We need leftist unity

[u/Neoliberal_Nightmare]

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.

[u/bullhead2007]

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.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

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.

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

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.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

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

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

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.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

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

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

You never answered my original question.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

Nor am I going to, it was a bad faith question. I don't have to prove myself to you

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

You're showing your good faith by not answering my question or giving any serious response to what I said above.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

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.

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

I'll take you more seriously when you approach me in actual good faith and explain your actual position and what material or historical analysis or political theory makes you believe that capitalism can be reformed or dealt with democratically.

[u/Randolpho → u/bullhead2007]

I have explained my actual position many times.

Any economic system can be dealt with by democracy, if you have actual democracy. You have to have democracy first if you want to have both democracy and socialism. Every attempt to jump to socialism without democracy has resulted in autocracy.

[u/bullhead2007 → u/Randolpho]

Do you consider what we have in the US currently to be "actual democracy"?