Utopianism and idealism have long plagued the left, as Marx and Engels pointed out a century and a half ago. But these days, the leftists are tilting at wind...
This is actually quite good; addresses the western left's obsession with purity and martyrdom without producing a single useful result.
It's looping back into the same issue the video is trying address. ie framing the core issue as that all these people are lazy, shallow, or just don't care about indigenous people that much as the reason they aren't engaging more deeply. I think this is the other key part of the pitfall described at the start of the video. In a way creating intentionally alienating, obfuscated, or useless efforts is desirable in the west because engaging with such efforts any way is used to demonstrate moral superiority. It's saying "I have suffered and sacrificed and therefore am right"
When from a marxist perspective the question should be why most of the working class finds no reason to join the types of organizations the left is creating. That way the issue comes into sharp relief, it's the lack of any material incentive. The problems most workers have aren't addressed by the organizations.
The problems most workers have aren’t addressed by the organizations.
The problems of most workers in the west (outside of the ones socialist parties already generally address) are that they don't get a big enough chunk of the imperial pie. If you cut useless finance shit (IE imperialism) out of the US economy, it would immediately collapse. The interests of westerners are often harmful to the rest of the planet and those should not be catered to.
Another part of the issue is that the useful western left has been more or less dismantled through murder, counterintelligence, etc.
Edit: going to edit this to clarify - not all the interests of all workers in the west support imperialism, but many do. The US economy is so massively propped up by imperial plunder that it inevitably benefits people who are working class to a degree as well (though obviously not nearly as much as the bourgeois). That's not to say the western working class should be written off, but it's important to keep in mind. Because of this, social-chauvinism can appeal to many of the workers, and it's important that any parties and organizations on the left do not support this.
“We should support the progressive movement, not demanding the admittance of our Party, not making this a condition for our support of the democratic forces, but showing by our activity . . . that our Party is a constructive force entitled to entrance in the progressive movement, thereby paving the way for entrance at a future time.”
That is one of the most gutless sentences I have seen in my entire life. :yikes-1::yikes-2::yikes-3:
I really don't think this is true. Take the people here for example; people bring up all the time they hate the hiring process, they hate the feeling of isolation going to jobs where there are no other leftist. These are things are are addressable without hurting anyone outside of the bosses. Organization can game the hiring process, it can coordinate so you are more likely to get hired on at the same time as other leftist, it can eventually put a leftist in charge of the hiring process and give you an in. From there you can seed the ground for a union, etc.
I just look around and I really don't think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level. The very grandiose stuff I feel like is people searching for a psychological balm to deal with the state of the world when steady work with people who are already ideological allies would serve that need better.
I largely agree, but the fact remains that many movements do address these things, and they still aren't particularly more successful. A lot of it is a matter of material conditions, plus brutal government repression.
And the fact is, also, that so much of the US economy is made of global south plunder that it's basically a guarantee a huge amount of the working class does benefit from it in some way.
I just look around and I really don’t think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level.
I agree completely and I think arguments concerning labor aristocracy too often are used for the same sort of moralizing that the video talks about, which leads to an incomplete view of how imperialism impacts workers in the imperial core. For example, two of the biggest issues for the working class in the US are healthcare and housing. If countries like Cuba and DPRK can solve these issues while dealing with attempts by the US to starve them out, I highly doubt that an end to imperialism would prevent the US (or whatever comes after) from solving these issues as well. In fact, given the massive amounts of money and resources given to waging wars across the globe, ending imperialism might make solving these problems even easier.
Even among higher paid professionals, for the reasons you point out, there is great dissatisfaction with various aspects of capitalism that can be addressed without relying on imperialism. I do think access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I'm not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism if ending it can solve those larger problems. Seems like it would be much more productive to win people over by addressing those material conditions that can be effectively addressed without harming workers elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something though, and I'd be open to hear other opinions about this.
So while they can see the issues as you’ve described them, they won’t breath life into your movement but sap away its energy for their own interests.
Is this based on real present day material conditions, or is it a hypothetical based on historical examples? While I don't think we should ignore those examples, it's also important to recognize that things may have changed, and groups that may have previously been part of a prosperous middle class no longer feel as happy and secure as they once did. I'm not saying we should feel especially sorry for them or focus on them at the expense of groups who have it much worse, but I just think it's not productive to ignore them completely or even brand them an enemy.
The lifeblood of historical communism was in unskilled labor, poc, migrant workers, and the rural poor who were the most effective organizers.
I don't disagree with this and it makes sense that more activity would happen where the need is the greatest. However, I do think that it can be problematic when folks on the left see this solely through the lens of moral alignment, as it would tend to lean toward a poverty fetish and "white savior" type mindset where people are primarily concerned only with having the morally correct position. This sort of thing seems somewhat common across the western left, especially online.
access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I’m not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism
Loss aversion is a big motivation in normal human psychology, forget about Burger Country lunatics
there is no viable or worthwhile socialist praxis in any Western country that isn’t just egging people on to do mass shootings/suicides.
That's... not what I'm saying. Just that the interests of westerners often run counter to those in the global south, and that catering to these interests is social-chauvinism.
I was replying to someone who said that western parties did not attract many western workers.
I was pointing out that some of the interests of western workers are social-chauvinist, and parties/movements should not support those. I'm not sure how much more clear I can get: it is sometimes in the interest of the American working class to support the pilfering of resources from the global south. This is bad, and should not be supported. Parties should not compromise on this.
This is a basic anti-imperialist stance, and does not translate to "kill yourself and everyone around you". Maybe my rhetoric was slightly inflammatory, but you're extrapolating pretty wildly here.
Honestly, like I said, I see where my original comment was a bit inflammatory - I might have been a bit worked up from the breadtube discussion elsewhere in the thread, too. I don't mean to write off the whole western working class, it's just something that I think is important to keep in mind.
Thanks for the discussion on this, hope you have a good day!
It's looping back into the same issue the video is trying address. ie framing the core issue as that all these people are lazy, shallow, or just don't care about indigenous people that much as the reason they aren't engaging more deeply. I think this is the other key part of the pitfall described at the start of the video. In a way creating intentionally alienating, obfuscated, or useless efforts is desirable in the west because engaging with such efforts any way is used to demonstrate moral superiority. It's saying "I have suffered and sacrificed and therefore am right"
When from a marxist perspective the question should be why most of the working class finds no reason to join the types of organizations the left is creating. That way the issue comes into sharp relief, it's the lack of any material incentive. The problems most workers have aren't addressed by the organizations.
The problems of most workers in the west (outside of the ones socialist parties already generally address) are that they don't get a big enough chunk of the imperial pie. If you cut useless finance shit (IE imperialism) out of the US economy, it would immediately collapse. The interests of westerners are often harmful to the rest of the planet and those should not be catered to.
Another part of the issue is that the useful western left has been more or less dismantled through murder, counterintelligence, etc.
Edit: going to edit this to clarify - not all the interests of all workers in the west support imperialism, but many do. The US economy is so massively propped up by imperial plunder that it inevitably benefits people who are working class to a degree as well (though obviously not nearly as much as the bourgeois). That's not to say the western working class should be written off, but it's important to keep in mind. Because of this, social-chauvinism can appeal to many of the workers, and it's important that any parties and organizations on the left do not support this.
deleted by creator
That is one of the most gutless sentences I have seen in my entire life. :yikes-1::yikes-2::yikes-3:
deleted by creator
First as a :marx-goth: , then as a :marx-joker: .
Sounds like it could have been said by Sir Keir.
I really don't think this is true. Take the people here for example; people bring up all the time they hate the hiring process, they hate the feeling of isolation going to jobs where there are no other leftist. These are things are are addressable without hurting anyone outside of the bosses. Organization can game the hiring process, it can coordinate so you are more likely to get hired on at the same time as other leftist, it can eventually put a leftist in charge of the hiring process and give you an in. From there you can seed the ground for a union, etc.
I just look around and I really don't think the material needs most people have are at the imperial plunder level. The very grandiose stuff I feel like is people searching for a psychological balm to deal with the state of the world when steady work with people who are already ideological allies would serve that need better.
I largely agree, but the fact remains that many movements do address these things, and they still aren't particularly more successful. A lot of it is a matter of material conditions, plus brutal government repression.
And the fact is, also, that so much of the US economy is made of global south plunder that it's basically a guarantee a huge amount of the working class does benefit from it in some way.
I agree completely and I think arguments concerning labor aristocracy too often are used for the same sort of moralizing that the video talks about, which leads to an incomplete view of how imperialism impacts workers in the imperial core. For example, two of the biggest issues for the working class in the US are healthcare and housing. If countries like Cuba and DPRK can solve these issues while dealing with attempts by the US to starve them out, I highly doubt that an end to imperialism would prevent the US (or whatever comes after) from solving these issues as well. In fact, given the massive amounts of money and resources given to waging wars across the globe, ending imperialism might make solving these problems even easier.
Even among higher paid professionals, for the reasons you point out, there is great dissatisfaction with various aspects of capitalism that can be addressed without relying on imperialism. I do think access to many cheap consumer electronics, gasoline, meat, and other goods would be impacted, but I'm not sure that would be enough of a detriment to dissuade people from supporting an end to capitalism if ending it can solve those larger problems. Seems like it would be much more productive to win people over by addressing those material conditions that can be effectively addressed without harming workers elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something though, and I'd be open to hear other opinions about this.
deleted by creator
Is this based on real present day material conditions, or is it a hypothetical based on historical examples? While I don't think we should ignore those examples, it's also important to recognize that things may have changed, and groups that may have previously been part of a prosperous middle class no longer feel as happy and secure as they once did. I'm not saying we should feel especially sorry for them or focus on them at the expense of groups who have it much worse, but I just think it's not productive to ignore them completely or even brand them an enemy.
I don't disagree with this and it makes sense that more activity would happen where the need is the greatest. However, I do think that it can be problematic when folks on the left see this solely through the lens of moral alignment, as it would tend to lean toward a poverty fetish and "white savior" type mindset where people are primarily concerned only with having the morally correct position. This sort of thing seems somewhat common across the western left, especially online.
deleted by creator
Loss aversion is a big motivation in normal human psychology, forget about Burger Country lunatics
deleted by creator
That's... not what I'm saying. Just that the interests of westerners often run counter to those in the global south, and that catering to these interests is social-chauvinism.
deleted by creator
I was replying to someone who said that western parties did not attract many western workers.
I was pointing out that some of the interests of western workers are social-chauvinist, and parties/movements should not support those. I'm not sure how much more clear I can get: it is sometimes in the interest of the American working class to support the pilfering of resources from the global south. This is bad, and should not be supported. Parties should not compromise on this.
This is a basic anti-imperialist stance, and does not translate to "kill yourself and everyone around you". Maybe my rhetoric was slightly inflammatory, but you're extrapolating pretty wildly here.
deleted by creator
Honestly, like I said, I see where my original comment was a bit inflammatory - I might have been a bit worked up from the breadtube discussion elsewhere in the thread, too. I don't mean to write off the whole western working class, it's just something that I think is important to keep in mind.
Thanks for the discussion on this, hope you have a good day!
deleted by creator