In their first comment too. I mean I know Reddit is a cesspool and I know r/communism is Gonzalo Central, but damn, it's infected far. I went back on the platform to promote my articles because despite the malding, it drives a lot of traffic lol. Otherwise I would never touch that website (though the TrueAnon subreddit loves them and it creates interesting discussions, I'm not gonna lump them in with the rest of Reddit like that).
I forced that person in a struggle session over their take and they moved the goalposts until they decided to disengage lol. But it's okay, they know what they said.
If you want to read the exchange: https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/182vnkk/the_end_of_ukraine_and_after_the_war_in_ukraine/kalpc0v/?context=10000
Damn. Their last "stance" was like them eagerly byting on a cyanide capsule after somebody asked them for the time.
TIL Lenin didn't understand Marxism and was reactionary
The funny part is class struggle is not even the biggest component of Marxism (it shares that spot with diamat and the LTV as per Lenin). I don't even call myself a geopol analyst or anything like that either lol.
lol I just realized it was them that brought up the term in the conversation. In their defense it says in your substack description "I write about geopolitics,.. " so maybe that's where they got it from. But I agree calling you a "geopolitical analyst" was putting words in your mouth for the purpose of slander.
Was Lenin talking about the impacts of those concepts?
Bc I would even consider diamat foundational to CS (which would only strengthen your point)
Anyway there is a more central issue in their argument though:
If I make a good faith attempt at understanding the point of this other person: they could be talking about CS bc of its central role in driving historical progress. In that sense their focus on CS (vs LTV/diamat) is understandable, "replacing" that with "national struggle" is not admissible for a marxist.
But it can't be denied that what Lenin (the staunch geopolitical analyst that he was) did constituted an extension to Marxism that recognizes state/imperial competition (what they mean when they say "national struggle") as a driving historical force. Considering nation states are a tool of the ruling class this doesn't constitute a break from Marxism. So they were creating a false dichotomy.
Lenins additon has some grave consequences however when it comes to interpreting how class struggle manifests. Some trots apparently consider the Palestinian struggle in an utterly perverted way, where the Palestinian working class needs to rise up against their ruling class (and they don't mean the Israeli class that is ruling over them), while a Leninist correctly identifies thei national struggle as anti-imperialist and consistent with class struggle overall.
So maybe the person you encountered was just affected by trot brainrot but I believe they were just not liking your opinions shying away from an argument and cowardly retreating into ostensibly principled territory, a behaviour that always creates a shitload of confusion and toxicity, pushes a movement towards dogmatism and harms the ideological struggle in general. This sounds exaggerated in this case, but I really can't stand this "reaching for a priciple" just to feel safe. Same reason why they immediately compared you to fascists. Whoever reads this, don't fucking do this.
Of course Marxists can write/discuss about quantitaive production of munition, the depleation of weapons stockpile, logistics in war. Barring us from doing that is barring us from assessing at what is going on, in a way it is them that are turning away from scientific socialism and from Marxsim towards idealism.
It's been a while since I read that article, but Lenin was very clear that basically all three parts are fundamental to Marxism.
In this way class struggle, LTV and diamat all inform our analysis of geopolitics or in other words, what's happening right now in the world.
The most charitable argument we could make of OP's is that they refuse geopolitics in the liberal meaning. But it seems they're just completely rejecting the concept of geopolitics, much like one would reject imperialism based on its liberal definition. The word Geopolitics now is just an easy way to say "what's happening in the world and why" and I don't see any reason we can't use it our own way.
Sometimes I feel for some marxists if you don't specifically spell out dialectics and materialism they'll think you're being unmarxist. It might just be caused by a lack of familiarity with marxism.
I also use geopolitics instead of imperialism exactly not to scare off people too quickly lol. I don't intend to write solely for marxists because they can read Marx and other authors, they don't need me specifically for that. But I was a bit disappointed with some anti-imperialist writers that I follow who have the correct line (or close to correct) on most things, but then can't imagine any solution to it. Or they suddenly start talking about the 'globalists' out of nowhere.
But well, I'm still finding my voice and who exactly I'm writing for. But I can't imagine a world where it's better to have fewer anti-imperialist writers.
It's funny you mention Trots, I was also saying somewhere people who focus solely on the class struggle are doing what Trots do lol. Their best analysis of Russia-Ukraine (for Trots I mean) is "what about the proletariat in both countries?" But what about a stronger NATO that emerges victorious? What about the emboldened and equipped UA fascist cells that will export themselves out of Ukraine and terrorize Europe with Javelins? Yeah Russia needs to have another socialist revolution, but what can we do until then? Sometimes I find this kind of analysis very defeatist.
I thought you might have meant that, I just recalled the 3 sources and seem to have forgotten about the 3 components. I will repent and re-read.
I wholeheartedly support everything you say! The rest of this comment will be me agreeing with you. While that may be boring I want to express that it is not insignificant to me as where I live (a somewhat provincial city in Germany) it is next to impossible to find any reasonable opinions on geopolitics from people interested in it (aside from some people into who's understanding I have put significant effort in).
Absolutely. Before I took it out, I've had a paragraph in my second comment saying the exact same thing!
A totally valid strategy, I do the same! The need to resolve contradictions in geopolitics (and the reporting on it) was what eventually led me to adopt a Marxist analysis why should it not work for others!?
On a side note: In Germany it is an incredibly long journey to arrive at one (has been for me at least).
I think one reason are the relatively okay material conditions many people find themselves in compared to other countries (in Europe but certainly the US). But I believe an important reason is that a Marxist perspective has been purged so effectively from public thought here ("Radikalenerlasse", "Congress for cultural freedom", transatlantic networks, etc.), which I believe one can link back to the importance of Germany in the cold war / capitalist Imperialist project. I believe (and hope) the situation is improving with English-speaking content becoming more prevalent on social media but it is often a long and lonely road, hence my appreciation for the sanity expressed in your opinions!
Omfg, yes! It is frustrating as hell to finally see dissidence in public opinion and then realize it is channeled into this pit of inconsistent thought. Unfortunately such "globalist" commentators are much more prevalent when one first diverges from the mainstream liberal opinion. For what its worth the WEF is, of course, an institution worthy of opposition but it is a consequence of the problem and without it nothing fundamental would change.
It is so glaringly obvious how desperately people are in need of a critique of capital.
This whole paragraph is on point and it again points to how people lack the holistic approach that a dialectic approach provides.
I appreciate the tip of the hat to my Trot comment, lol. For what its worth: I agree. The problem this seems to be indicative of might be an inability to perceive remaining contradictions or an unwillingness to tackle them? The understanding of Marxism as a scientific approach and historical materialism as a progression that cannot be stopped at the turn of the 20th century. In that sense it is the same mistake that people stopping at "globalists are the root cause" are making, only that they happened to stumble across Marx. I have yet to read Mao on contradictions / reaction within the people, I am curious in his analysis in this regard though, I know I have a long way ahead of me too.
Having had these experiences I understand your desire of reaching more people outside of Marxist thought and I totally agree. Historically I've found myself, instinctively, wishing and working for a broad understanding basically with everybody I meet, being cautious to alienate nobody basically rallying for the biggest consensus possible for any specific strategic issue (From a US perspective this certainly sounds ridiculous, I hope you understand what I am trying to say). However this always kept me on the back foot and after the issue was resolved or faded into irrelevancy nothing remained to build on.
So increasingly I wonder if an "inwards" turn, an appeal to leftists (not necessarily Marxists yet) primarily is something more effective. Similarly to how Lenin made out the peasantry as the most likely ally of the proletariat, I wonder who the most probable allies are nowadays in Germany. Undoubtedly they must then be the main target of "communist propaganda", accepting that other groups might not relate and react with scorn and reaction.
Initially I added a couple paragraphs about my strategic speculations, but that is a huge digression so I saved them elsewhere. I guess I just really had to spell out my thoughts out on this.
For sure! Best of luck in your endeavors, comrade!:) I'll see to it that I follow your development
I agree with you, I feel if I added to your comment though we would still be here tomorrow just agreeing with each other lol. Just a normal day on lemmygrad.
Marxists are only allowed to talk about what happens within their own country's borders. Anything else is fascist because we know that fascists like to talk about disliking things outside their own country's borders.