Who And What We Are

[Heretek]

I was talking to an old acquaintance today, and he's someone I used to consider fairly well read and educated. But politics arose, and we of course disagreed, him being what I fear to be a closet fascist.

I've well and done accepted this, my issue is over definitions. He refuses to budge on what anarchists, communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, and probably more we didn't talk about. According to him, anarchists want to destroy government and nothing else, communists want a massive government and nothing else, anarcho-communists are stupid because they're two contradictory ideologies, and anarcho-syndicalists are stupid because they want no government and no corporations but they want corporations (the syndicalist portion, apparently). He refused to budge despite my counterarguments and my literal quote of the definition of communism "stateless, classless society." Then he proceeded to assert all communists are the same, we all worship Stalin. Obviously, I was disgusted by this and we ended this conversation.

So what the hell happened here? Well-read, historically knowledgeable individuals refuse to read a definition? We're all the same despite our sometimes violent differences? How do we convince people like this to at least acknowledge we are have actual theories beyond "the big state" or "ANARCHY!!"?

[Alet]

I don't know your acquaintance but if he keeps insisting on his ignorance as you portray it, you cannot actually force him to think. It's not a matter of definitions though - recall what Marx said about language and how it cannot be abstracted from the real world because the meaning of words is completely contingent on their social (i.e. political, cultural, etc.) context. The point is that giving a meaning to terms is a matter of practice, it is a partisan act. So your acquaintance refuses to accept your definition because he has no reason to do so - maybe because he's a fascist ideologue, I really don't know. But I think that there is no way we could convince people like him, and I'm confident that we don't have to.

[Heretek]

This was basically my conclusion, though its not exactly what is most pleasing since we were once upon a time childhood friends. One would think in order to criticize you would need to understand, but a quick look at the state of racism and militarism, among other things, says otherwise. Thank you regardless, but it does raise another question.

What exactly gives people reason to understand? I ask this because in a similar vein a multitude of classmates of mine are trumpites, and they often have no idea what he is saying (who does?) or what I'm saying in response and spout back some ingrained phrase like "make America great again" even if it has no context. Additionally, several seem entirely reluctant to accept the concept of historical examples and in general much of history itself, despite being otherwise normal humans.

[Alet]

The reason to understand something is a practical one, meaning that it is one's practical life or one's social relation to other humans, which opens up the possibility to scientifically understand processes of any kind - or to interpret them superstitiously. In other words this simply means that your politics (and knowledge in general) is congruent with your practical life. The recently growing popularity of rightism is owed to the fact that it appeals to proletarians and their lives as it provides the means for them to cope with their discontent in capitalism - even though they don't approach the root of all evil, which is why it is superstitious and which is why communism is not a "class interest" (that is, it does not develop "naturally", so to speak) but dependent on active will and strict organization.

[Jacob Cliff]

So your acquaintance refuses to accept your definition because he has no reason to do so - maybe because he's a fascist ideologue, I really don't know. But I think that there is no way we could convince people like him, and I'm confident that we don't have to.

So how should we respond, then, if we refuse formalist definitions (truth as practical truth and nothing more)? What do we say to those who confuse communism as a transhistoric "system of total government", as some dogma we 'have' by having more government and so on?

[Alet]

What do we say to those who confuse communism as a transhistoric "system of total government", as some dogma we 'have' by having more government and so on?

We might make a distinction here between people who actually refuse to think critically, that is, actual (petite-)bourgeois ideologues, and proletarians with false consciousness, who genuinely seek to find and fight the root causes for their discontent. The former, I claim, are to be left in ignorance because they are lost souls. It's not our job to waste time and energy, and think for them - it's hopeless. I speak from (and not only) my own experience, there is nothing to say to people who don't have the inclination to bring and end to capitalism and who don't want to learn about Marxist theory either. One might demonstrate inconsistencies in their argumentations, one might even demonstrate empirically wrong statements (the emphasis is on might), but one can never show them communism as an alternative path, if they were not even predisposed to it in the first place. These are the people I'm referring to here, as Heretek wrote: 'How do we convince people like this to at least acknowledge we are have actual theories beyond "the big state" or "ANARCHY!!"?' My argument is that we don't need to. We don't have to answer to hostile ideologues, we're not trying to prove them anything, it doesn't matter if they cry about total state control or genuine communism, that is, proletarian authority over their beloved world etc.

But of course, this does not mean that we don't have to answer to ourselves and to the tradition of communism/Marxism. We do have an answer to silly notions of "communism = complete nationalization, anarchy = anomic society", and so on. Communism, for us, is nothing else than the real movement that seeks to abolish the present state of affairs. It's not an arbitrary definition though, it has real, practical implications for our revolutionary cause. And a consistent Marxism recognizes that the meaning of words are not eternal but practical (it stresses the obvious fact that humans and humans alone give meaning to words - and the fact (reserved for Marxists) that there are social and thus ideological gaps between humans (classes)), so that what communism actually means is not an empirical controversy but an ideological one, one of humans - it remains a controversy, of course. This is not what I am saying: My point is not meant as a justification for our own (the Left's) isolation (from practical politics, which includes theoretical controversies). What I am saying is that we are not answering to the fascist intellectuals themselves - on the contrary, we are answering to us, personally, and additionally to the universal struggle of communism, to all people who have nothing to lose and are consumed by the demons of capitalist society.

[lanadelarosa]

If someone refuses to budge on definitions of words, can they really be all that educated and well-read? Maybe in certain respects, but I imagine that it's just anti-leftist propaganda which is ingrained in most people, to the point that it seems physically impossible to change their mind. And what the hell is a "fascist intellectual"? Haha.

[Heretek]

If someone refuses to budge on definitions of words, can they really be all that educated and well-read? Maybe in certain respects, but I imagine that it's just anti-leftist propaganda which is ingrained in most people, to the point that it seems physically impossible to change their mind. And what the hell is a "fascist intellectual"? Haha.

The term used was idealogue. Regardless of that, it implies someone with a mastery of the theory and practice of fascism who openly proports its program. Such as we can call elected officials "liberal" or "conservative" or "socialist" ideologues, who each have supposed mastery over their subject area and proport their use, which in reality for politicians means knowing how to influence the electorate into their favor.

Additionally, it is important to not mistake our enemies for stupid. They would not have built up a system of oppression so adept at resisting us if they were. Underestimation is dangerous

[Alet]

I actually did use the term "fascist intellectuals" in my last post. However, it (at least the way I put it) does not mean that they are profound or critical "to the end". By fascist intellectuals I simply mean the apologists of fascist sentiments, those people who defend the most disgusting filth on an unscientific yet theoretical level. I'm referring to people like Thilo Sarrazin.