are fucking morons. I'm so tired of anti authoritarian "revolutionaries." They want the revolution but the second it was won, they'd be planning the counter revolution immediately.

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    The subject takes pride in not having any relationship with the entire historic concrete movement of the working class socialist and liberation revolutions. They take pride in not having any theoretical or political connection to the revolutions in China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Mozambique and Angola. They are, instead, proud of the supposed purity that their theory is not contaminated by the hardship of exercising power, by the contradictions of historical processes. Being pure is what provokes this narcissistic orgasm. This purity is what makes them feel superior.

    from Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture by Jones Manoel

    Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.

    from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would disagree with this defeatism having its origin in Christianity as the Catholic church and Puritan movements whatever else you may have to say about them have historically been very results focused and capable of taking and maintaining political power.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        Martyrdom and defeatism on the left is taken from christianity. As you know, there is considerable difference between christian theory and practice in politics. Their political organizations were and still are among the most ruthless in human history, but their basic religious theory is full of martyrdom at every step. You might also consider that the left movements in christianity and christian movements on the left through entire history since their beginning are consistently and all the time preaching against the practice and for the return to theory (which is also incredibly consistent with their political and philosophical idealism!).

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the martyrdom aspects of christianity actually helped its spread.

          I think the defeatism of the western left comes quite simply from the fact that the sheer scale of state forces in the imperial core makes a local revolution within their lifetime impossible and so the best they can hope for is to weaken that machine and thus enable others in the third world to throw off their shackles and weaken it further.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the martyrdom aspects of christianity actually helped its spread.

            For sure, christianity was a new quality in the religious propaganda, both for its methods and content, as it was spefically aimed for poor and downtrodden and offered them hope. You just need give the only thing you have, your life, for the god, and the eternal reward will be yours.

            Among the rich it was basically unknown for long* until it became so popular and threatening to stand first Diocletian, then Constantine and finally Julian before the choice what to do with it. Exact moment of change was even specified, it was when it spread in the military. Constantine might be ruthless monster but even he know not to stand between army and their religion (Julian apparently made that exact mistake and died because of it).

            is to weaken that machine and thus enable others in the third world to throw off their shackles and weaken it further.

            Too bad most of them end up empowering that machine and participate in it against the global south for over a century now.

            *This is actually a fun bit, Suetonius, writting his famous book around 121 CE, who was definite rumormonger of upper crust of Roman society, had literally no idea who christians even were, despite at that time the religion was already pretty spread among the lowest strata of society.