Obsessed w/ Aligning... Why?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I've always wondered why Leftists, seemingly much more than any other political group, align ourselves under the names of our leaders. There are, for example:

Leninists
Stalinists
Marxists
Trotskyists
Maoists
Kimists
Titoists
Sandinstas
Fidelistas
Chavistas
Guevaristas
Farabundistas

Among many others... If we are so into liberation, why to we choose to worship certain people like gods instead of simply formulating our own perspectives? I confess that I am guilty of the same thing but irregardless, it seems sort of contradictory to me in a certain sense.

[ComradeOm]

Like gods? Hardly. Those labels apply to the teachings and writings that each man forwarded. Few "worship" the man himself.

There are so many currents of thought within the left that it simply makes sense to apply a label that represents your position on several key issues. For example, if I call myself a Leninist then everybody knows roughly where my feelings lie on the likes of socialism, the role of the party, world revolution etc. On the other hand simply calling myself a communist could refer to a broad range of diverse opinions from Stalinism to anarchism. It may not be ideal and the bickering can be tiresome but its a result of the healthy socialist attitude of questioning everything.

BTW, Fidelistas, Chavistas and Guevaristas? Do people actually use those terms?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Yeah, people do use those terms. "Chavista" is a very common term in Venezuela nowadays and I consider myself a "Chavista-Sandinista", Fidelista is also widely used.

[RedAnarchist]

You make a good point. I don;t think it matters what branch of the tree you follow, as we need to poke a fork into the capitalist balloon in different places in order to find it's weakest point - i.e, we need to find the branch that has the best chance of success.

[Forward Union]

Your right, many people do worship leaders such as lenin or Stalin. Remember that not all Leninists and Stalinists are hero-worshipers, some just agree with their writings.

Although I totally agree, labelling has gone a bit too far in the leftist community.

[The Grey Blur]

:o Wow, I want to thank you, what a brilliant thread, it's so simple yet so brilliant. I think leftists are too bothered with labelling each other than with combining forces - this problem is worst in America - the Revolutionary Communist Party is gathering momentum but some leftists try to shoot it down with out even looking in to it.

Old joke about the oft-splintering IRA that applies to communists (just replace 'IRA men' with communists ;) )

-Three IRA men walk into a room, the leader bangs his gun down on the table, turns to look at the other two and says, "Alright, which way are we going to split?"- :lol:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by I chicorazon [email protected] 18 2005, 06:39 AM
I've always wondered why Leftists, seemingly much more than any other political group, align ourselves under the names of our leaders.
The majority of Anarchists don't. Most of us prefer to think for ourselves rather than blindly following some leader. Contemporary labels among anarchists are generally focused on some sort of idea or issue, like what the best kind of economic system is or the best way to bring about the revolution, rather than named after a leader. Like syndicalists, platformists, mutualists, anarcho-communists, anarcha-feminists, green anarchists, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there is a difference between hero-warship or "cult of personality" and most "name-here-ist" communists. Marx famously said "I am not a Marxist" and most other communists movements have been named after-the fact. Trotsky always called himself a "Bolshevik", it was detractos who called his followers "trotskyites". In fact many of these name-isms started out as sectarian slurs. THe same goes for stalin as well... "Stalinism" was called "Marxist-Lenninism" by stalin.

Mao may have called his movement Moaism, I'm not sure.

I would say to people not to get too hung up on the labels themselves, but some of the political differences that the names represent are important.

THe names themselves are not important. Are anarchists less likely to fall victim to "cult of personality" than a Marxist or Trotskyist because their tendancies tend not to be named after particular figures? Well Fascists arn't called Htlerists or Mousolinistas, so I'd say the name at face-value dosn't count for much.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:11 AM
I think there is a difference between hero-warship or "cult of personality" and most "name-here-ist" communists. Marx famously said "I am not a Marxist" and most other communists movements have been named after-the fact. Trotsky always called himself a "Bolshevik", it was detractos who called his followers "trotskyites". In fact many of these name-isms started out as sectarian slurs. THe same goes for stalin as well... "Stalinism" was called "Marxist-Lenninism" by stalin.

Mao may have called his movement Moaism, I'm not sure.

I would say to people not to get too hung up on the labels themselves, but some of the political differences that the names represent are important.

THe names themselves are not important. Are anarchists less likely to fall victim to "cult of personality" than a Marxist or Trotskyist because their tendancies tend not to be named after particular figures? Well Fascists arn't called Htlerists or Mousolinistas, so I'd say the name at face-value dosn't count for much.

I believe the problem is the obsession with one person's writing. For instance, Marx was great, but not that great!