Results 61 to 80 of 113
Depending on the specific tendency Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists don't mix.
There will be an inevitable time frame in which these two tendencies will most likely come to bloody clashes and conflict. There is no solution for this unless one or the other tendency denounces their both anti-thetical, mutually exclusive ideologies.
That is of course...when communists even manage to revive from the complete and utter miserable failure Marxism-Leninism has been.
Wait, what?? I am not entirely sure if you were paying attention while you were typing. So you need to explain some things here. First and foremost Leninism not being contrary to self-emancipation when the main Anarchist critique of Vanguardism is exactly that.
Well, fascism was exterminated by Marxism in 1945. It doesn't exist now, only in pathetic forms.
Marxism is strenght
I don't think it's inevitable at all. I think it's a lot more likely, in the event of a genuine working class revolution, that one or both of them will be shown to be completely irrelevant. I don't think anarchism will ever really go away, either, but as for actual violent political conflict, a la the big K? That's not even remotely a conclusion that one can draw from the present state of things. I think the last thing resembling a physical confrontation between the two will be shown to have been when RAAN spray-painted that RCP bookstore in 2004.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say there could be a variety of issues but as for the root cause, on an individual level I would say the usual issues involving conformity, pathological social comparison, groupthink, etc.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I think that the issue of anti-semitism in the Left extends beyond distinction between good and bad capitalists - though that is definitely a serious indication. It's more complicated though - did Lenin not make a similar distinction (between finance and productive capital) in Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism?
The inherent problem of anti-semitism, that makes it more of a threat to us than other forms of marginal or even 'mob' racism is that, similarly to what BIAZED said, it is a pervasive notion of humanity all together. Unlike other forms of racism, it possesses a claim to universality by which all things can be categorized, distinguished, and understood in terms of the (archetype of) the Jew. This is precisely why it has historically been viciously combated by the Left, it offers an alternative explanation for the plight of the damned in times where the workers pay for the faults of the ruling classes (crises) effectively reducing the Communists to mere pawns of 'The Jews' - class struggle itself is rendered non-existent and simply a means by which the Jew aggrandizes himself. Of course while this encompasses as an explanation to all things consistently on a rather simple level, the problem of course is that this becomes incredibly inconsistent when one takes a closer look. The invalidity of anti-semitism can be seen historically - Marx and Engel's identification with western intellectual strata and European Chauvinism by which they simply categorized the Jews and the sheer depth of Marxism makes an accusation that they were espousing Jewish thought rather ridiculous. And if we go further, to the October revolution, we see that most political Jews identified with the SR's and mensheviks, and Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism is hardly something I could expect someone part of an international Jewish (or banking) conspiracy could write. There's just too many inconsistencies on this kind of level - small things like the fallout between Israel and the Reagan administration, or the distrust intelligence agencies often have for Israelis and so on... The reality is far too complicated - it is thus imperative that anti-semitism only works as a mobilizing tool on a very shallow, simple level. Perhaps understanding this could better our attempt to combat it.
Now with regard to it's existence in the Left - since the 1990's all significant components of the Left adopted the universality of other ideologies, including that of anti-semitism (whether they explicitly acknowledge this or not). This isn't because anti-semitism is like a virus that plagues us, but that after the defeat of the international proletariat our cause was rendered illegitimate and we thus desperately found legitimacy in trying to fit in our rhetoric while pre-supposing the ideological universe of legitimate ideology, or bourgeois ideology and it's bastards (including anti-semitism, neoconservatism, single-issue campaigns, whatever). You see how the Left today latches on trivial, stupid issues that have little to do with furthering our ends. Because most leftists were reluctant in adhering to 'mainstream' ideology, as some did (Hitchens comes to mind) they adopted that of the reaction. Actually I think the reason Leftists are reluctant to be so aggressive today and are keen in being "rational" about things (in the spirit of Chomsky, among others) relates indirectly to the pervasive trend of anti-semitism - it de-legitimizes us and all explosions of emotion, passion, or violent fervor are done so in the spirit of the reaction or neoliberal bourgeoisie. We effectively cede these things to them, when we are supposed to have our own. If they are violent, or aggressive this would thus entail violence against (the archetype of) the Jew, which as conscious Leftists they obviously are opposed to by nature. The point isn't to take their words directly and understand them because of what they claimed to be, but the very ideological foundations by which they speak.
To put it shortly, anti-semitism exists among the left because they have a sort of a self-confidence issue, they are insecure about themselves. The only way we smash anti-semitism - and all trends of reactionary thought among the left is the construction of our own ideological language itself and the re-politicization of that which was de-politicized by the neoliberal technocratic strata. It is a quest for legitimacy.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
The problem isn't before the revolution.
The problem will start during and after the revolution. Both tendencies are completely incompatible both on an organizational level and on a post-revolutionary level. So much so that for Anarchists a revolution will not be complete as long as a vanguard is in power on a state level. So either Anarchism must be absorbed or ML must change their opinion on post-revolutionary organization and the expression of the DOTP. When the revolution is led by Anarchists it won't be considered complete by ML's until the vanguard gains control over the revolution.
Either way. ML in power will inevitably lead to the repression of Anarchists....and Anarchists in "power" will inevitably lead to ML's contra-revolution.
No, these things have always existed and any critique of them is a matter best concerned with psuedo-philsoophers.
The question is simple: Why does today's form of "conformity" in the Left entail, as the OP described, "crypto-fascism"?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
While I agree, I think the idea is that such disputes are likely to be so disconnected from any real-world working class revolution. Any serious mass revolution is going to require the active participation of the vast majority of the working class.
The idea that all the fragmented MLs are going to be organised enough, or even numerous enough, to play such a role during and after the revolution is laughable. The same goes for the vast majority of existing left tendencies. The necessary scale of any successful working class revolution would see such anachronistic factions disappear into irrelevance.
I really, strongly, wholeheartedly believe that Marxist-Leninists will never hold power in an industrialized country again. Ever. Neither will Trotskyists. I'd seriously bet my life on it. You might have centralized communist organizations, but they won't have the historical baggage of either of those tendencies. They just won't be operating in the same circumstances that were so favorable to centralism a hundred years ago. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards decentralization.
edit: Ninja'd by Left Voice who I absolutely agree with.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
I'm sorry I don't believe I asserted nor implied it was a new phenomena nor was I critiquing the concepts listed. I offered legitimate psychological concepts as to the 'whys' on an individual basis crypto-fascist sentiments exist within 'the Left' milieu. Are you suggesting modern psychiatry is merely pseudo-philosophy?
Is that really what the OP was asking?
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
You attributed them uniquely to the rise of "crypto-fascism" in the Left. Do you suggest that before the Left possessed trends of "crypto-fascism", there was a lack of conformity or groupthink? This is a phenomena unique to post 68'. Don't try to defend your lazy and worthless explanations under the pretense of psychiatry or any other such specialized fields.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
You're completely right here.
It's not even a question of conformity; these traits listed by vox populi are so vague that they don't even represent a kind of a summary of some approach of social psychology. I think they're useless practically (pathological social comparison, well that's really a mystery to my honestly). I believe there are good sues of social psychology kind of approach, but there remain other significant questions which can't be dealt with in this way.
This is also completely correct. I didn't intent do imply that this distinction is the end of it.
But I don't think that this is even a serious indication since crypto-social democracy (think Monthly Review for instance) completely rests on this thing. I merely wanted to argue precisely this, that what BIAZED says is untrue - this distinction isn't inherently anti-semitic and nor does it indicate some covert anti-semitism necessarily.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Well I'm not an anarchist, not anti-Leninist, and not anti-vanguardist. Leninism does not exclude the workers forming organs of workers' power, or self-emancipation.
pew pew pew
Really? Is he?
I was being vague and generalizing on purpose due to the fact the original question itself was vague and abstract. I am however being lazy, this much is true, however I could, if you like, elaborate? What is 'social comparison' in relation to social psychology? Define it. Now, when something is 'pathological' what does that mean? What does this entail? Now combine the two. I am not being condescending but I feel if you knew what these terms mean, it would not be so much of a mystery as to what I mean. Especially in relation to what's being discussed. What significant questions here can't be explained by social psychology, science, etc?
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I think he is.Originally Posted by VoX p°PuŁï
The political dimension and the way specific political-ideological aspects of the problem (meaning the politics of this Left), as well as the social basis for these, relate to anti-semitism.
For instance, any psychological attempt at explanation would be inadequate for examining how is anti-Zionism really practiced and whether this has something to do with anti-semitism.
It's not any "fault" of psychology; it simply doesn't deal with this at all, its field of practice is something different.
Oh yeah, and I'm not saying categorically that leftist anti-Zionism is a significant factor here; I suspect it might be a factor but that remains to be seen (or rather, I'd have to delve into matters to confirm this).
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Rothbardianism says that it doesn't exclude workers forming organs of workers' power either, they always point out how in their system people could have organize voluntary socialism. Having in mind that they espouse non-aggression, something that leninism doesn't, and that leninism has historically exterminated anarchists, destroyed organs of workers' power and destroyed or participated in destruction of the only two worker managed societies that existed, rothbardianism has more to do with socialism then leninism.
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
You really ought to take a deep breath and reflect on what you're just about to write so that embarrassing yourself like this doesn't happen in the future.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
I've argumented it, anti-socialism of leninism, which goes as far as extermination, is bigger and harsher then anti-socialism of rothbardianism, which is at least bounded by some principle. The only way in which leninism has more to do with socialism then rothbardianism is concerned with ways of labeling itself. But even that's debatable, being that rothbardianism calls itself "anarchism", which is of course as false as leninism calling itself "socialism" or "communism".
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
They can potentially be explained in part by social psychology - although not in a way that offers much utility to us - but they cannot be explained by you explaining social psychology. I don't mean in general, I mean you, specifically, can't explain it as such, not in any coherent or meaningful way.Originally Posted by Vox Populi
You're just tossing around psych 101 buzzwords until either something sticks or it's so broad that it can apply to basically anything; it's the astrological approach to political analysis.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
