

[Q]

Avanti is the political definition of a bad trip.

[Crux]

Isn't that exactly what I was trying to say is part of the problem? I don't feel like that accurately characterizes my position on the matter at all

Edit: This is actually funny coming from a Trotskyist.
No, but then again you said you were unsure what point you were making.
So I'd basically like to restate my previous statement, being active in real life puts a lot of these things into perspective, for example to what extent one needs to care about the stuff that is printed in the Weekly Worker or the necessity to revive Kautsky from the dead.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Ostrinski, I also think that such periods where you feel like you hit dead ends are the most fruitful, at least in the end. Even though it may feel frustrating etc at the moment, I think such periods are when you develop your politics the most, or at least you do so afterwards and because of it. So you could see it as a good thing.

[skitty]

You may have answered your own question here: "But for me it's like all the different approaches make sense, but at the same time none of them do"? Life is constant change; and a reflective person will wear themselves out re-labeling:confused: or re-branding. I posted "Anarchists" because I worship at the feet of Emma Goldman; but at heart I'm in the 'whatever works' or "Pan-leftist" camp, trying to learn and adapt to each new turn of events. If anything is certain it is that things will get out of hand. Hope this makes sense...

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't understand how people can be unsure of their theory as a commie yet throw out the "Stalin" bomb whenever they think it fits. This is probably the most open thread you could start and it does not go without understanding, yet you know what you hate so much? To understand what we want it is imperative to understand what it is we don't want. I feel you know neither. IMO. Understanding that we do not understand is the most important step and I applaude you.

[Crux]

I don't understand how people can be unsure of their theory as a commie yet throw out the "Stalin" bomb whenever they think it fits. This is probably the most open thread you could start and it does not go without understanding, yet you know what you hate so much? To understand what we want it is imperative to understand what it is we don't want. I feel you know neither. IMO. Understanding that we do not understand is the most important step and I applaude you.
For much the same reason one could vaguely identify as anti-reformist.

[Grenzer]

I don't think too many people actually hate Stalin, but I don't see why Stalinists get so indignant about it. You don't need theory to know that Stalinism is full of crap. We have common sense for that. Fortunately, by the understanding of Marxist theory we can also understand that Stalinism not only appears to suck on an empirical level, but this shittiness permeates Stalinism throughout every facet of its existence on a theoretical level as well. Stalinism has never been revolutionary theory; it has been an ideology that has corresponded to the interests of the rulers of the Soviet Union, and the associated states. Since 1991, Stalinism has ceased being even that and has degenerated to a role-playing experience.

And Majakovskij, you fucking coward. I still stand by that statement in your signature. The CWI's reformism is plain enough for anyone to see, DNZ or no, and I guess that you're still insecure about it to the point where you need to resort to tearing things out of their context. Unlike you, I am actually reconsider my positions even if it does make me look like an idiot when I change my mind. You're the one with egg on your face pretending that the CWI is anything other than a social-democratic organization in plain face of the facts.

[Ravachol]

Where to start. It seems like I can't make up my mind on where my political views as a communist fall. You all probably see me as a really fickle person because in the past year I've been interested in two different tendencies. Honestly I'm really unfavorable of what I would call tendency culture and how it is perpetuated here on revleft i.e. having the tendency function on all of someone's posts. It encourages newcomers to join one of the clubs so to speak because it looks appealing and it discourages actual learning by compartmentalizing all ideas in with each other and into certain camps.


This. Its one of the reasons why i'm highly critical of ideology and 'politics' proper.



I feel all I do is parrot what those more theoretically advanced than me say. Sometimes I feel like it's almost impossible to think for myself. I might be selling myself short but outside of the basics of Marxism and socialism I feel like I've hardly learned anything. Which is weird because it isn't like I haven't read.

To a certain extent all human ideas come from the mouths of parrots. When I solve a system of linear differential equations, I didn't come up with the method myself, I drew upon previous human experience. Often ideas from others, from generations past, resonate with me for whatever reasons. And my own 'original' reflections are, in the end, nothing but reflections upon a mass of others, their relations and the weight of history they drag behind them. The competitive atmosphere in the more theoretical segments of the radical left is, in my opinion, mainly a reflection of capitalist commodity culture. 'Look at all these new wares on the ideological market. I wonder what I'll pick today'. The best advice, I guess, is picking what resonates with you, what feels 'true' to you and above all, what makes sense within the context of your own life, your own daily existence.

Also, regarding Avanti's stuff, its definitely shrooms. Not acid. I can tell.

[Enragé]

dont just read what others have say, attack it when you think its bullshit. And if they come up with a wall of text which has you stunned, sit back for a while, relax, and if it still doesnt sit right with you even though you cant pinpoint what it is exactly, integrate what does resound with you, and continue attacking the rest.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well it's mostly like this in the real world too. Your politics must be just so, or you won't be able to be in the organization. I guess the main exception with this is ultra-leftism, which is pretty eclectic. I don't have a problem with that; we should be able to go back and take what was good and reject what was bad, so long as you can have a coherent framework at the end of the day. The sectarian wars and shit we see here, it's actually a lot like that in real life too.

For a bit of context folks, this has come in the wake of the recent anti-DNZs stuff in the Bordiga thread, and revelation of DNZ's weird hybrid Stalinism. It's always been obvious for most people of course, but I suppose we just pretended that it wasn't as bad as it was. For me, it was mainly because I desperately wanted to believe that we as leftists could actually make a relevant and powerful political organization through our actions as activists, but on some level I always recognized that as wishful thinking. I think this desperation is what leads to a lot of the shitty politics of "the left", and we can see this reflected in DNZ's adoption of bizarre and reactionary theories, espousal of personality cults as a means for political organization, etc.

I feel pretty much the opposite of what you've stated: I've read and learned a ton of shit and have a pretty clear idea of where I'm going. Marxism itself was born out of the context of bourgeois society, and always, to some degree in the beginning, kept elements of bourgeois ideology. It's true Kautsky was the founder of political Marxism, but a political Marxism that bore with it elements of bourgeois ideology. Revolutionary theory emerged once again from the wreckage of the failure of that brand of Marxism through the actual practice of class struggle, not the wistful dreamings of intellectuals. Trying to resurrect it can't be anything other than a reactionary project in my opinion.

Basically this weird idea of "orthodox Marxism" is an ideology developed in isolation form actual class struggle. Genuine communism is not an ideology, which is an abstraction, but the actual articulation of the revolutionary being of the proletariat, not weirdo theories that are hatched up on a coffee table in mom's basement.

Kautskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism.. these are more or less all just the aborted failures of the past, all of which are inextricably linked to the limitations of the historical context in which they emerged, and I don't think any of them are relevant today, no offense intended to any of the Trots around here..

Stalinism today and many of these old-ass leftist currents can only take the form of role playing clubs today. I'm not sure whether it's more sad or funny that we see these people like senile old men wandering through the ruins of the past, stooping down to pick up an odd piece of rubble here or there, imagining that the glories of the past will be rebuilt upon that. Look at the people around here, they actually believe that there's going to be some sort of Stalinist wonderland, or "workers' states" led by the Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard in the future. Truly incredible to me that someone could be so far out of touch with reality.

This is top 5 best posts I've seen on revleft.

[Drosophila]

No, but then again you said you were unsure what point you were making.
So I'd basically like to restate my previous statement, being active in real life puts a lot of these things into perspective, for example to what extent one needs to care about the stuff that is printed in the Weekly Worker or the necessity to revive Kautsky from the dead.

Nope, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Being politically active doesn't necessarily make things better. In many cases, it's going to make things worse, as every major organization out there sucks. I've encountered the CWI first-hand, and I can say with confidence that they're shit. I don't see much of a distinction at all between them and reformist groups like the DSA. Their rhetoric and strategy is basically liberal, with the vast majority of their resources being used on "jobs not cuts" campaigns and the like. This is pretty much the case for all the other major parties out there.

Also, funny that you attack the Weekly Worker. How's Socialist Alternative's Justice paper doing? Last time I read it they were whining about corporations and telling people to vote for Jill Stein. Sounds like some serious revolutionary work. I also remember seeing they had a pin for sale that read "Tax the Rich."

[Yuppie Grinder]

Also, can I just say how glad I am that DNZ's bizarro hybrid of Stalinism and reformism has fallen out of favor?

[Rafiq]

I feel pretty much the opposite of what you've stated: I've read and learned a ton of shit and have a pretty clear idea of where I'm going. Marxism itself was born out of the context of bourgeois society, and always, to some degree in the beginning, kept elements of bourgeois ideology. It's true Kautsky was the founder of political Marxism, but a political Marxism that bore with it elements of bourgeois ideology. Revolutionary theory emerged once again from the wreckage of the failure of that brand of Marxism through the actual practice of class struggle, not the wistful dreamings of intellectuals. Trying to resurrect it can't be anything other than a reactionary project in my opinion.

The sciences of bourgeois society are not inristically ideological (though they can express themselves in that rhetorical flavor), therefore to claim Marxism was "initially Bourgeois" is ludicrous, unless of course you are referring to Marx's young humanism. As far as ideology goes, it has never touched Marxism, not since after there was a 1) failure to approach the merger of the proletarian movement (proletarian ideology) and Marxism 2) The ideological bastardizations that came following the October revolution. If you are going to claim that Marxism was initially of Bourgeois ideology, you must in a detailed manner specify this reoccurring ideological tendency, you must isolate it for us all to recognize. If you are unable to do so, then the assertion is baseless. To claim that strict adherent to the sciences, to the scientific method is bourgeois is quite an obscure misunderstanding of class interest and the ideology of which it births. It is true that genuine proletarian ideology does not come from intellectuals, it comes from the class conscious proletariat itself in it's struggle for emancipation. But this (Communism as an idea) is nothing short of ideology, not to be held interchangeable with Marxism.

There can be no proletarian Marxism, as there can be no bourgeois Marxism. Because Marxism is not subjective, you yourself praised Lenin for one of his most famous works, of which, if I recall correctly asserts that historical materialism is not the "interpretation of history through the eyes of the proletariat" but an objective analysis of history. All of you who criticize ideology on the basis of being non-sectarian miss the point of what ideology actually is and why it should not be conflated with Marxism: Ideology is subjective, as there are several different classes with several different interests which express themselves through ideology.


Basically this weird idea of "orthodox Marxism" is an ideology developed in isolation form actual class struggle. Genuine communism is not an ideology, which is an abstraction, but the actual articulation of the revolutionary being of the proletariat, not weirdo theories that are hatched up on a coffee table in mom's basement.


Christ, has the world gone mad! Out of all people Ghost, you should know better. You should know better to know that Orthodox Marxism isn't and never was an ideology, but is what Zanthorous calls (and rightfully corrected myself and others in regards) a paradigm. Orthodox Marxism is not the strict conservation of classical Marxism, on the contrary, Orthodox Marxism retains the theoretical foundations of Marxism of which can provide an entirely new context for analyzing and understanding capitalist social relations (hence, several of the contributions made by Marxists are not necessarily vulgarization, we can knit-pick as we like). Marxism is not inherently revolutionary, it is not inherently anything. It is merely a means by which we understand the fundamental social laws of motion and all of which it concerns, everything concerning human social behavior. It is nothing short of ironic for you to criticize Orthodox Marxism on the basis of it being an "ideology", perhaps even "anti marxist". What Marxism, then, do you ascribe to? "Plain" Marxism? What makes this different form Orthodox Marxism?

I can never understand why users here constantly reaffirm the fact that Kautsky was a traitor, and proceed to attack Orthodox Marxism. It is only through Orthodox Marxism, the same Marxism that Kautsky birthed was Lenin able to break with Kautsky, and recognize his betrayal for what it was: An abrupt betrayal, not a continuation of Kautsky when he was a Marxist. It is nothing short of ironic for users who oppose Orthodox Marxism to parade around praising Lenin, while Lenin himself was a champion of this orthodoxy.

And here, something neither Ghost nor Otrinski are guilty of, but something Perez and the rest of the lot are: The dismissal of Orthodox Marxism as social-democratic 'reformism'. Don't these idiots understand that the likes of Bernstein and Kautsky had to make a radical break with Orthodox Marxism in order to develop unorthodox concepts like "evolutionary socialism" and so on? But alas, their dismissal of Marxism as 'reformist' only goes to show the magnitude of their understanding of whatever they are attacking, Gourmetperez (if this is how his name is spelled correctly, I do not care) has not read a single word from any self proclaimed Orthodox Marxist on this forum for him to come to such a conclusion. Their obscene insolence bleeds through any attempt they make to attack Marxism. Is it intellectual laziness? Perhaps. It is easier to on a consistent basis identify with schools of thought which have no correlation whatsoever to the existing state of things than to, as an intellectual reassert Marxism's theoretical hegemony to modern times utilizing the same methods that we have in our days of glory.

This is an internet forum. It is not a basis for a revolutionary movement of any kind, it is mere theoretical discussion. Every forum that would so much as speak of revolutionary action can be regarded as "theory". No one here is engaging in revolutionary activity by discussing Marxism. No Marxist here asserts that the enhancement of Marxism will mean the immediate enhancement and revival of the Communist movement. Marxism has proved itself a completely revolutionary understanding of social movement and the fact that some users here are willing to throw this all away in the midst of taking on the role of being glorified armchair revolutionaries disgusts me.

[Crux]

And Majakovskij, you fucking coward. I still stand by that statement in your signature. The CWI's reformism is plain enough for anyone to see, DNZ or no, and I guess that you're still insecure about it to the point where you need to resort to tearing things out of their context. Unlike you, I am actually reconsider my positions even if it does make me look like an idiot when I change my mind. You're the one with egg on your face pretending that the CWI is anything other than a social-democratic organization in plain face of the facts.
And yet I omitted the part where you were directly insulting me, well technically behind my back. I just found the quote hilarious. And no it's not "out of context" implying that it would have another meaning in context. I can include a link to the actual thread it's taken from if it makes you feel better.
In the plain face of facts? Please. But then again what would you know about actual politics? Being the internet critic is the easiest thing in the world isn't it? That's also why you can change your position so frequently, because it holds no value for your practical politics. Sorry to get harsh with you, man, but you're the one going for flaming.

Drosophilia: I am pretty sure we've been over this already...but yes, being as it is that we do engage in issues, like cut-backs, tuition hikes etc, that people actually care about rather than the chinese whispers about pretty much all the rest of left that the Weekly Worker engages in I see why it might not be to your tastes.
Well, I am not in the US, but I can tell you as much after new year our Swedish paper will probably be the largest one, per subscriber, on the left.


Shit, you DNZ (or ex- in your case GB, congrats!) acolytes get really pissed off when one implies that politics is perhaps more than just muddleheaded theorizing don't you? And yes, I still stand by my original point. Being active in real life is the best way to develop your political understanding. Surprised to see it would be so controversial.

[Rafiq]

Also, can I just say how glad I am that DNZ's bizarro hybrid of Stalinism and reformism has fallen out of favor?

It was never centered around DNZ. It's beyond me why he, and he alone is of such a peculiar interest to you and the hoards of vulgarity. But no, we still remain, and so long as I remain on this forum Marxism will not "fall out of favor", even if I am the last one.But that doesn't really mean much. It is after all only an internet forum.

[Grenzer]

This is top 5 best posts I've seen on revleft.

Thanks. It's something I put a lot of thought into, but posted kind of hastily because I didn't really care what people thought. I realized that a sudden about face would probably make me look foolish, but to be honest I didn't give a fuck what people would think, especially not random people on the internet like Majakovskiy who flies into a childish tantrum whenever the honor of his dear CWI is besmirched. It's kind of ironic that he's resorting to the same exact thing that the Stalinists used to slander Trotsky.

I have long had doubts about any kind of project to "unite the left" for a few reasons. Firstly, much of what we call "the left" simply isn't communist. They espouse blatant bourgeois politics and generally support factions of Capital. If these people could be united, what you would have is simply a group of pseudo-communist radicals. At best, a repeat of the original debacle of social-democracy, but we'd also be kidding ourselves to think the current left would still be strong enough to really make a difference. Then secondly, it's actually an impossible task. No party bureaucracies would consent to liquidating their own leadership for the sake of unity. I am honestly not sure why people would think otherwise; we've been trying this for a hundred years now.

Reading through Nihilist Communism and some of the things that Ravachol linked to on anti-activism thoroughly gave me a ton of perspective on the limits of our role as individuals and the limits of the "build the organization" mentality. I am pro-organization, but the left, lacking this perspective, have embrace bourgeois politics in a desperate attempt to become more relevant. This by itself cripples its agency, but I think a big part of this error comes from the lack of understanding what we as individuals, even as organizations of individuals outside of a revolutionary situation, are capable of. I am not saying that activism should be totally given up, but I do think it has very clear limits that should be kept in mind. It seems to me that the ultra-left is the only current that has roots in class struggle these days. As I have said before, communism is not an ideology, but the articulation of the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. The ultra-left(mostly comprised of anarchists), being the only main trend that has not succumbed to bourgeois politics has largely occupied the niche that Marxist communists occupied in 1917. I'd also like to clarify that when I say fill the niche, I do not wish to imply that it existed prior to and outside the upsurge of class struggle that we saw in the 1960's, but was a reflection of this class struggle and revolutionary upsurge. Creating an ideology, which can only take place in outside of actual class struggle, and hoping that it will be taken up will be taken up by the workers in times of revolution is entirely the wrong way of looking at things because communism isn't an ideology, but an actuality that corresponds to the material interests of the workers. Revolutionary theory is important obviously, but revolutionary theory can not ever be divorced from revolutionary practice because it ceases to be theory and becomes ideology, divorced from communism.

Marx critiqued Anarchism as a form of petit-bourgeois radicalism, an assessment I would agree with, but we need to keep in mind this was the anarchism of Bakunin and the 19th century, entirely different from what we see today in many ways. Over the last century, we've been seeing an increasing tendency among anarchists away from individualism and towards organizations, collective action, and espousal of many of the tenets of 'scientific socialism'. In my opinion, this has occurred in the face of the capitulation of most Marxists to bourgeois ideology so more and more anarchists, not Marxists, were involved in class struggle. I'm a Marxist, not an anarchist, but I do think there has been a gradual tendency towards convergence among the ultra-left.

The idea of trying to resurrect Marxism as it was before the crisis of the workers' movement in the First World War is not a new one. Karl Korsch wrote at length and this and revealed this to be an essentially reactionary project. I won't repeat his points here, but that has been a major inspiration and source of revelation in conjunction with what I've already mentioned. His selected works can be found in PDF form here (http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Korsch.pdf).

In short the left isn't communist, and it can go fuck itself.

I shared my views with Ostrinski a few days ago which provoked his current crisis of politics. Whatever you do mate, good luck, and don't let some the opinion of some dumbass on the internet deter you.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You take yourself entirely to seriously. Put down the Kautsky and go on a bike ride or go get yourself a snow cone or something.
Edit: Directed at Rafiq, not GB.

[Grenzer]

And yet I omitted the part where you were directly insulting me, well technically behind my back.

If you think that's an insult then you need to grow up and get a spine. This is politics. You're the one going around making anti groups without bothering to directly confront people's politics.


In the plain face of facts? Please. But then again what would you know about actual politics? Being the internet critic is the easiest thing in the world isn't it? That's also why you can change your position so frequently, because it holds no value for your practical politics.

Yeah, because marching around as part of some Trotskyist role-playing group totally makes you a guru of REAL POLITICS. It's a matter of record that the CWI campaigns around anti-austerity sloganeering and the like. This is just populist opportunism, and has nothing to do with revolution, and in fact negates that possibility.

Create all the straw men you like, but at the end of the day you're still a social-democrat. I'm not part of an organization, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Sorry, but I'm not going to join a little club just so I can inflate my ego like you and pretend that I'm doing something relevant.


Sorry to get harsh with you, man, but you're the one going for flaming.

Ah, going to threaten with the mod hammer, well I'm not surprised to hear that coming from you.

[Crux]

It's kind of ironic that he's resorting to the same exact thing that the Stalinists used to slander Trotsky.
Possibly one of the most self-important statements I have seen on here. Please do expand on how I am "resorting to the exact same thing as the stalinists" You still fail to explain how the quote form you is "out of context" other than, since your line change from last week, you find it embarrassing. Trust me, DNZ latter day dislike for the CWI is the absolute least of his ideological problems. No I dislike him because he is pompous, intellectually dishonest and trends towards some bizzare reformist-stalinist hybrid. But what baffles me even more is that some people not only take his brainchilds seriously but actually consider themselves "supporters", undoubtedly feeding his inflated ego further. So who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fools that follow him?

As for the rest of your post, I can see where you're coming from on that, actually it reminds me quite a bit of things I used to say some 7 years ago. But like you say revolutionary theory isn't worth much without revolutionary praxis. When I say getting active helps shape political perspectives, that isn't the same as saying one necessarily have to have my perspectives or join the organization I am part of.

[Rafiq]

You take yourself entirely to seriously. Put down the Kautsky and go on a bike ride or go get yourself a snow cone or something.
Edit: Directed at Rafiq, not GB.

That was the first time I posted from computer in a while and if you don't read my posts that's your problem.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Crux]

If you think that's an insult then you need to grow up and get a spine. This is politics. You're the one going around making anti groups without bothering to directly confront people's politics.



Yeah, because marching around as part of some Trotskyist role-playing group totally makes you a guru of REAL POLITICS. It's a matter of record that the CWI campaigns around anti-austerity sloganeering and the like. This is just populist opportunism, and has nothing to do with revolution, and in fact negates that possibility.

Create all the straw men you like, but at the end of the day you're still a social-democrat. I'm not part of an organization, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Sorry, but I'm not going to join a little club just so I can inflate my ego like you and pretend that I'm doing something relevant.



Ah, going to threaten with the mod hammer, well I'm not surprised to hear that coming from you.
Well, it doesn't upset me. It amuses me.

Successfully fighting for reforms negates revolution? Where did you get such a stellar insight from, pray tell? You see engaging with real people in real struggles and you call it reformism. I've never claimed to be any kind of guru, like that great theoretician DNZ, rather I made a very simple statement: being politically active is the best way to test your political perspectives. This obviously upsets you.

Oh the irony.

Actually I am not. Since I am engaging in this thread it's not my call to make.

[Ostrinski]

Wow thank you for all the helpful replies, wasn't expecting all this helpful advice. Means a lot.

Anyway I guess I should have written a little more but I had to go to class. I didn't mean to make it primarily about tendencies because that's not really the issue here as I'm not trying to find myself a niche in any tendency or anything like that, far from it. My point was that I was fed up with the culture of it all that we have here and think it can deter the learning process of figuring things out for yourself. And it isn't as if all tendencies aren't guilty of it.

They kinda function like gangs when you think about it. It's probably a bad analogy but let's say some person who is new to socialist politics comes onto revleft, is exposed to the tendencies, and thinks Trotskyism looks like a good idea. They might then go onto the forum and say something incredibly stupid that they couldn't possibly sustain and so Jimmie Higgins or someone is able to come in and deflect the elementary refutations. Same can go for the other ones.

But anyway, back on topic. I think if the majority of this forum were to be completely honest they would all name left communism as the most theoretically advanced current of the socialist movement. Now we might not agree with some of their positions but it is plain as day that the ICC and ICT have the best theoretical understanding of Marxism and best apply the Marxist method most effectively in their articles and publications, better than the Leninist parties at least that leave much to be desired in that regard.

I think the appeal of Trotskyism is one of convenience. When you dig underneath there's not much that Trotskyism really offers us for our contemporary world, it's more of just a tradition. Left communism is a tradition as well but it has adapted perfectly. Sure we can make jokes about left communism, about how tiny they are or how irrelevant but the fact of the matter is that the broader socialist movement itself is more irrelevant in relation to the realities of daily existence of most people in the world than left communism is to broader socialism. The transitional program seems to be the only strategic appeal and in fact one of the main reasons for my somewhat rekindled interests in left communism is my doubt for the need of a minimum program.

If I recall correctly the main thing that I found unappealing about left communism - and I might be full of shit here so call me out if I am - was what at least seemed to me to be the standardization or enforcement of historical positions. That might be completely baseless because I don't have any experience with the ICC or ICT but it seems to me that 'left communist as tradition' seems to play a role in defining what we could call "left communist positions" on the Russian Revolution among other things.

Another misgiving about left communism that I admit to harboring is a doubt in the whole point of being a left communist if you're not affiliated with the ICC or ICT. Those seem to be the only outlets for left communism that exist.

[GoddessCleoLover]

There is no necessity to choose one particular tendency. An eclectic approach combining the most attractive aspects of the more reasonable tendencies might work, at least for the forseeable future. Sectarianism has long been the bane of the existence of the Revolutionary Left. Perhaps we ought to try to construct a dialogue among reasonable and open-minded members of different tendencies.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When the revolution comes, it won't be mono-tendencied.

[black magick hustla]

i wouldn't worry too much to what marxist nerd club you think you belong to or whatever. in the spirit of camatte, i would say that the relevant "pro-revolutionary" political organizations today are literally rackets (i.e. official communists, the organized gangs that constitute maoism, etc) or are irrelevant sects (trotskyism, left communism, some anarchists, etc). the only reason i can find sects useful today are as a nexus where likeminded people can get together and discuss, start publications, etc, which is not bad in itself but idk i have the internet.

i think, however, at least synthesist leftcom groups (icc, ict) suffer of similar problems ghost bebel mentioned, and i say this as someone who was really close to the icc for quite a few years. some of their theoretical analysis are pretty interesting but they kinda see themselves as this chests of revolutionary theory that needs to be handed down, like some talmudic monk shit. unfortunately, they still sleep on the bones of bordiga and everything feels very old and outdated in those groups, which is why the bulk of their militants are pretty old people. endnotes and theorie communiste call this kind of obsession with platforms and programs "programmatism", which they identify as a period of class struggle that existed in the period of formal subsumption (i.e. when the proletariat was dominated by physical and economic mechanisms, but psychologically it was still quite resilent and hasn't been integrated into the logic of capital) versus what people call real subsumption, which is the period we live today where the proletariat has been psychologically integrated to capital. One article about this is here. http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/6 . Idk how I feel about the whole real vs formal subsumption but I do think programmatism, at least in the west, is something more or less of the past.

[Marxaveli]

I must say that I find alot of these political shifts odd; although I'm far from one to really talk here, as I made a fairly drastic switch from anarchism to Marxism recently (it probably seemed more drastic than it was in reality however, I began to question my convictions probably well over a year before the switch).

The one reason I have my tendency set to the 'Revolutionary Marxist' user group is due to its non-sectarian approach; it's not so much that the tendency is a set group of theories one must abide by, but rather simply that you identify there being some worth in the politics associated with the 2nd international that many overlook. To me it was a sort of a back to the basics moment. We have members which come from varying different backgrounds: Q coming from a Trotskyist background and currently a member of the CWI (who comrade Ghost Bebel, although apparently no longer holding the same politics, always chastised), Paul Cockshott, considering himself a Maoist of sorts (sorry if this is a mis-labeling as I am not entirely familiar with your politics), myself approaching my current political stance coming out of anarchism, DNZ apparently holding a belief in some sort of "bizarre hybrid Stalinism" as people here have been claiming.

However alot of the changes in "tendencies" if you will, although I don't see how the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group is a specific tendency since its merely a broad group for Marxists of varying political stripes, are quite drastic and seem quite odd to me. Comrade GB, who I do indeed like as not only a person but also consider immensely well read and as someone who has helped me along in my political development, was with me in the old "Fuck Lenin" usergroup having chats about Stirner; while we both moved on from that rather infantile political dismissal of Lenin, he jumped into Left Communism (with a bit of an interest in Bordiga and De Leonism as well I believe). From there he moved onto 'orthodox' Marxism, generally stating the claims that Left Communism hadn't made a significant break with Bakuninism. Now apparently your tendency is set as "Anti-Kautskyist" coming out of an 'orthodox Marxist' background? I just don't see how fundamental political positions such as these, can change so drastically and quickly.

Ultimately I don't understand how any of this is either productive or beneficial. The whole point, or at least what I felt like was the point and the reason I have the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group set as my tendency, was that as Marxists we should be able to take any given political figure (Kautsky for example) and take what's good and leave the rest, to not be dogmatic about these issues. Kautsky is dismissed by the majority of the left and yet for many years before he reneged, was the primary Marxist theorist after Marx & Engels death. Plekhanov, to use another example, eventually sided with the Mensheviks; however this does not dismiss the fact that his writings on materialism are some of the best that I personally have ever seen.

I'm not really sure what my point is with this rant and I have no idea if I am getting my point across at all, but dear god people the left is so damn sectarian and it can indeed be discouraging. Ostrinski you claim that there are issues you are in accordance with, for every tendency; congratulations, I have no idea why you would consider this a bad thing. In my opinion that is exactly the non dogmatic approach we need to see more often, that is exactly what the left needs. Whatever you do, just don't drop leftism, I know the feeling quite well, but the left needs a bright and well read young comrade such as yourself, whatever tendency you choose to associate yourself with. I simply refer to myself as a Marxist generally, especially in real life; worst case scenario you can always drop some acid and join Avanti and the neo-anarchists.

Great post here. I also set my tendency as Revolutionary Marxist for those same reasons - but I am also fairly new to Marxism (only been one for a couple years now) and haven't had an incredible amount of time to study the history of it as some here have. The knowledge of some of the history buffs here is pretty amazing, and at times, downright overwhelming.

Ostrinski, you shouldn't worry too much about your politics changing comrade. I am much older than you are, and I am not set in my politics yet either. In fact, I am always questioning them. When I first came to this board, I had started as a Left Communist/Luxumburgist, but changed that for various reasons. Firstly, as comrade 9mm stated, sectarianism is something we must overcome (thus my identification as a Revolutionary Marxist), and secondly, while I admire Luxumburg as a revolutionary and agree with much of her theories, I had just dipped into her work when I had joined this forum. She is still one of the most prominent Marxist thinkers in my opinion, and has had a solid impact on my politics, but she is of course not without her faults either. Thus my switch over to the Revolutionary Marxist tendency. I went back to Marx and Engels, and I believe their work should be used as a focal point for understanding everything else. Orthodox Marxism, at this point, seems the most logical thing to be at this point, as I think too many of the later tendencies revised or completely abandoned some of the core tenets of orthodox Marxism.

eh, I'm rambling now, but thats my 2 cents.

[Ravachol]

You see engaging with real people in real struggles and you call it reformism. I've never claimed to be any kind of guru, like that great theoretician DNZ, rather I made a very simple statement: being politically active is the best way to test your political perspectives. This obviously upsets you.

Not all political perspectives can be 'tested out in practice', like how not all approaches to science are clearly and immediately falsifiable. Sure, if most of your political theory is focused on programmatism, the quest for the ideal form of this or that revolutionary org., this or that ideal tactic/'correct line', etc. then you can test all those out.

In fact, I came to roughly the same conclusions Ghost Bebel summed up in this thread as a result of my practical political engagement, so yeah.

[Blake's Baby]

So, wait, you went and 'practiced your politics' and found them wanting? I think this is exactly what Majakovskij was suggesting, isn't it?

[Ravachol]

So, wait, you went and 'practiced your politics' and found them wanting? I think this is exactly what Majakovskij was suggesting, isn't it?

That too, but that's not what I was getting at. Political practice made me very skeptical if not downright hostile to the whole activist 'get out there with the REAL PEOPLE', 'build the party, sell the paper' attitude which Ghost Bebel criticized in the post Majakovskij was referring to.

[Blake's Baby]

Right, so you tried it and then rejected it. I really don't think Majakovskij means 'go and do REAL POLITICS and keep doing it even if you think it's all shit'. I think it's much more likely that he means 'you can't judge your politics solely by reading and arguing on the internet', doesn't he?

[helot]

Marx critiqued Anarchism as a form of petit-bourgeois radicalism, an assessment I would agree with, but we need to keep in mind this was the anarchism of Bakunin and the 19th century, entirely different from what we see today in many ways. Over the last century, we've been seeing an increasing tendency among anarchists away from individualism and towards organizations, collective action, and espousal of many of the tenets of 'scientific socialism'. In my opinion, this has occurred in the face of the capitulation of most Marxists to bourgeois ideology so more and more anarchists, not Marxists, were involved in class struggle. I'm a Marxist, not an anarchist, but I do think there has been a gradual tendency towards convergence among the ultra-left.


The thing is though that such critique of anarchism is nothing but a purposeful misrepresentation. The claim that anarchism is a form of petit-bourgeois radicalism has been repeated time and time again and shows either ignorance of anarchism or a glaring distortion. The same can be said of claims to do with anarchists rejecting organisation. I find it strange how you imply that Bakunin didn't support organisation or collective action considering he advocated unionism and was a member of the First International.

[keystone]

i wouldn't worry too much to what marxist nerd club you think you belong to or whatever. in the spirit of camatte, i would say that the relevant "pro-revolutionary" political organizations today are literally rackets (i.e. official communists, the organized gangs that constitute maoism, etc) or are irrelevant sects (trotskyism, left communism, some anarchists, etc). the only reason i can find sects useful today are as a nexus where likeminded people can get together and discuss, start publications, etc, which is not bad in itself but idk i have the internet.


You might call me an "organized gangster" (OG) Maoist, but I would advise anyone who is learning more about revolutionary politics to study the actual revolutions that have taken place in history. There have been a couple major ones, in Russia and China, that identified as communist and where a revolutionary state stayed in place for years. I would check out what the leaders of those struggles had to say, look at the resulting changes and issues that came up in the course of the struggles, and then look at their critics and see what might be relevant to learn from all of that.

But in a bigger sense, practice is higher than knowledge.

I agree that the currently-existing leftist/"communist" sects are largely useless or worse. The idea you cite by Theorie Communiste/Endnotes might have some validity to it, I will have to finish reading the entire article you linked to fully understand what you mean. I tend to think it's more of a conjunctural phenomenon: at certain points in history it's not possible to organize the kind of mass revolutionary movement. Look at Marx's life and struggle to form the Communist International. With regard to this question I recommend Alain Badiou's "The Rebirth of History" - it is from this book that I lost the pessimism I feel is inherent in the TC/endnotes idea (PM me for a link to the PDF). Badiou lights a flame of revolutionary optimism in the wake of Occupy.

The programmatist sects are dead. We won't reach our goal spontaneously through some postmodernist framework (or lack thereof). The program for revolution is yet to be written for our generation, but we need to reach for one. In many ways, its outline is emerging as struggles worldwide burst forth as the crisis grows.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The one reason I have my tendency set to the 'Revolutionary Marxist' user group is due to its non-sectarian approach; it's not so much that the tendency is a set group of theories one must abide by, but rather simply that you identify there being some worth in the politics associated with the 2nd international that many overlook.

You're understating the case, comrade. It's identifying there being lots of worth in the original Socialist International's politics that too many overlook.


To me it was a sort of a back to the basics moment. We have members which come from varying different backgrounds: Q coming from a Trotskyist background and currently a member of the CWI (who comrade Ghost Bebel, although apparently no longer holding the same politics, always chastised), Paul Cockshott, considering himself a Maoist of sorts (sorry if this is a mis-labeling as I am not entirely familiar with your politics), myself approaching my current political stance coming out of anarchism, DNZ apparently holding a belief in some sort of "bizarre hybrid Stalinism" as people here have been claiming.

That's a past background mixing Maoism, Bordigism, and DeLeonism for comrade Cockshott, but where in blazes did this "weird hybrid Stalinism" label crop up for me, other than some sensational snippets here and there?


That too, but that's not what I was getting at. Political practice made me very skeptical if not downright hostile to the whole activist 'get out there with the REAL PEOPLE', 'build the party, sell the paper' attitude which Ghost Bebel criticized in the post Majakovskij was referring to.

Good for you. We finally agree on something related to strategy.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Do some ethnographies or interviews or psychogeography or some shit.

Sorting out theory is a lot easier if you have experience to compare it with.

[Paul Cockshott]

TC/endnotes idea
What is this?