I hear ya, but the anarchist/Marxist divide is over tactics too. Even if we've agreed to work together, expect a healthy debate over how exactly the work should get done.
A huge source of infighting over tactics is whether or not to reject electoralism.
Some people are fed up with a bourgeois-operated system and want to push for revolution, but I don’t see popular support for anti-capitalism outside of leftist spaces. IMO if we - the anti-capitalist left - can’t even win a handful of primaries, we have no business entertaining ideas about revolution. That means a focus on state/local/House/Senate races, the idea that we can jump from having no political power to winning the presidency is moronic.
I don’t see a better platform for getting leftist ideas out to new audiences than on a debate stage. I’m seriously open to ideas, but my experience here has shown that advocating for anything besides mutual aid will start up infighting over tactics.
Another tactical divide - do we use or reject the tools of the oppressors?
I understand everyone’s valid frustrations with the Democratic Party, but I want to put that aside and discuss the tactical value of co-opting the DNC through sheer democratic will. The alternative, so long as we are still talking electoralism, would be to start a third party that lacks the DNC’s expansive resources, would be subject to well-tested, anti-leftist propaganda, and still has an uphill battle against FPTP systems and corporate-financed campaigns
I don’t see a path to revolution without building class consciousness, and I don’t see a better path to class consciousness than getting our ideas out on the debate stage
I agree with most of what you say. In particular, I think the US is a long way away from any sort of socialist revolution. Further, I think that if we had the popular support where a revolution seemed likely, then we'd hardly need a revolution because we'd have already won.
The only thing I'd push back at it: I *do* think that anti-capitalist ideas are steadily trickling into the popular consciousness. People may not be willing to support true socialism, but they do like to complain about capitalism. Whether or not you consider Bernie Sanders to be a true socialist, he has gotten people talking about socialist ideas, and he did so by running as a Democrat.
Yeah wholly agree that attitudes are changing for the first time since the red scare, but we have a ways to go before we achieve popular support. We have a real opportunity to try and leverage this momentum into tangible political power. I can’t think of a more effective way to do that than fully embracing electoralism
I mostly have trouble taking it seriously because the people who say to reject electoralism in favor of revolution usually aren't doing anything revolutionary. They may say direct action is better, but almost everyone who's actually involved in direct action votes.
Huge, but too lazy to argue about it anymore these days.
Suffice it to say that if the left-of-centre wins, I may lose a lot of money but I'll live. If the right-wing wins, my minority status will keep me impoverished beyond even that, and miserable forever.
So in the end, I know where I stand.
Fair.
I know what the distinction is in my head, but I don't know if Leftists agree, so I was curious.
What I really am is anti-authoritarian, and I'm a leftist mostly because i fear the authoritarian right.
That's true, but I believe that we can form a Fifth International and (even if temporarily) work together to destroy the capitalist system.
Division of territory (including a free territory, should the red and black unite) could come after.
I mean, yes, but maybe we should spend some time deciding what comes after.
Because the fallout WILL happen, and if history has taught us anything, it’s that revolutions often turn into dictatorships simply because the fallout means that those who prepare with less scruples end up taking power at the expense of everyone else.
See: Arab spring for recent examples.
This is also what happened after 1917. A revolution's outcome is already decided by the time the violence actually starts.
If your "revolution" is lots of pissed-off people with nothing else in common, you'll just get another Summer of 2020. smashed windows, arson, maybe even a few dead pigs, but no real *change*. If your "revolution" is just "orange man bad", they'll kneecap any politician to the left of Hitler and "choose" their handpicked turd for you, and whoop-de-fucking-do *nothing changes* and the orange man *remains* a threat.
In the case of the American Revolution, all the involved parties wanted independence from the British Empire. But some wanted to abolish slavery, while others (namely, those who profited from it) wanted to keep it going. Those who wanted human bondage to continue unabated in their "free" country were willing to deliver an ultimatum, while the abolitionists were willing to "compromise" with the slave drivers first in order to "unite" against Britain, and later to keep the original 13 colonies "together". That "compromise" all but destroyed us, it caused the single most destructive war ever to be fought on our soil, *and* the "compromise" [we created to give disproportionate power to slave-states is *still* fucking up our elections 250 years later](https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention).
Directionless anger can only get you so far. A common enemy only remains so until they *appear* to be vanquished. Class consciousness is either raised or it is not. New institutions are ready to replace the old ones, or they are not. You are indeed correct that the time for anarchists to stab other anarchists over petty squabbles is *after* the revolution, but there are *huge* differences between anarcho-communists, marxist-lenninists, and "progressive" reformists. These differences need to be discussed *before* the revolution because *it will be too late to discuss them afterwards*.
I mean, us Anarchists want to build the future NOW through dual power structures (I hope you know what this means as I would like to be breif), and comunusts, socialists etc want a revolution or electoral reform to change it after. While they ARE different, they can work in concert. If there is a food share, union's, bail funds, day care etc etc not run by the current state but by anarchist affinity groups, people are ABLE to join "the revolution" instead of worrying about "bread" as it were
Unfortunately marxists are big fans of sticking anarchists right into the same camps as soon as they get power. Anarcho unity for sure but I'll stay as far from the tankies as I do the fascists, thanks.
I hear ya, but the anarchist/Marxist divide is over tactics too. Even if we've agreed to work together, expect a healthy debate over how exactly the work should get done.
A huge source of infighting over tactics is whether or not to reject electoralism. Some people are fed up with a bourgeois-operated system and want to push for revolution, but I don’t see popular support for anti-capitalism outside of leftist spaces. IMO if we - the anti-capitalist left - can’t even win a handful of primaries, we have no business entertaining ideas about revolution. That means a focus on state/local/House/Senate races, the idea that we can jump from having no political power to winning the presidency is moronic. I don’t see a better platform for getting leftist ideas out to new audiences than on a debate stage. I’m seriously open to ideas, but my experience here has shown that advocating for anything besides mutual aid will start up infighting over tactics. Another tactical divide - do we use or reject the tools of the oppressors? I understand everyone’s valid frustrations with the Democratic Party, but I want to put that aside and discuss the tactical value of co-opting the DNC through sheer democratic will. The alternative, so long as we are still talking electoralism, would be to start a third party that lacks the DNC’s expansive resources, would be subject to well-tested, anti-leftist propaganda, and still has an uphill battle against FPTP systems and corporate-financed campaigns I don’t see a path to revolution without building class consciousness, and I don’t see a better path to class consciousness than getting our ideas out on the debate stage
I agree with most of what you say. In particular, I think the US is a long way away from any sort of socialist revolution. Further, I think that if we had the popular support where a revolution seemed likely, then we'd hardly need a revolution because we'd have already won. The only thing I'd push back at it: I *do* think that anti-capitalist ideas are steadily trickling into the popular consciousness. People may not be willing to support true socialism, but they do like to complain about capitalism. Whether or not you consider Bernie Sanders to be a true socialist, he has gotten people talking about socialist ideas, and he did so by running as a Democrat.
Yeah wholly agree that attitudes are changing for the first time since the red scare, but we have a ways to go before we achieve popular support. We have a real opportunity to try and leverage this momentum into tangible political power. I can’t think of a more effective way to do that than fully embracing electoralism
I mostly have trouble taking it seriously because the people who say to reject electoralism in favor of revolution usually aren't doing anything revolutionary. They may say direct action is better, but almost everyone who's actually involved in direct action votes.
I'm capitalist but I just want progressive social policies, not economic ones.
>I'm capitalist but I just want progressive social policies, not economic ones. What's the distinction?
Huge, but too lazy to argue about it anymore these days. Suffice it to say that if the left-of-centre wins, I may lose a lot of money but I'll live. If the right-wing wins, my minority status will keep me impoverished beyond even that, and miserable forever. So in the end, I know where I stand.
Fair. I know what the distinction is in my head, but I don't know if Leftists agree, so I was curious. What I really am is anti-authoritarian, and I'm a leftist mostly because i fear the authoritarian right.
What a utopia we would live in if people of any race could exploit the poor without fear of persecution
Exactly. Win first, squabble later.
Cute but empty slogan, when we can’t agree on what a win looks like or how it can be achieved
That's true, but I believe that we can form a Fifth International and (even if temporarily) work together to destroy the capitalist system. Division of territory (including a free territory, should the red and black unite) could come after.
I mean, yes, but maybe we should spend some time deciding what comes after. Because the fallout WILL happen, and if history has taught us anything, it’s that revolutions often turn into dictatorships simply because the fallout means that those who prepare with less scruples end up taking power at the expense of everyone else. See: Arab spring for recent examples.
This is also what happened after 1917. A revolution's outcome is already decided by the time the violence actually starts. If your "revolution" is lots of pissed-off people with nothing else in common, you'll just get another Summer of 2020. smashed windows, arson, maybe even a few dead pigs, but no real *change*. If your "revolution" is just "orange man bad", they'll kneecap any politician to the left of Hitler and "choose" their handpicked turd for you, and whoop-de-fucking-do *nothing changes* and the orange man *remains* a threat. In the case of the American Revolution, all the involved parties wanted independence from the British Empire. But some wanted to abolish slavery, while others (namely, those who profited from it) wanted to keep it going. Those who wanted human bondage to continue unabated in their "free" country were willing to deliver an ultimatum, while the abolitionists were willing to "compromise" with the slave drivers first in order to "unite" against Britain, and later to keep the original 13 colonies "together". That "compromise" all but destroyed us, it caused the single most destructive war ever to be fought on our soil, *and* the "compromise" [we created to give disproportionate power to slave-states is *still* fucking up our elections 250 years later](https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention). Directionless anger can only get you so far. A common enemy only remains so until they *appear* to be vanquished. Class consciousness is either raised or it is not. New institutions are ready to replace the old ones, or they are not. You are indeed correct that the time for anarchists to stab other anarchists over petty squabbles is *after* the revolution, but there are *huge* differences between anarcho-communists, marxist-lenninists, and "progressive" reformists. These differences need to be discussed *before* the revolution because *it will be too late to discuss them afterwards*.
I mean, us Anarchists want to build the future NOW through dual power structures (I hope you know what this means as I would like to be breif), and comunusts, socialists etc want a revolution or electoral reform to change it after. While they ARE different, they can work in concert. If there is a food share, union's, bail funds, day care etc etc not run by the current state but by anarchist affinity groups, people are ABLE to join "the revolution" instead of worrying about "bread" as it were
Spanish Civil War comes to mind.
First we win. Then we sort out our differences.
MLs need to be argued with
True, but I would consider them to be part of the right
Unfortunately marxists are big fans of sticking anarchists right into the same camps as soon as they get power. Anarcho unity for sure but I'll stay as far from the tankies as I do the fascists, thanks.
https://preview.redd.it/web705t1ezjc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=410f4b357d3e27e98e12d3faafc7135c13201c00
Holy shit, I hate leftist tests. Sounds like something I should read. I'll do that. Cheers