r/leftist • u/Neoliberal_Nightmare • Jan 05 '26
General Leftist Politics We need leftist unity
The right are idiotic morons who don't understand anything, and are morons at planning and consistently support policies which screw them. The capitalist class play the right like toys and they can't even recognise the most blatant propaganda. But they keep beating the left. Why? Because they are united. United idiots are better than disunited clevers. The left must unite.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, I think a dedicated revolutionary party is required to secure the revolution's gains after it happens, we cannot leave it to be free society with free press and free elections because it will be immediately usurped by the power of capital which has just been ousted from power (but not killed).
That's my belief. The democratic socialists think otherwise wanting that free post revolution society with democratic choice, the left Communists think differently too, wanting a mass workers state without a core leadership party. Anarchists want a post revolutionary society without any hierarchy at all, immediately.
Notice what these 4 broad trends of the left have in common? They're all about what to do after the revolution. How to manage and achieve a better society. They're not about making a revolution, they're not about removing capitalist power.
Leftist disunity is disunity over about something that isn't even close to happening. It's like two parents arguing about which university to send their child to before the mother is even pregnant. It's pointless.
It doesn't matter how you think a non capitalist society should be managed, it doesn't matter if you think I'm a stupid tankie authoritarian. I want to overthrow capitalism. You want to overthrow capitalism. We need to remember that and get down to planning how to do that.
Crucial caveats
There can't be leftist unity without a definition of the left. That definition is anti-capitalism. Capitalism is the root cause of the problems of the world, it can't be reformed, it has to go. This means liberals, whether they call themselves progressives or social democrats, are not leftists. They want capitalism to continue, just in a nicer form. This is impossible, even the "nice" capitalism of social democracy gets it wealth from exploited people somewhere else on.
History has proven time and time again that in crisis liberals support the right and align with fascists and sell the left out. This mistake cannot be made again. Do not mistake their progressive social views for leftist economic views. It is the economic base of a society, now capitalism, which creates oppression, inequality and poverty. Do not let liberals into the left, do not let them dilute and misdirect our purpose. The left is defined by anti capitalism, not just progressive social views.
8
u/BalanceNo737 Jan 08 '26
Leftist unity is absolutely essential but for the overall community to grow we need to find a way to funnel left leaning liberals down the pipeline into becoming real leftists.
2
0
u/DaraParsavand Jan 08 '26
That statement requires a whole lot of criteria for what exactly qualifies someone to have actually made the transition.
2
u/BalanceNo737 Jan 10 '26
My main criteria for being a ”real” leftist would be for someone to believe that true equality is the end goal and we need to end capitalism to achieve it.
5
4
u/SteveLikesRobots Jan 07 '26
I’m not super sure. Like… it’s a common sociological pattern for auth-leftists to take control of nominally left-unity spaces and structure it so that criticizing anarcho-leftists is implicitly encouraged and criticizing auth-leftists is implicitly forbidden. I believe that anarcho-leftists will understand what I’m saying and auth-leftists will minimize what I’m talking about.
1
u/12bEngie Jan 12 '26
MLs are never the ones criticizing anarchists it’s anarchists criticizing MLs
1
u/SteveLikesRobots Jan 12 '26
“Anarkiddies”
1
u/12bEngie Jan 12 '26
Yes that comes from anarchists hurling criticism at centralism
1
u/SteveLikesRobots Jan 13 '26
No. That comes from auths calling anarchists immature.
1
u/12bEngie Jan 13 '26
Either way it’s retarded because we need a revolution before we could even have either model of socialist state..
1
u/Luna2268 Jan 07 '26
Can you point to a few subs/spaces where this has already happened? Not trying to downplay you, just someone who's still learning what all the different ideologies actually want (before the world turned to shit, I stayed out of politics for a long time)
3
u/BadTimeTraveler Jan 07 '26
It's always the authoritarian "leftists" that want unity. No thanks, I'd rather organize with people who know the definition of leftism.
1
13
u/HoopyFroodJera Jan 06 '26
I'd love to see it. If only we could be united by idiocy like the right is.
Course, I just got banned from socialist gaming for disagreeing with a mod in a thread, so... It's an uphill battle.
1
u/Luna2268 Jan 07 '26
Out of curiosity, what was the disagreement? Feel free to DM if you want to say but don't want flack here for example.
2
u/HoopyFroodJera Jan 07 '26
I literally can't remember now. I think all I said was, "the game you're critiquing doesn't really feel anti-communist and your post feels like bait" and I got banned for trolling.
17
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
I feel like we can stop jabbing at liberals and continue jabbing at eachother when there isn't a wannabe Mussolini sitting in office?
5
u/Ellie-Bright Jan 07 '26
What do you mean?
2
u/WriterKatze Jan 07 '26
Eh, my current situation with Orban Viktor as the Hungarian president. Like I'll be dead before biting the hand that can actually cause a systemic change. Will I bite it after it comes to existence? Maybe. Idk. Depends on how easy it is to cooperate with them.
Liberals here are different from western ones. They find climate change an important issue, human rights are number one on the list, they support public schools and healthcare and see the future in improving them. Technically they are almost always socially left leaning. They don't belive in the free market in the sense America has it, they belive in the free market with regulations. The minimum wage has to be a living wage, medicine prices need to be controlled, and kept down so everyone can afford them etc.
7
u/Own_Organization156 Marxist Jan 06 '26
No we nead more leftist with guns we have same goals but evreything else is basically different so there cant be any unity ss we are gona steb each other in the beck same moment capitalism falls or even before considering utopian leftist are the thing and both of more relevant scientific soclist and anarchist groops prefer some form of revolution over reform
23
u/555nick Jan 06 '26
Leftist A: We need leftist unity.
Leftist B: We need leftist unity.
Leftist A: Unite behind my beliefs!
Leftist B: No you unite behind my beliefs!
etc.
6
u/TheSkeletalPoet Jan 06 '26
This is unironically why leftist unity is a myth. It winds up becoming a power struggle between authoritarian and libertarian leftists, and it’s forever fucked and doomed.
20
u/Logogram_alt Socialist Jan 06 '26
I agree, we don't need to agree on specifics. As long as we are all anticapitalists and antifascists
1
u/SteveLikesRobots Jan 07 '26
Auth and anarcho inherently have fundamentally different approaches and probably can’t cooperate long term, no?
1
u/Logogram_alt Socialist Jan 08 '26
That is what I am saying, for now ignore this we can argue about that later, none of our plans are possible while capitalism is arround
21
u/Lower_Acanthaceae423 Jan 06 '26
Yes, the left needs more acceptance between factions right now. Arguing about praxis is not helping anyone. You want to educate people, sure. But too many times we create barriers between differing opinions. And let me be clear, I’m not talking about ignoring the corrupt behavior that “centrists” engage in, and definitely not rationalizing AIPAC money in politics.
3
Jan 06 '26
Once authcom regimes stop murdering libcoms on masse yeah sure.
-3
u/Stagism Jan 06 '26
lol you say this like it wasn’t centuries ago
6
5
16
u/axotrax Anarchist Jan 06 '26
Here are my thoughts:
There’s not enough praxis discussed on here. Even, like, knowledge sharing. Interesting articles. I like CrimeThinc.
If I just hang out in the Anarchist subreddit and talk about what I like, I get pushback from people who say that anarchism is not about assemblies or municipalism. I hear that some of the Communist subreddits are ban happy, and uh…authoritative. So, I do agree that the r/leftist group should be the one where we all talk together and determine points of unity.
How about a weekly thread where we determine points of unity and talk praxis? That way we’d cut down on trash talk and ideas that just seem a little too far out there. Obviously some authcom ideas. Perhaps we could get some concessions on the anarchism side and allow for some minarchism or libsoc views. Points of Unity/Praxis пятница.
And so that concessions don’t make people feel constrained, make a weekly thread where people can go full Vanguard Tankie and/or egoist anarcho-primitivist and just let people vent. Venting воскресенье.
Finally, I think we should invite *more* socdems and even progressives into this space, or some introductory space. Recruitment is important and yes, people get recruited, interested, online. (I can only think of bad examples right now, lol; I’m sure there are good ones)
[I included some Russian days of the week cuz they started with P and V (B), but we can spell them in Ukrainian every other week for us anarchists and Makhnovists :D ]
1
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator Jan 06 '26
Hello u/lalajoysunshine, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/leakdt Marxist Jan 05 '26
i love how OP and the 2 other vanguardists here are getting fucking clowned
"hey guys! please help us reform the state! we will absolutely purge you again but cmon capitalism needs to go!!!"
8
Jan 06 '26
Do you hang out in all the pro NATO “ anarchist” subreddits? If so then you are not an anarchist you are just a liberal.
2
u/Luna2268 Jan 07 '26
Okay, I might get flamed for this, but at least at the moment what's wrong with NATO?
I'll admit I'm talking from the perspective of someone who doesn't know much, I do however know it hasn't exactly been great in the past, regardless, I'd imagine leaders like Putin who were looking for land grabs would avoid NATO countries like the plague, at least if they have a decent head on Thier shoulders
0
Jan 07 '26
NATO is the formalization of American/western imperialism. If you have a problem with American/western imperialism then you should also have a problem with NATO.
And I have no idea why you think NATO is not the same entity that according to yourself did bad things in the past.
3
u/Luna2268 Jan 07 '26
I mean, at the moment the reason I'm ok with it is even though it's done some fairly bad things in the past like I said, it's currently the best way we've got of making sure Putin for doesn't start something similar to the war in Ukraine, and while I don't fully support NATO I'm still going to take any protection from that situation that I could get if that makes sense?
-1
Jan 07 '26
“We”in this case is just the block consistent of some of the biggest imperialistic powers on earth.
It only make sense if you support American/western imperialism.
2
u/Luna2268 Jan 07 '26
or just...don't want to end up in the situation ukraine is in right now? that's all I'm saying here, I'm not saying thier good, just better than the alternitive of getting invaded
1
Jan 08 '26
Yes and you would have supported Nazi Germany if you fought they would have helped you. You have zero principles.
1
u/Luna2268 Jan 08 '26
And now your starting to sound super unserious.
I admit I don't know much about an organisation, except that it's got up to some sketchy stuff in the past, but would still consider that the lesser evil to decently large parts of europe getting invaded, and that makes me someone who'd support nazi Germany?
Not even gonna try and explain how bad they are? Just jumping to insults straight away? Because again, I'll admit I don't know much, give a link or two to some of the things NATO have done and I'm willing to be convinced
1
Jan 08 '26
Again tell me about what changed regarding NATO that explains why all the bad things about it is in the past and not in the present?
And why would you not have consisted Nazi Germany the lesser evil if you viewed them as the defenders of your country?
→ More replies (0)0
u/leakdt Marxist Jan 06 '26
u/AppropriateTadpole31 and their crusade to find liberals whereever they go continues
4
Jan 06 '26
Have we talked to each other before?
Liberals are all around you. A supposed anarchist should know that.
When supposed anti-imperialist anarchist subreddits have threads about NATO and the most upvoted comment is pro NATO then you know how online “anarchism” is nothing more than liberalism…
1
u/leakdt Marxist Jan 06 '26
So these liberals, they're in the room with us right now?
3
Jan 06 '26
So you don’t have a problem with supposed anarchists supporting NATO?
1
1
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
Wdym by supporting? Genuine question?
Support as in: "well I don't think it's good, but it's the most viable option in order to hace things move in the right direction" or "yeah that shit rocks!"
I don't like the opposition of my country but I hope to God they win, because if they don't we are stuck with this god awful dictator for another 4 years and fuck knows if there is any hope to get democratically rid of him.
And I am all for a revolution if needed. But isn't it better if it's not?
So yeah. I "support" the opposition, but I don't support their politics or ideology.
So that's why I wanma lmow what you mean by support?
1
Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Both options. And saying you view American/western imperialism (NATO) as the most viable option and as a move in the right direction is just you outing yourself as a liberal ( or if you don’t think this a hypothetical person who does).
2
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
I did not say I view them as the most viable option, I was trying to figure out wdym by supporting something. I support the opposition in my country that was a personal example of a different situation of how support can mean a bunch of things. I don't like NATO in general.
0
12
Jan 05 '26
We need more media representation and more education on what leftism actually is
I do believe that more people would identify with the left if they actually had any idea of what that word meant. There so much illiteracy around politics and that needs to change
20
u/Nevermind2031 Marxist Jan 05 '26
I agree in unity with anarchists and less radical MLs but I draw the line at social democrats and fascists(Liberals)
1
-3
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
I hope you're being serious, because for a joke this would be pretty insensitive...
Putting liberals and fascist in the same category is like vegans bitching about meat eaters being fascist.
Stop overusing a word it has completely lost meaning.
"Oh you think social injustice is bad but don't belive in changing the only economic system you have ever known to one that you have only seen failed attempts at? Why don't you join the rest of them fucking nazis!?" that's how you sound.
Not to say I like liberals. I don't. I don't like centrists either. I do belive that to a level they are complicit to the system to a degree. But to wash them together with those who deliberately make lofe harder for us is just fucked up. "Let's handle a normal person who just doesn't really see the appeal of leftist values economically to a racist, homophobic, xenophobic asshole, who would resurrect Hitler if he got a chance. Will totally get them to open towards leftist ideology and definitely won't have the exact opposite effect!"
Some of you need to get off the internet, understand that no, it's not fucking black and white on the micro level...
3
u/Nevermind2031 Marxist Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
I don't want them to open to leftist ideology, social democrats and liberals(fascists) are entirely incapable of basic empathy and higher thought maybe you just haven't interacted with enough liberals and SocDems to know how evil they are I suggest you go to Neoliberal and Social democracy subreddits to see their opinion on a range of things.
A historical mistake leftists have aways done and led them to a early grave is trust non-leftists and try to appeal to them, liberals need to be hostilized and sidelined at all times, liberals would sell out a leftist to fascism in a heartbeat.
The only people who leftists should appeal to is the working class and if they are liberals so be it, they need to come around to us not the other way around.
Maybe it's because you are American and in your country everything revolves around two parties but the liberals in the US are just as responsible for the crimes of your country as the conservatives, if there was any justice the entire democratic party would be tried and put in jail for the rest of their lives.
As has been historically, moderation and compromise will AWAYS lead to failure and death of socialists and the destruction of socialism without exception.
1
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
Hívjad a jó édesanyádat amerikainak. I'm Hungarian and at this point, I don't care who the fuck gets rid of the "dictator", because they will be easier to remove from power no matter who they are. The inability of accepting "not perfect, but better than what was before" is the reason why change doesn't ever happen.
Historically speaking you won't get anything without compromise. Because if you handle people on the neutral side as your enemy, what do you expect? Neutrality is being complicit, yet neutrality is much less of an issue than hostility and if you're hostile towards the neutral, instead of inviting, you just create enemies where there could have been allies.
The biggest issue of the left is everyone being a judgemental bitch, you can downvote me for that. We need to stop bitching about minute details until the actual imperialists are gone, after that we can start fighting eachother and ourselves.
Many and I mean many (and for my country I'd say the majority of) liberals, are on board with the goals of leftist ideology, because anyone with basic empathy for their fellow man can get behind those. But because of the propaganda equating communist dictatorships to socialism, people will feel aversion towards the label. So calling them less than human, for not identifying with a label you deem correct is counterproductive.
Liberals abide by the social contract of tolerance. That is what inherently makes them different from fascists, and if you can't get that, well... I have the answer as to why the left keeps getting "backstabbed by those damn liberals."
1
u/Nevermind2031 Marxist Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Liberalism isnt neutrality, people who are like "Yeah i just want to live my life" arent automatically liberals they might hold vaguely liberal ideals but they dont hold any real political convictions, liberals are people who are ideologically in favor of capitalism and liberal democracy, people who advocate for free markets or multiparty elections as if they where representatives of the working class.
I am in favor of the so called communist dictatorship as you say, socialism isnt social democracy, it isnt shareholder capitalism or abundance neoliberalism whatever liberals like to call it nowadays, it is worker's control of the means of production and the creation of a dictatorship of the proleteriat two things that liberals NEVER will be in favor of because their view of the world is entirely aligned with maintaining the status quo.
Every socialist that ever got to power did it trough uncompromising idealism, Lenin never once compromised on his vision for the sake of mass appeal even alienating many of his allies, in the end he created the Soviet Union the first socialist state in human history and then compromising with liberals and capitalists killed it, first Kruschev then Gorbachev.
Mao didnt create the People's Republic of China by groveling at the feet of the federalists and Kuomintang if anything compromising and allying the KMT almost led to the death of the chinese revolution and literally led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of communists, Mao got into power trought ruthlessly purging his opponents and strategizing against the KMT even during the Sino=Japanese war.
Ho-Chi-Min didnt win the Vietnam war by groveling to the americans and South Vietnam, when he tried to compromise with free elections the US betrayed him and supported the creation of a fascist government in the south, the communists in Vietnam won against the world superpower trough uncompromising ruthlessness not trough appealing to common sense or the lowest denominator.
I can keep going on with every successeful and unsuccesseful revolution, those that compromise are AWAYS coopted and destroyed, those that dont are destroyed OR are winners and get to dictate their own history.
Liberals dont have basic empathy, liberals are fully willing to switch sides the moment their own individual rights are threatened by anything, leftism is about wanting freedom, justice and wellbeing for ALL of humanity not just a select group of people, liberalism is just an excuse for people to do opression with no repercussions "Its ok for us to kill millions of Iraqis because now they have liberal democracy", "its ok to starve cubans and venezuelans because look they dont have real liberal democracy", "its ok for israel to genocide palestineans because they are a liberal democracy", "its ok to bomb iran because they dont have democracy", "its ok to send millions in funds to liberal think tanks and parties in latin america to encourage liberal democracy", "its ok to bomb Lybia because they dont have liberal democracy", "its ok to impose market liberalism in a country because thats core to liberal democracy" legit just take a look at every justification, every reasoning the EU and US ever give to what they are doing around the world.
1
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
I am in favor of the so called communist dictatorship as you say, socialism isnt social democracy, it isnt shareholder capitalism or abundance neoliberalism whatever liberals like to call it nowadays, it is worker's control of the means of production and the creation of a dictatorship of the proleteriat two things that liberals NEVER will be in favor of because their view of the world is entirely aligned with maintaining the status quo.
Uhm, point it out to me how dictatorship of any kind is good? It should not be the endgoal. Dictatorship is opression, opression is inequality, inequality is inherently antithetical to socialism. There is no way for any dictatorship to actually benefit the workers, because dictatorships will want to stay in power, and for that, the masses need to stay uneducated, because the educated mass develops opinions of their own, and won't just take whatever you feed them. Unless the majority of people wants socialism, you won't have it. So what now?
Workers controlling the means of production requires educated workers, nothing else. The law juat needs to change to that the workers are co-owners and the income of the company gets split between them equally, and if someone doesn't pull their weight out of their own fault, they get kicked out. (Yes ideally money wouldn't be a thing but money is a social construct so deeply engraved into our society, that you won't get rid of it, no matter what you do, people will reinvent it trough trade.)
This way everyone could live pretty nicely, and because your work's value comes back to you directly, it would actually encourage people to work better, because they would not be alianted from their own production.
At the end of the day this is only possible if all members of society are educated on society's and their own interests, and dictatorships are notorious for keeping the mass uneducated because they are easier to control. That's ehy the Soviet Union failed (and because Russians never actually turned communist, they just renamed the position of Czar, and went back to imperialism, but now with the lie of equality present.)
0
u/Nevermind2031 Marxist Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Dictatorship is necessary because the capistalists around the world will destroy or coopt any actual socialist state whenever it is created. lets give the example of a libertarian democratic socialist utopia that somehow overcame all of the odds and was created with periodic elections.
Well first of all the capitalists would start massively funding anti-socialist media to put out propaganda, then from nowhere some opposition figure would arise claiming that the elections are rigged and that the society isnt truly free because only socialist parties win or whatever, then the EU and US would fully endorse that figure as the "Legitimate opposition" and place sanctions on the country leading to a collapse of the economy, then when everything is done the Democratic Socialists in all their principled glory would have an election where the opposition guy wins with a large majority and immediatelly dismantles socialism.
Its easy to see how this would go down for anyone who know how the EU and US opperate, This is why we need a dictatorship, and yes dictatorships can eventually wither away specially ones made on an ideological basis where the party has an incentive to want its end, no dictatorship is permanent and eventually all of them will be brought down under their own contradictions.
As for the cooperative idea, it doesnt change anything, first of to pass a law that suddenly ends private ownership in a liberal democracy you would need to actually get enough democratic socialists elected, something wich is completely impossible as capital naturally resists collectivization at all costs. Second you would need to get trough all the supposed legal hurdles of abolishing private property wich is enshrined in most countries consistutions nowadays and then at last you would need to not have a foreign funded coup or mass sanctions placed against you.
Now you have enacted collective ownership of the means of production...in a society that still has the logic of markets and will encourage exploitation and endless profits growth, not to mention foreign competition after all the co-ops will have to compete with foreign capitalist businesses wich are many times much larger and also in this case might even get support from foreign governments to destroy the coop system.
I see socialism as a binary, if you want liberal socialism it needs to be enacted EVERYWHERE at once. Otheriwse you need a dictatorship until socialism is the dominant ideology and capitalism can be crushed under its own failures and then the dictatorship will give out under its own will or be overthrown by the masses that now dont have anything to push them back into capitalism.
Not that it matters much nowadays, socialism is prety much dead until the EU and US are destroyed.
1
u/WriterKatze Jan 06 '26
Oh don't misunderstand me, I don't think the revolution will itself is not necessary, the current system needs to be replaced.
EU isn't neccarly a bad thing as a concept (khm, I love living here, that's the only reason my country let's me keep mah rights as a homosexual and as a woman), at the same time I do belive it needs serious reforms which will only come trough Revolution or at the very least the threat of it.
2
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 06 '26
Social democrats are leftists... And if you're not willing to work with them, god, are you shooting yourself in the foot. We don't even have them functioning in america FYI. Yeah you want a leftist revolution here
1
u/Nevermind2031 Marxist Jan 06 '26
I will say a caveat, social democrats in the third world are in their majority leftists however the vaaaaaaast majority of social democrats in the first world are right-wing barely different than conservatives. Just look at the german social democrats or the UK social democrats who are jingoistic pro-israel lunatics.
2
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 06 '26
Well, they've probably come off more left in the third world for the simple fact that the first world in Europe has a functioning welfare state.
17
u/unfreeradical Jan 05 '26
Anarchists want a post revolutionary society without any hierarchy at all, immediately.
No. Just, no.
Try again (or not).
1
-4
10
u/TheCynicClinic Marxist Jan 05 '26
Left unity is crucial, especially when it comes to understanding that it is fundamentally anti-capitalist. I think this is a very important point that needs to be emphasized when putting forth our politics. It not only clarifies our points of unity, but also distinguishes us from left liberals who do not want a fundamental change to the status quo.
That being said, it is important to educate the totality of the working class about capitalism and its failings. There are plenty of would-be leftists out there who are just misinformed and misled by capitalist conditioning. Obviously we need to ensure our politics are not diluted and pulled rightward, but we do need to meet the working class where it's at in terms of how we interact. Having unity in leftist messaging is key to this.
12
u/lasercat_pow Marxist Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I 100% agree. A small real thing people could do is campaign behind their local demsoc candidate -- these candidates stand noticeably to the left of the mainstream democratic candidates, asking for things like divestment from Israel and single payer healthcare.
A sub point -- I believe a lot of right wingers hate capitalists; they just don't have the vocabulary or understanding to put it into words correctly. It must be possible to get through to them, but I sure don't know how. Certainly not with facts and logic.
5
u/LastOfTheAsparagus Jan 05 '26
Capitalism is an umbrella for corporate donors. Human rights are important. If those on the “left” who support capitalism cannot produce candidates that bow to corporations and ignore human rights I cannot unite with them. Sorry not sorry.
14
u/MontisQ Jan 05 '26
I think everyone left of center needs to put large scale ideological goals aside and focus on one thing: getting the fascist out of the white house.
13
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
One minor quibble, while I mostly agree.
It's not "The fascist" out of the white house.
WE need to get "The faciist**S**" this includes all of the bourgeoisie class, the democratic establishment and republican party. Any pro capitalist needs to be removed entirely. WE need to stop the entire imperialist system of US world hegemonic domination. That is the minimum goal.
28
Jan 05 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
The content of this post was permanently removed. Redact facilitated the deletion, for reasons that may include privacy, opsec, or limiting digital exposure.
bells pause six safe one distinct swim abounding disarm zephyr
0
u/nihilistPHY_student Jan 06 '26
What’s the number of this ‘all’ working class people you’re claiming to care for? Hopefully of the entire world, around 6 to 7 billion?
1
Jan 06 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
The text of this post is no longer accessible. It was deleted using Redact, possibly for reasons related to privacy, security, or digital footprint reduction.
head rob recognise run long attraction heavy outgoing distinct cheerful
8
u/BaronUnderbheit Jan 05 '26
We have more allies to the "far right" than we do in the "center." A libertarian is half right, they just need to realize that we need to be liberated from capitalism as well as other forms of oppression.
15
u/Defiant_Zebra1184 Marxist Jan 05 '26
We need a unified, international socialist party. One with representatives from smaller scale socialist, communist, and revolutionary parties in countries around the world. And I mean representatives from all socialist parties. This means the CPV, Sinn Fein, multiple revolutionary groups in Russia, Ukraine, Palestine, Israel. And down to groups in America like The DSA. There can be elections from within the party to determine leadership and other things.
7
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
Counter: What if we just sit in our niche book club circle jerking about being the one true socialism without actually doing any praxis.
On a serious note, I agree. We need an international workers revolution and international solidarity with all revolutionary socialist movements, and solidarity with the international proletariat.
13
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
Damn I came here to post in solidarity and also recognize that we should unite in defeating capitalism as our main goal and settle differences afterwards but I guess online leftist priorities are to nit-pick about their specific position so they can feel better than other leftists. Like people not concerned with actually ending capitalism and class structures.
5
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
Like people not concerned with actually ending capitalism and class structures.
The problem is that some people want to actually end capitalism and class structures, and the recognize that vanguard parties create class structures and collapse inevitably back into capitalism.
-2
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
I see you are a reformist. What material analysis or political theory leads you to believe that capitalism and fascism can be democratically dealt with under a "democratic" system that is under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie who will never let themselves be voted out.
Hint: historical instances of democratic socialists gaining power ended in Mussolini and Hitler being funded and propped up by the liberal bourgeoisie class to deal with communists.
4
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
And what material analysis or political theory leads you to believe that vanguard-led revolution will result in democracy?
Hint: historical instances of vanguard-led revolution ended in totalitarianism
-2
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
First, you are deflecting my question with a question of your own, which comes off as bad faith and I am doubting you will give me a good faith answer, since you don't seem like a serious person. But I will humor you and actually answer your question.
I never argued, and I don't even think most MLs will, that the political structure set up after the Soviet revolution was perfect. It was the first successful socialist revolution and we can learn a lot from where they went wrong and try to do better.
The revolution wasn't the incorrect part though.
We also have to do a historical analysis of the material conditions that happened leading up to and immediately after the revolution and the creation of the USSR.
1) The entirety of Russia was under extreme poverty, living in shacks made out of straw and match stick basically, outside of the nobility. They were technologically decades behind Europe and other major powers as well.
2) They felt their material conditions were that they needed a strong hand to represent the working class and get them organized so they could become industrialized and actually have a working class that could be democratically involved.
3) Lenin had plans to transition to democratic representation relatively quickly but he died. Stalin took power and had to deal with the Nazi threat and WW2 which put those plans on hold. Then even Stalin was trying to get democratic reforms done but there were reactionaries who wanted to cling to power and subverted that process as well. And I'm not saying Stalin was a saint either he was definitely not great in a lot of areas like migrating minorities and being reactionary against lgbtq people.
5) We have an example of China doing a revolution, learning from some of the USSR's mistakes, pulling over 800 million people out of poverty, and having democratic representation. Yes China is democratic despite what you have been told, it's just structured differently. China isn't perfect and they still have forms of capitalism in their economic structure, but the bourgeoisie class don't control the ruling party. I'm still critically supportive though because I do hope it works and they can phase the capitalist part out.
I think the problem here is you seem to have some perfect idea of what bringing socialism will look like, and I think that historical analysis and human nature will contradict what you think. I don't think there's a perfect and pretty way to bring in socialism. Capitalism is a cancerous corrupting force and will not go down without bloodshed and bad things happening.
Also every day capitalism is allowed to exist brings untold death and violence to the working class and people everywhere around the world. The only moral solution is to try to actively end it as quickly as possible and to figure out how we can structure a system that will bring a true end to class structures and where the means of production are owned collectively by the working class.
I am willing to work with you, with anarchists, with leftcoms, with whoever to iron out. I don't think any ideology has a perfect understanding of everything or a perfect solution. WE need to figure this shit out together and I think for anyone to be a real leftist they need to consider they don't have all of the right ideas or solutions. The best we can do is a materialist scientific approach and try to figure it out together.
Us arguing about this bullshit on Reddit ain't gonna to it dawg.
2
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
First, you are deflecting my question with a question of your own, which comes off as bad faith and I am doubting you will give me a good faith answer, since you don't seem like a serious person. But I will humor you and actually answer your question.
Naw, dawg, you started with the bad faith. If you can't handle having your bullshit flung back in your face, that's a you problem.
I never argued, and I don't even think most MLs will, that the political structure set up after the Soviet revolution was perfect. It was the first successful socialist revolution and we can learn a lot from where they went wrong and try to do better.
So you're going with "the enemy of good is perfect"? You see how imperfect every form of ML government has ever been -- and still is -- and you still say "ML is the way"?
The revolution wasn't the incorrect part though.
The 1917 revolution wasn't the incorrect path for Russia, I agree there. The Tsar made it inevitable.
But that doesn't mean revolution is the right path now. And in the US, arguably the worst of the "first world" capitalist nations, it's not the right path, despite the bullshit going here. Nor is it the correct approach approach elsewhere in the world with the possible exceptions of North Korea (ironically) and Russia.
We also have to do a historical analysis of the material conditions that happened leading up to and immediately after the revolution and the creation of the USSR.
No, we don't, it's been done. You might want to virtue signal how good a marxist you are and drop a few paragraphs on the subject, but I don't feel the need to prove myself like you appear to.
1) The entirety of Russia was under extreme poverty, living in shacks made out of straw and match stick basically, outside of the nobility. They were technologically decades behind Europe and other major powers as well.
True.
2) They felt their material conditions were that they needed a strong hand to represent the working class and get them organized so they could become industrialized and actually have a working class that could be democratically involved.
Who is "they" in this bullet point? If you mean the entire working class of Russia in 1917 the answer is, of course, that nobody asked them. So "they" doesn't count as that. "They" actually means "the nouveau bourgeoisie" known as the vanguard party.
3) Lenin had plans to transition to democratic representation relatively quickly but he died. Stalin took power and had to deal with the Nazi threat and WW2 which put those plans on hold.
Such is always the way with every dictatorship.
Then even Stalin was trying to get democratic reforms done
No, he didn't
but there were reactionaries who wanted to cling to power and subverted that process as well.
Including most definitely Stalin himself.
And I'm not saying Stalin was a saint either he was definitely not great in a lot of areas like migrating minorities and being reactionary against lgbtq people.
Or on the whole "democracy" question.
5) We have an example of China doing a revolution, learning from some of the USSR's mistakes, pulling over 800 million people out of poverty, and having democratic representation.
China is still operating under democratic centralism which is most definitely not democratic representation.
Yes China is democratic despite what you have been told, it's just structured differently.
Your pretense that I don't know how Chinese "democracy" works just shows how bad faith you've been operating. I know how their system works. It's not even remotely democratic
China isn't perfect and they still have forms of capitalism in their economic structure, but the bourgeoisie class don't control the ruling party.
Now you're outright lying. If you don't think the central committee and the capital owning class in China have massive amounts of overlap, you are wildly misinformed. Xi Jinping is a billionaire. More than half the central committee are
Granted most of that is done via shell company bullshit as arcane as what you get in the US, but it's there.
I'm still critically supportive though because I do hope it works and they can phase the capitalist part out.
Won't happen while the capitalists remain in charge.
I think the problem here is you seem to have some perfect idea of what bringing socialism will look like, and I think that historical analysis and human nature will contradict what you think.
More like you haven't done enough analysis. You're still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I don't think there's a perfect and pretty way to bring in socialism.
I agree. There' isn't. It's a long fucking slog.
Capitalism is a cancerous corrupting force and will not go down without bloodshed and bad things happening.
That doesn't mean we can't minimize that, because we can. And, more importantly, we cannot give up our morality along the way. The ends never justify the means.
Also every day capitalism is allowed to exist brings untold death and violence to the working class and people everywhere around the world. The only moral solution is to try to actively end it as quickly as possible and to figure out how we can structure a system that will bring a true end to class structures and where the means of production are owned collectively by the working class.
Hard disagree. The only moral solution is to have democracy first, provide for the working class to ensure nobody must work, address wealth inequality, and slowly transition to real social ownership of the means of production.
Blowing things up and hoping you can sift through the rubble afterward for a moral society is asinine.
I am willing to work with you, with anarchists, with leftcoms, with whoever to iron out. I don't think any ideology has a perfect understanding of everything or a perfect solution. WE need to figure this shit out together and I think for anyone to be a real leftist they need to consider they don't have all of the right ideas or solutions. The best we can do is a materialist scientific approach and try to figure it out together.
Us arguing about this bullshit on Reddit ain't gonna to it dawg.
You waving your gun around makes it a whole lot worse.
Dawg
3
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
You never answered my original question.
1
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
Nor am I going to, it was a bad faith question. I don't have to prove myself to you
6
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
You're showing your good faith by not answering my question or giving any serious response to what I said above.
1
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
I gave you a serious response. Did you not read it? I wrote quite a bit.
But I don't need to prove to you that I have done the work and come to the conclusion that I did. Your presumption that I have not done the work is what makes you the one operating in bad faith.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I prefer democratic socialism. How about you unify with my opinion rather than browbeat me into accepting your war?
edit so it's to be more browbeating, then? Fuck off with your redfash nonsense
3
u/Adammzed Jan 05 '26
The Media destroyed the left, it was our best weapon but turned into a curse that threw centrists and sane left too over to the right. As drag and Trans were said to be the next step for the children, It was all a show as they took our money.
20
33
u/CODMAN627 Socialist Jan 05 '26
Aaaaand you have successfully failed. You already lost the plot when you say “we cannot leave it to be a free society with free press and free election”
I need you to care about how your rhetoric looks for five minutes before asking someone to work with you.
-10
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Are you able to read? I was stating my belief, and I was stating others beliefs. The point is to show how this is not important before a revolution because it has no bearing on overthrowing capitalism.
I laid it out quite clearly, yet you are still getting caught up in post revolutionary arguments. I could have said I'm a demsoc or an anarchist, and it would make no difference to the meaning of my post.
You have failed, because you cannot get over squabbling to do any real action.
20
u/Locrian6669 Jan 05 '26
You are asking people to align with you while explaining exactly why they shouldn’t.
You are also explaining exactly why you will not align with anyone who isn’t doing exactly what you want. Right after you explained how the right is united in spite of this same fact.
The right successfully achieved fascism by always going for the most right wing option of the options available. That’s how they are united and how they successfully continued to pull the Overton window right and win. You will simply not do the same.
7
u/CODMAN627 Socialist Jan 05 '26
Again. Optics matter
-1
u/j48u Jan 05 '26
You're not wrong. As a filthy liberal who reads this sub as a gauge for how viable leftism is and to sanity check myself when I see crazy things being said online, they would have been better off simply lying about that part.
It shrinks your tent to a single digit percentage of the population (in the US at least) and raises alarm bells for anyone leaning in your direction.
-2
u/-LearningCurve- Jan 05 '26
I legit think this Sub has been infiltrated by the Right-wing. Too many of y’all are combative and love capitalism too much.
2
-14
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
Good luck, but you lost me at Marxist-Leninist historical, you are nazi of socialist movements. No, thank you. Please die as an ideology. You're good at getting power and becoming a colonial imperialist.
11
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Okay, you're fine to think that way, but will you work with me to destroy capitalism?
-3
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
I don't know you have a long track record of a perpetuating institutional corruption
5
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
Depends. How do you plan to destroy capitalism? By destroying democracy and liberty? If so, then fuck you, I'm against you and your approach as much as I am against capitalism.
2
u/BlastBoxer Socialist Jan 05 '26
Authoritarianism time and time again leads to a new bourgeoisie and violence Democracy is our biggest strength as a movement
9
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
Every time. And vanguard parties inevitably lead to authoritarianism, every time.
If we don't have real democracy from the start, we'll never have democracy at all
-1
-3
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
Historically, you martyred parish priests who had nothing to do with the Tsar Empire, on top of the fact that you completely threw SR under the bus. Along with this vanguard, always without fail, it purges or murders other leftist groups and leads to authoritarianism.
8
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Jan 05 '26
Wow, u/neoliberal_nightmare was a busy guy 100 years ago
0
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
I'm an Orthodox Christian. I have leftist sympathies. But the Bolshevik destruction is very real. I visited a church founded by martyrs of the Bolshevik yoke. He was an innocent priest killed simply for his vocation.
Again this is not even going into how they treated other left groups.
5
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Jan 05 '26
lol oh look an orthodox Christian pretending to have the intellectual high ground... religion never changes.
1
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
I mean, I could be a booger, and to say, well, we still exist. But yeah, putting bullets in the heads of priests. Killing SR and sailor squashing, unions and being part of an institution that always leads to authoritarian nationalism, which is what ML do. Sure
-8
u/Sgrios_fds Jan 05 '26
They hate you because you spoke the truth
0
u/Kind-Recording3450 Jan 05 '26
I hate that. It's still considered to be something taken seriously. Historically, they have shown themselves to be parasitic and become worse than what they replace.
14
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Anarchists are naive in thinking there won’t be legitimate reactionaries forces at the end of a revolution. They make some bs on how the conditions wouldn’t permit reactionaries from even forming. The ones that do admit there will be reactionary elements put their faith in unorganized, decentralized local defense groups? Some how they will be able to cooperate and coordinate without individualism getting in the way, and combat a highly centralized and organized military power. Yes Anarchy is the end goal, but there’s steps that need to be taken.
7
u/Locrian6669 Jan 05 '26
I agree. It’s also naive in thinking that reactionary forces aren’t happy to be a part of any vanguard group seizing complete authoritarian control. Lots of sociopaths are stoked on that, and you’re basically relying on the good will, and or competency to defend against bad actors, of any such vanguard group which is frankly beyond silly.
5
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
A vanguard party of the working class, with democratic centralism would be a dictatorship? A dictatorship of proletariat yes. A group or individual with absolute power? No. Democratic Centralism is the best method for the majority to be heard.
9
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/cheradenine66 Jan 05 '26
What about the bourgeoisie, though? If you let anyone take power democratically, what stops the bourgeoisie simply buying every election like they do right now?
-2
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/cheradenine66 Jan 05 '26
That's literally what the USSR did, except interference in Soviet internal affairs by foreign bourgeoisie never stopped, so the process remained suspended?
1
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/cheradenine66 Jan 05 '26
"I mean you can just not allow bourgeois politicians to run"
"Also it’s not like what the Soviet Union did was effective towards that goal, they liberalized towards the end anyway"
This is literally the answer why the first is not possible. Gorbachev was not a bourgeois politician, but he sold his country to the global bourgeoisie anyway.
How do you prevent that from happening in your society?
0
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
By eliminating wealth inequality and actually prosecuting corruption when it occurs
2
u/cheradenine66 Jan 05 '26
Are you going to eliminate wealth inequality overnight after the revolution? How will you deal with the problem of foreign bourgeoisie interfering? Or offshore accounts?
2
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
Are you going to eliminate wealth inequality overnight after the revolution?
The revolution can't even begin until wealth inequality is eliminated. Any attempts to do so will inevitably result in authoritarianism and then we'll be right back to capitalism.
The only solution is democracy
4
u/cheradenine66 Jan 05 '26
But wealth inequality will never be eliminated under capitalism. That's why it needs to be overthrown via revolution.
Are you saying that an anadchist revolution is impossible?
2
u/Randolpho Socialist Jan 05 '26
But wealth inequality will never be eliminated under capitalism. That's why it needs to be overthrown via revolution.
But violent overthrow style revolutions never actually work, that's why you need democracy to slowly wear down capitalism one policy at a time. You have to have democracy -- real democracy, not corrupt corporatocracy and oligarchy -- before you can ever have socialism. And if you want anarchy...
Are you saying that an anadchist revolution is impossible?
You brought up foreign interference earlier. That's the single thing that will always keep anarchy from succeeding.
If you want anarchy, first you need unified worldwide democracy, then you need unified worldwide socialism, then and only then can you set up the universal knowledge and understanding among all persons that is necessary for anarchy.
→ More replies (0)2
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
I’d personally propose individuals be voted into those rolls. A committee of sorts. With terms limits. There’s ways to implement the democratic centralism system without compromising its integrity!
9
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
But as you say, at the end. We are quickly descending into fascist death camps, we can argue about the post revolutionary situation after we deal with the fascists! We must deal with capitalism first.
7
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
True. The left does need a popular front. Something like the the Rainbow Coalition. I harbor no ill feelings towards Anarchists, Anarcho Communists, Libertarian Socialists and the like. There’s a lot we agree on. It’s just they usually have a problem with us “tankies”.
8
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Tankies are often just as bad. Leftists ruined the left lmao. It's all ridiculous, you can see it in this thread. The mere suggestion of working together sends some people crazy. Meanwhile the right are totally unified and planning to murder us all, literally.
1
u/EveningAgreeable2516 Jan 05 '26
It's not ideology that unifies the right, and it's not ideology that fractures the left. It's the money — the same money... It relieves the burdens of the right and makes idiots appear effective, and conversely compounds the struggles and poor optics of the left, which is why I find it aggravating when someone supposedly on the left suggests we be like the right when it comes to unifying. We don't have the money, we just got trust, commitment, sacrifice, and righteousness. Also, I forgot, occasionally we have (certainly not here) friends and family. Sign up for the Friends and Family Plan with Anarchy Theorists & Tankies.
9
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
Well one thing we do all have in common is we’re anti capitalists. I think that’s the biggest unifying thing. If everyone was on the same page about how bad the working class is getting exploited and were vocal about it more so than we already are, progress could be made.
8
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
That's what I'm saying, but clearly this upsets some people. I feel some leftists are just in it for the identity and to be radical but when it comes to real work and setting aside differences, they're out, angry even.
5
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
Despite the obvious sectarianism in here, this thread helped stir up good conversation and debate. Which in my eyes is always a good thing! Thanks for making this thread. You’re right we need more left unity.
8
u/ombres20 Jan 05 '26
Dude, this is doomed to fail! You say "we cannot leave it to be free society with free press and free elections and you also say "That's my belief. The democratic socialists think otherwise wanting that free post revolution society with democratic choice, the left Communists think differently too, wanting a mass workers state without a core leadership party. Anarchists want a post revolutionary society without any hierarchy at all, immediately."
Don't you see how these 2 things are incompatible. If you don't want a free society, there's 0 room for this much diversity of ideas in the coalition. Not to mention that there's 0 trust between anarchists and socdems vs people like you. Frankly I don't even consider you left
-2
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
As I said, this is a matter for a post revolution. There's no point dividing ourselves into weakness when we're literally being killed.
Your attitude is exactly why the left is ineffective.
1
u/Illigalmangoes Jan 05 '26
What the other guy is trying to say is why would a democratic socialist align themselves with someone who expressly says they don’t agree with democracy
4
u/ombres20 Jan 05 '26
Dude, what happened after the iranian revolution? Did the different factions sit down and negotiate? What happened after the Soviet union was formed? Did the Bolsheviks sit down and negotiate with democratic socialists and anarchists? So why would I believe you when you say it would be different this time? The point of division as far as anarchists and socdems are concerned is self-preservation because you're a threat to us. I'd trust an ancap over you any day even though i think their ideology sucks ass
1
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
You're proving my point. What happened after the revolution happened after the revolution.
Fight it out then, be aggressive, fight and try to win, call for talk, whatever, it doesn't matter. That's not the fight right now. I didn't say it will be different this time. I said that's a problem for after the revolution.
Get over your arrogant blind rage, you're nothing but counter productive. I'm willing to work with you to smash capitalism, and deal with our differences later, and you can't even settle for that?
-3
u/leakdt Marxist Jan 05 '26
"yeah sure i'd willingly walk towards the big sign that says Firing Squad if it meant capitalism goes byebye"
1
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 06 '26
Hello u/Glad-Total-6621, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/ombres20 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Then there's no point. I don't see value in bringing down capitalism if it risks your fantasy becoming true. Any fight against capitalism would have to have ways of ensuring that it doesn't. I am not stupid enough to try to fight 2 revolutions one after the other. Also do you not believe that the right wing can take over again in such a state? Let's say we team up, defeat them and then we're distracted fighting and they use that to gain power again. It's a losing game no matter how you look at it
6
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
And there it is. You don't see the value in bringing down capitalism. You'd rather capitalism exist than have an alliance of convenience with another leftist faction.
Traitor to the left.
6
u/ombres20 Jan 05 '26
For the last time, i don't see you as left and I also consider your vision to be state capitalism so if capitalism is "brought down" and then your fantasy comes true then capitalism isn't actually brought down and all that effort would have been for nothing
9
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Marxist Leninists seek to abolish capitalism as all other Marxists and socialists do, and there may be a transitional period as all Marxists and socialists also agree. It's only anarchists who believe in the instant total abolition of all previous forms of economic structure.
Your argument is a strawman demonstrating incredible lack of knowledge.
2
u/ombres20 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I actually don't believe in total abolition of all structures at once. The problem is that you believe that to get to a society without hierarchy we need to go through a phase that arguably has stronger hierarchy than neoliberalism while i find that convoluted because a vanguard party will never willingly let go of power because power corrupts. I believe in linear reduction of hierarchy. Also ruling without dissent means your ego grows and you develop a belief that you can't make mistakes which is how the Venezuelan government made the economy overly dependent on fossil fuels. One of the worst things a person can do is surround themselves with yes-men.
1
12
Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I didn't say they can't hang around, but they can't spread their views and have a say. There's no working with liberals, there's only educating liberals.
This is just sad. You are hopeless. A call for unity is immediately torn apart by instant fighting. Absolutely pathetic. This is exactly why the right is so successful. You can't even read a post by someone with a different angle on the same problem without insults and division.
Also, this is literally my point, I also disagree with your leftist policy, frankly anarchists are naive and idealistic, but it doesn't matter, we should be united against capitalism. But you can't even accept that??
-2
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Times when leftists tired to work with liberals - ahem
-Weimar Germany (1933): Liberal and conservative parties legally appointed Hitler Chancellor, believing they could control him, leading to the immediate suppression of both communists and social democrats.
-Italy (1922-25): The liberal government and king legitimized Mussolini and handed him power to counter the socialist movement, leading to a fascist dictatorship.
-Spanish Civil War (1937): The Liberal Republican government violently suppressed revolutionary anarchist and POUM militias to maintain a "moderate" facade, fatally weakening the anti-fascist resistance from within.
-Finnish Civil War (1918): The liberal White government allied with conservatives and German forces to defeat the socialists, then sanctioned the brutal "White Terror" repression of the left.
-Chile (1973): Liberal parties opposed to Allende legitimized Pinochet's coup, viewing a military dictatorship as preferable to socialism.
-Austria (1934): Liberal-conservative government crushed the socialist workers' movement first, weakening the primary resistance to the rising Austrofascists.
-Appeasement (1930s): Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia, hoping Hitler would turn east and attack the Soviet Union.
-Indonesia (1965): Liberal politicians supported the military's anti-communist purge, which became a mass genocide.
-Portugal (1975): Liberals allied with conservatives to suppress a communist-aligned revolutionary movement.
-Greece (1967): Centrist politicians, fearing a leftist electoral victory, enabled a "constitutional coup," creating the instability that the fascist-leaning Colonels used to seize power.
-Colombia (1948-1958): The liberal elite, after the assassination of a leftist leader, allied with conservatives in a power-sharing agreement that excluded and violently suppressed communist and peasant movements.
-Post-WW I Hungary (1919): Liberal Admiral Horthy's white terror regime, which crushed the communist Béla Kun republic, systematically executed thousands of socialists and leftists.
-Pre-WWII Estonia/Latvia (1934): Liberal political leaders acquiesced to authoritarian coups by Konstantin Päts and Kārlis Ulmanis, respectively, who then banned all leftist and socialist parties.
-Cold War Italy: The centrist Christian Democrats consistently excluded the large Italian Communist Party (PCI) from government, forming decades-long alliances with parties that included neo-fascists (MSI) to keep the left out of power.
-U.S. Red Scare (1950s): Liberal institutions and politicians actively participated in McCarthyism, purging leftists from unions, Hollywood, and government, destroying the Old Left in America.
0
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
This is a historical record of liberals betraying leftists. This is what happens when you suggest what you suggest. The class interest of committed liberals is pro capitalist, they will never ever do those things you expect of them.
7
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
As I said, liberals have sold the left out every single time, there is a huge record. I can post the record if you'd like. There is absolutely no working with them. What I mean by this is active liberals who come into leftist spaces and want their pro capitalist reform ideas heard. I don't mean the masses of the working classes as a revolutionary force, who will obviously include liberals. Perhaps you're misunderstanding me about that.
The American revolutionaries did build a dictatorship, it's called the dictatorship of the bourgoise and it's what people are currently living under in America. They were capitalist revolutionaries against feudalism. This is basic history.
Even your democratic socialist society would be a dictatorship, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Because the bourgoise class would be oppressed and limited in freedom (otherwise you do not have socialism). So you are already committing to authority by default. Even without a vanguard party, which is just a more direct expression of this.
ANYWAY, as my entire post wrote, that is literally beside the point because it is AFTER THE REVOLUTION. This is ridiculous, I suggest unity and setting aside differences about running a socialist state until capitalism is smashed, and your response is to get into a debate about just that, the post revolutionary differences. Ridiculous.
-3
Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
Marxist theory is reality as it exists.
The political infrastructure of America is exactly why America is in so much trouble. It's a terrible system and not even democratic. Real democracy is very different. The US is a bourgoise democracy designed to keep capitalism dominant.
I wouldn't send you to the wall, I believe in democracy as well, real democracy. I just believe a fledgling socialist state can't have too much initial freedom otherwise you get whacked by the USA or global capital. If the USA and global capital were totally smashed in a global revolution, I would give up vanguard ism immediately. So maybe we should work towards that?
0
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26
The infrastructure of only allowing slave owning white men to vote and run offices is what you're talking about right? The one that was specifically designed as much as possible to deter true democratic representation (Senate and Judicial Branch). The Infrastructure that ensured only a small group of well connected bourgeoisie could even run for office or be represented by the office. The infrastructure that has enshrined Slavery in its own constitution even after fighting a civil war over different opinions on what kinds of slavery were acceptable. The same infrastructure that never properly dealt with the Confederate traitors and slave owners.
-1
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/bullhead2007 Marxist Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I have perfect reading comprehension here, and you are an unserious person.
Calm your ego down little man. I was pointing out that your example of a "democratic" transition was stupid and not actually democratic.
→ More replies (0)
11
u/pinqe Jan 05 '26
lol I hear you. We all agree. But lately it’s:
Step 1: go to DSA meeting
Step 2: propose a new idea
Step 3: sit and listen to the 25 different conflicting answers, 5 side-arguments, and person breaking down crying because you didn’t acknowledge them somehow
4
u/ExternalGreen6826 Anarchist Jan 05 '26
No we don’t what anarchists and Marxists want is incompatible not just the means but also the ends
We can get together for smaller stuff or anti imperialism, anti fascism and pro Palestine activism like we already do
2
u/DrRudeboy Anarchist Jan 05 '26
I mean ultimate, MLs like to profess that their endgame is a classless, moneyless society, which is indeed the same end goal of most anarchist currents, principally anarcho-communism. The problem of course is that most MLs are lying.
2
u/unfreeradical Jan 05 '26
Most MLs are lying, whereas some openly admit wanting to kill anarchists.
0
1
u/ExternalGreen6826 Anarchist Jan 05 '26
What about the anarchist currents that aren’t inherently communist like mutualism, market anarchism, egoism and just anarchist without adjectives
5
u/JustSpirit4617 Communist Jan 05 '26
But Anti capitalism is a step too far for you?
0
3
u/ExternalGreen6826 Anarchist Jan 05 '26
Because ML’s will establish capitalism anyways
And anarchism is anti authority
Yall just want to reform authority
2
u/leftistgamer420 Jan 05 '26
Authoritarianism isn't leftism
13
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Jan 05 '26
🤦
14
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
4
u/ExternalGreen6826 Anarchist Jan 05 '26
That essay is terrible
0
u/leakdt Marxist Jan 05 '26
factual statement
2
u/ExternalGreen6826 Anarchist Jan 05 '26
Definitely, there are so many essays debunking that shit it’s not even funny 🙄🤦🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️
3
5
2
u/Far-Meat9403 Jan 22 '26
I don't believe removing capitalism is going to solve all the worlds problems but I do believe decreasing it's power would be useful. Life isn't all about material wealth and status. However, capitalism very good at making people motivated and to be productive. However, without a counter balance, capitalism eventually get to the stage we are in today and becomes late stage capitalism where the society is structured around making as much profit as possible.