What is the "anarchist praxis" that marxist/communist parties and orgs that also practice materialist analysis dont also practice on their own ? Or better stated, what is the "anarchist praxis" of important immediate value that anarchist radical parties/orgs practice much more oftenly/successfully than marxist non anarchist revolutionary parties/orgs ?
So the general spirit of the post is correct but if you end up describing "praxis" that MLs at large dont reject to begin with and that hundreds of marxist/non-anarchist orgs all over the globe adopt and practice either way, even going back 100 years or even in country scales, as "anarchist praxis" then you end up calling for a "need for synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and marxist analysis" that already exists and is even central in historical communist organizational strategies and approaches, and was never something outside of those tendencies or that needed to be synthesisized
If you say "well this is mostly about the current situation and differences of approaches in the left in america" (that idk if its even true, not american) then yeah, if non anarchist marxist partries and leftsis dont do so ,they should do more "anarchist praxis". But in practiice that would simply mean that they should do what their Lenin and Mao and Rosa books say they should do and adopt strategies and approaches every successfull revolutionary marxist movement and org in history adopted. Thats a much more obvious,correct, comprehensive and effective call than saying we and they should "synthesize marxist analysis with anarchist praxis". Even within america , were the black panthers "synthesing anarchist praxis of immediate value with marxist material analysis" or were they simply applying their materialist analysis and revolutionary/organizational theory correctly. And doing so does lead to better and, easier on the ground cooperation and collective action with anarchists or anarchist groups or even makes the movements and orgs more welcome to anarchists(some black panthers were or joined as such) ,but that is just a positive after effect of doing your shit right, not some synthesizing or centrism between tendencies
And here we should note that , no secretarianism inteneded, there have been many more large scale non anarchist revolutionary movements, parties and orgs and many more people participating or participated in them now or in the past. So the failure to do that kind of "praxis" by them is and was as a result much more pronounced,remembered and historicaly documented. But that doesnt mean that as a whole non anarchist orgs and movements havent actualy done that "anarchist praxis" OP means very oftenly and successfuly, just that they had more chances to fail to do so as mass movements and be remembered as such. (along with greater undermining and sabotage from external forces trying to prevent them from doing so)
Yeah thats a different issue(s) and i agree that it plays a signififcant part in the western left's failure to realize mass movements that have the "praxis" and "material analysis" OP calls for. At least a much more important roadblock than the misguided view about a non existing failure to "find a centrism between tendencies and approaches" or "synthesize anarchist praxis with marxist analysis" into something "new"
I don’t necessarily think it’s a different issue at all. Anarchists lose faith in MLs .
I dont think thats relevant to what i was talking about. That the view of "we should find a centrism between approaches” and “synthesize anarchist praxis with marxist analysis” into something “new” is a misguided way of looking at things that invents a dichotomy and "hole" within marxist thought and praxis that isnt based on reality ,content and history in order to call for a "synthesis" that will complete it and unite it with anarchism. Not having faith in something doesnt mean you have to rename things and invent a feel good synthesis that would allow you to ,on the surface, have faith. When they answer about
What is the “anarchist praxis” that marxist/communist parties and orgs that also practice materialist analysis dont also practice on their own ? Or better stated, what is the “anarchist praxis” of important immediate value that anarchist radical parties/orgs practice much more oftenly/successfully than marxist non anarchist revolutionary parties/orgs ?
i will elaborate further with them.
But for now the fact that anarchists
lose faith in MLs because they fear “authoritarianism” will lower their quality of life"
Is contentious since no QoL ever decreased with a communist revolution .They lose faith on freedom of press and expression, independent from the party political and party organization,centralism..stuff that mls dont promice in the first place. And irrelevant to the point of "synthesizing both ideas of both sides" based on the way AES managed to survive under initial conditions and pressure unimaginable and unaplicable to modern western experience.
The fact that
"MLs lose faith in anarchists because they fear non-hierarchal confederations aren’t sufficient to maintain their quality of life"
is contentious (they dont believe non hiererchical confederations and way of doing revolution can materialize, survive and enact changes in time and territory scales needed for any transition to communism to happen) and ir
MLs want the successful USSR of the 60s and 70s or modern China but don’t think as critically on the experimental early phases where most ML movements in Africa and South America were put down by imperialist violence."
is contentious. They dont want to emulate USSR or China, thats not what applying their analysis to the conditions of each project and country goes. Them recognizing that the USSR and modern china are mostly results of adapting the marxist lenninist approach and analysis to their conditions and problems and supporting them on that basis doesnt mean that they WANT or will try to do the same things the USSR or China did or does. Also the second point is weird . Yeah movements were put down by imperialist violence and yeah some MLs dont analyse them as thoroughly as possible. But
A. No tendency analyses its failures as thoroughly as they should and arguably MLs have by far the most revisions on previous theories based on failures and disaggrements.
B. That has nothing to do with anarchism or any "synthetsis with anarchist praxis or ideas" and MLs have zero reason to believe that imperialism managed to overthrow movements and revolutions because of a failure to synthesize with anarchism or adopt practices of them (whatever that means). And that more anarchist "synthesized" approach could have prevented any of it. Which was the point of the original comment.
C. Having by far and away the most mass movements that even managed to reach the point of having to deal with the "experimental early phases" and with large scale imperialist attack and undermining by global capital means you are gonna have the most defeats. They are the default outcome in how the world that exists and existed either way.. I dont see how that fact or the lessons MLs should learn from that stuff would reinforce the mindset i commented against, of we should strive towards the "centrism with good ideas from both sides", of renaming existing practices and solutions within the tendency as anarchist in order to feel good imagining a synthesis that will leave everyone united and stronger and will solve practical and historical shortcomings for some reason
Internet-only MLs especially overlook the importance of peasant communities and local organizing in China and Vietnam, preferring to couch successes in good leadership as a cause of direct action when it is realistically more a facilitator of direct action.
Why are we talking about terminaly online MLs and anarchists here ? The millions of Vietnamese and Chinese communists , the party members, the leaders and theorists, realized the importance of peasant communities and local organizing , intergrated with them and facilitated direct action in success and scales unmatched by anyone in human history.They are the shinning example of it. I agree western MLs, much less the internet brained, must learn from that and intergrate those theories, understanding and experiences . But thats just that, doing correctly what their theory says and what their successfull projects. So again no where here we have to rename and talk about anarchist practices and good ideas from both sides that have to be synthesized and so it has nothing to do, nor it gives credit, to that mindset that i talked about in the original comment.
But I think the EZLN demonstrates the utility of bottom-up decentralization as a counter to liberal bureaucracy and violence.
It demonstrates the utility and success of those things in their extremely particular ,unique , unscalable and unreplicable conditions (historicaly and rn). It is the correct approach for them as they exist rn and for what they want. What the Zapatistas have done in their territory is amazing as far as the structure of their society goes but its no way comparable or scalable to any conditions of any historical or current communist project in order to "look for solutions there to apply retroactively" and "look for a synthesis". If the US or even Mexico really gave a shit about getting rid of the Zapatistas, they’d have done so. They only have like 10k people in poorly armed militias,occuppy less than 1/20th of mexico and it being mainly jungle, they have expanded barely to more than 10% of their original size in many decades and their combined population isn’t even half a million. They’re just a relatively small amount of people living in small villages in a jungle of little geopolitical importance not really caring about industrialization or any urban development. They don’t have a lot of infrastructure (that’s kind of the point behind their rebellion, they do not WANT a lot of industrial development because it goes contrary to their way of life), they have little modern equipment, little organization in their military, and they just rely on social cohesion and Mexico not being interested enough in a large organized suppression. They were mostly left to their own devices by Mexico cause they arent a threat to neither capital or that state and even their historical clashes put together have been minascule compared to the amount of warfare,undermining and agression on every front a state like Cuba had to face for even a year. The momment global capital or just the US diverted an iota of their attention to crush the Zapatistas they would have. Their "bottom up decentralization" structure is beautiful but how can it be a lesson for synthesis when it exists only because they exist in a totally alien internal and external dimension of "what they want to do domesticaly" and "what they have to deal with from within and outside" than any large scale communist ,socialist or even anarchist movements have existed or will have to exust.If the lessons are about peasant power and local organizing sure, but MLs have no reason to look at the zapatistas for that more than they have to look within the huge (and more applicable) successes and failures of their own movements on that front . That doesnt mean you shouldnt support them or that they arent inspiring , it means its a local non industrial project posing little threat to domestic , let alone global capital, with internal structures and soluctions unscallable to even a fraction of the realities,aggression and complexities that any large scale revolution and subsequent project will have to face if it wants to try and exist within the current imperialist and capitalist dominated world .
Both sides have great points
I agree but my entire comment was disagreeing with the mindset of exlusive good ideas and practices of each side that we then have to try and synthesize into something new that is neither side and unites everyone,making he movement more successfull and stronger
Both sides in the west are pretty crap at empathizing with the people who suffer the most under capitalism
I agree to an extend but again i am always talking about the original post and my orginal comment, the western left isnt held back from empathising with those people better or being in better position to help them because "we dont do a centrism between anarchism and ML" and because "we dont combine and synthesize "anarchist praxis" with materialist marxist analyisis". That these arent even things you can do and terms we should confuse
I think we might be mostly in agreement here. I’m not 100% with the specifics of the OP but broadly agree that left-unity is important and that the mud-slinging on both sides is Fed shit. I’m in favor of cooperation between Anarchists and MLs but whether those can be synthesized into one ideology is more or less up to the masses. Below I’m going to nitpick on some things but that’s just a reply to those specific points and not necessarily to your message overall.
Agreed. Left unity on the street , on unionizing and on the struggle and activism is very much achievable if you leave brainworms out. I just see the specific sentiment op expressed of striving for "centrism between the two" and "meeting in the middle" on a theoretical/practical level misguided,confused and not something to focus
Irregardless of what the actual historical facts are, the perception of ML states by most western people (including many anarchists) is of rampant poverty, corruption, and oppressive state violence, and it’s going to take a lot of work to deal with that perception. We’d also need to contend with the fact that, if western states relinquish their imperialist tendencies the quality of life of their citizens will fall, on average, as a result of transforming resource extraction into fair and equal trade.
The later part of your point is 100% correct. Well the first is too but thats unavoidable. The perception of anything revolutionary or actualy anti capitalist is a giant hill to climb and full of semi confused, semi misinformed, semi red scared obstacles, even if all MLs decided to become anarchist just in order to not have to deal with talking about the USSR and Cuba and whatever
This doesn’t really negate what I said. The fact of the perception is exactly my point.
Yeah i didnt try to negate your point of mistrust and why "mls are mls and not anarchists". Just to put it imo, in more fair terms
I agree. But I’m not talking about theorists here, I’m talking about the greater community. Theorists understand these differences in material conditions but this message doesn’t get passed down to the general population and is often modified by liberal propaganda along the way in order to destabilize the movement. It’s the same kind of lazy take as “nordic countries are socialist and we should emulate them.
Well im not talking about theorists either. But im neither talking about extremely online MLs nor about how its modified and presented by the media sphere and hegemony outside of the "non terminaly online MLs" that espouse and push for it. Again thats a universal issue of trying to pass a clear, accurate and fair representation of your strategy and vision of the future as radical leftist (ml , anarchist or whatever) inside a brain broken political system, media sphere and population in the imperial core
Because a lot of western baby leftists right now are learning the basics of leftism online and the loudest voices are shills advocating for Great Man Theory or reifying the preconceived notions that liberals already have as “theory”. Most of these takes rely heavily on influencers making their followers feel comfortable and complacent in their current situation. MLs are waiting for some big smart guy to centralize everything for them and Anarchists are being pulled back into social democracy because “at least it’s not as bad as tankie authoritarianism”. And this comfort-seeking is where the two tendencies create the most public conflict. These views, even if only held fully by the most terminally online get spread out into the greater community. Fedposting is designed to feel legitimizing to the person making claims while distancing themselves from opposing ideologies that involve doing actual praxis. Examples of fedposting are then held up as examples to the opposite side, warning not to associate with “tankies” and “anarkiddies”.
Agreed 100% about the important issues on the larger leftist community and "pipelines" in anglosphere. But since my original post was replying to OPs take on what the left "should do" on the ground and as an organizational and strategy building approach (chasing some enlightened centrism with synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and "marxist material analysis"), i focused on how this is a confused a vague plea and that the MLs should just look inwards in the successes and huge contributions(and also mistakes) a lot of their movements and theories made on these aspects (in this case as you mentioned relationship and understanding of peasants domesticaly and worldwide and ways to localy organize around vulnerable groups). And applying their own theories correctly would lead to better unity with anarchists and other orgs and better united struggle and less bad takes. So no diverting focus into trying to "synthesize" with "anarchist praxis" and reinvent the weel
As you said previously, all revolutions are going to have unique and somewhat unreplicable conditions. My point wasn’t that western revolutionaries should adopt the Zapatista model exactly, but simply that their existence shows that it’s possible. Anarchism is extremely popular with antifascists in western countries, I’d argue they’re probably more numerous than MLs. So success in western countries would mean finding out why anarchism appeals to the masses and adapting revolutionary theory to work with that. Even if their ideas are currently untenable, we have to treat western antifascists as intellectual equals and not like children who have to be re-educated. Incorporating lessons from the Zapatistas, Rojava, and other decentralized projects may be necessary to understanding how to direct their energy in a constructive manner.
Yeah i agree that more decentralized and less heavy handed approaches to liberating people and building socialism would be more mainstream and valuable in western movements, again mainly angloshpere and western europe, based on the way more "advanced" social and material conditions and backgrounds these countries have compared to the third world. But not because we should accept the situation that a hundred years of violently suppressing 10s of millions of western communists, infiltrating and undermining thousands of communist parties and orgs and engaging the most piercing and catholic propaganda attack in human history has created , as the basis for judging "what the masses want or are attracted to". The fight against the cultural hegemony is the fight against capitalism. What the masses in any country want and support is and should be discovered in the process and struggle and by what framework can do the most to liberate them , benifit them , give them the tools to actualize and protect their gains. And MLs, just as anarchists should follow their experiences and theory to built their framework that will do so ,when chance arives if they believe it is the one that can do those things. And they should resist and not adopt frameworks that they believe on good analysis that they are untenable and a dead end. Same with how you resist democratic socialism as a framwork of theories and approaches, even if its more supported than anarchism and Ml in some western countries.
And what people want or are open to will suprise you in a momments , in a crisis more appropriately notice. Gauging it rn while looking from a desert devoid of these things, based on the margins of a political and ideological life and opinion shaped by the 100 years of anti communist hegemony i described isnt wise. Inspirations and ideas should come from all frameworks and projects but should be resisted existing in the context of "these are the good radical leftists and ideas and not the bad radical leftists ides", reinforcing and feeding of the capitalist oppressive framework's narrative and hegemony that has brough leftist organization on this low point.
My point was not about some sort of perfect synthesis of all tendencies but rather to say we don't need to. There are many different approaches we can take in attacking the beast that is capitalism. We don't know which will work best in which condition, all we can do is attempt to apply them. What we must do is act in solidarity across organizations insofar as possible. What we need to avoid is undermining others attempts.
This is where critical support for places like Syria comes in. They aren't even leftist, but their struggle is against the same empire we are against and so we must have very critical support.
im not a native english speaker so if problems with formating and wordiness are confusing im sorry, but its not the same type of "confusing things" that i point out in the original post. And i dont believe that my first comment (not this huge one) is really confusing in the first place
What is the "anarchist praxis" that marxist/communist parties and orgs that also practice materialist analysis dont also practice on their own ? Or better stated, what is the "anarchist praxis" of important immediate value that anarchist radical parties/orgs practice much more oftenly/successfully than marxist non anarchist revolutionary parties/orgs ?
So the general spirit of the post is correct but if you end up describing "praxis" that MLs at large dont reject to begin with and that hundreds of marxist/non-anarchist orgs all over the globe adopt and practice either way, even going back 100 years or even in country scales, as "anarchist praxis" then you end up calling for a "need for synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and marxist analysis" that already exists and is even central in historical communist organizational strategies and approaches, and was never something outside of those tendencies or that needed to be synthesisized
If you say "well this is mostly about the current situation and differences of approaches in the left in america" (that idk if its even true, not american) then yeah, if non anarchist marxist partries and leftsis dont do so ,they should do more "anarchist praxis". But in practiice that would simply mean that they should do what their Lenin and Mao and Rosa books say they should do and adopt strategies and approaches every successfull revolutionary marxist movement and org in history adopted. Thats a much more obvious,correct, comprehensive and effective call than saying we and they should "synthesize marxist analysis with anarchist praxis". Even within america , were the black panthers "synthesing anarchist praxis of immediate value with marxist material analysis" or were they simply applying their materialist analysis and revolutionary/organizational theory correctly. And doing so does lead to better and, easier on the ground cooperation and collective action with anarchists or anarchist groups or even makes the movements and orgs more welcome to anarchists(some black panthers were or joined as such) ,but that is just a positive after effect of doing your shit right, not some synthesizing or centrism between tendencies
And here we should note that , no secretarianism inteneded, there have been many more large scale non anarchist revolutionary movements, parties and orgs and many more people participating or participated in them now or in the past. So the failure to do that kind of "praxis" by them is and was as a result much more pronounced,remembered and historicaly documented. But that doesnt mean that as a whole non anarchist orgs and movements havent actualy done that "anarchist praxis" OP means very oftenly and successfuly, just that they had more chances to fail to do so as mass movements and be remembered as such. (along with greater undermining and sabotage from external forces trying to prevent them from doing so)
deleted by creator
Yeah thats a different issue(s) and i agree that it plays a signififcant part in the western left's failure to realize mass movements that have the "praxis" and "material analysis" OP calls for. At least a much more important roadblock than the misguided view about a non existing failure to "find a centrism between tendencies and approaches" or "synthesize anarchist praxis with marxist analysis" into something "new"
deleted by creator
Meanwhile my broke ass knows that any revolution is a good one from the perspective of the people at the bottom.
Hot take here: sectarianism is an inherently privileged phenomenon
deleted by creator
I dont think thats relevant to what i was talking about. That the view of "we should find a centrism between approaches” and “synthesize anarchist praxis with marxist analysis” into something “new” is a misguided way of looking at things that invents a dichotomy and "hole" within marxist thought and praxis that isnt based on reality ,content and history in order to call for a "synthesis" that will complete it and unite it with anarchism. Not having faith in something doesnt mean you have to rename things and invent a feel good synthesis that would allow you to ,on the surface, have faith. When they answer about
i will elaborate further with them.
But for now the fact that anarchists
Is contentious since no QoL ever decreased with a communist revolution .They lose faith on freedom of press and expression, independent from the party political and party organization,centralism..stuff that mls dont promice in the first place. And irrelevant to the point of "synthesizing both ideas of both sides" based on the way AES managed to survive under initial conditions and pressure unimaginable and unaplicable to modern western experience.
The fact that
is contentious (they dont believe non hiererchical confederations and way of doing revolution can materialize, survive and enact changes in time and territory scales needed for any transition to communism to happen) and ir
is contentious. They dont want to emulate USSR or China, thats not what applying their analysis to the conditions of each project and country goes. Them recognizing that the USSR and modern china are mostly results of adapting the marxist lenninist approach and analysis to their conditions and problems and supporting them on that basis doesnt mean that they WANT or will try to do the same things the USSR or China did or does. Also the second point is weird . Yeah movements were put down by imperialist violence and yeah some MLs dont analyse them as thoroughly as possible. But
A. No tendency analyses its failures as thoroughly as they should and arguably MLs have by far the most revisions on previous theories based on failures and disaggrements.
B. That has nothing to do with anarchism or any "synthetsis with anarchist praxis or ideas" and MLs have zero reason to believe that imperialism managed to overthrow movements and revolutions because of a failure to synthesize with anarchism or adopt practices of them (whatever that means). And that more anarchist "synthesized" approach could have prevented any of it. Which was the point of the original comment.
C. Having by far and away the most mass movements that even managed to reach the point of having to deal with the "experimental early phases" and with large scale imperialist attack and undermining by global capital means you are gonna have the most defeats. They are the default outcome in how the world that exists and existed either way.. I dont see how that fact or the lessons MLs should learn from that stuff would reinforce the mindset i commented against, of we should strive towards the "centrism with good ideas from both sides", of renaming existing practices and solutions within the tendency as anarchist in order to feel good imagining a synthesis that will leave everyone united and stronger and will solve practical and historical shortcomings for some reason
Why are we talking about terminaly online MLs and anarchists here ? The millions of Vietnamese and Chinese communists , the party members, the leaders and theorists, realized the importance of peasant communities and local organizing , intergrated with them and facilitated direct action in success and scales unmatched by anyone in human history.They are the shinning example of it. I agree western MLs, much less the internet brained, must learn from that and intergrate those theories, understanding and experiences . But thats just that, doing correctly what their theory says and what their successfull projects. So again no where here we have to rename and talk about anarchist practices and good ideas from both sides that have to be synthesized and so it has nothing to do, nor it gives credit, to that mindset that i talked about in the original comment.
It demonstrates the utility and success of those things in their extremely particular ,unique , unscalable and unreplicable conditions (historicaly and rn). It is the correct approach for them as they exist rn and for what they want. What the Zapatistas have done in their territory is amazing as far as the structure of their society goes but its no way comparable or scalable to any conditions of any historical or current communist project in order to "look for solutions there to apply retroactively" and "look for a synthesis". If the US or even Mexico really gave a shit about getting rid of the Zapatistas, they’d have done so. They only have like 10k people in poorly armed militias,occuppy less than 1/20th of mexico and it being mainly jungle, they have expanded barely to more than 10% of their original size in many decades and their combined population isn’t even half a million. They’re just a relatively small amount of people living in small villages in a jungle of little geopolitical importance not really caring about industrialization or any urban development. They don’t have a lot of infrastructure (that’s kind of the point behind their rebellion, they do not WANT a lot of industrial development because it goes contrary to their way of life), they have little modern equipment, little organization in their military, and they just rely on social cohesion and Mexico not being interested enough in a large organized suppression. They were mostly left to their own devices by Mexico cause they arent a threat to neither capital or that state and even their historical clashes put together have been minascule compared to the amount of warfare,undermining and agression on every front a state like Cuba had to face for even a year. The momment global capital or just the US diverted an iota of their attention to crush the Zapatistas they would have. Their "bottom up decentralization" structure is beautiful but how can it be a lesson for synthesis when it exists only because they exist in a totally alien internal and external dimension of "what they want to do domesticaly" and "what they have to deal with from within and outside" than any large scale communist ,socialist or even anarchist movements have existed or will have to exust.If the lessons are about peasant power and local organizing sure, but MLs have no reason to look at the zapatistas for that more than they have to look within the huge (and more applicable) successes and failures of their own movements on that front . That doesnt mean you shouldnt support them or that they arent inspiring , it means its a local non industrial project posing little threat to domestic , let alone global capital, with internal structures and soluctions unscallable to even a fraction of the realities,aggression and complexities that any large scale revolution and subsequent project will have to face if it wants to try and exist within the current imperialist and capitalist dominated world .
I agree but my entire comment was disagreeing with the mindset of exlusive good ideas and practices of each side that we then have to try and synthesize into something new that is neither side and unites everyone,making he movement more successfull and stronger
I agree to an extend but again i am always talking about the original post and my orginal comment, the western left isnt held back from empathising with those people better or being in better position to help them because "we dont do a centrism between anarchism and ML" and because "we dont combine and synthesize "anarchist praxis" with materialist marxist analyisis". That these arent even things you can do and terms we should confuse
deleted by creator
Agreed. Left unity on the street , on unionizing and on the struggle and activism is very much achievable if you leave brainworms out. I just see the specific sentiment op expressed of striving for "centrism between the two" and "meeting in the middle" on a theoretical/practical level misguided,confused and not something to focus
The later part of your point is 100% correct. Well the first is too but thats unavoidable. The perception of anything revolutionary or actualy anti capitalist is a giant hill to climb and full of semi confused, semi misinformed, semi red scared obstacles, even if all MLs decided to become anarchist just in order to not have to deal with talking about the USSR and Cuba and whatever
Yeah i didnt try to negate your point of mistrust and why "mls are mls and not anarchists". Just to put it imo, in more fair terms
Well im not talking about theorists either. But im neither talking about extremely online MLs nor about how its modified and presented by the media sphere and hegemony outside of the "non terminaly online MLs" that espouse and push for it. Again thats a universal issue of trying to pass a clear, accurate and fair representation of your strategy and vision of the future as radical leftist (ml , anarchist or whatever) inside a brain broken political system, media sphere and population in the imperial core
Agreed 100% about the important issues on the larger leftist community and "pipelines" in anglosphere. But since my original post was replying to OPs take on what the left "should do" on the ground and as an organizational and strategy building approach (chasing some enlightened centrism with synthesis of "anarchist praxis" and "marxist material analysis"), i focused on how this is a confused a vague plea and that the MLs should just look inwards in the successes and huge contributions(and also mistakes) a lot of their movements and theories made on these aspects (in this case as you mentioned relationship and understanding of peasants domesticaly and worldwide and ways to localy organize around vulnerable groups). And applying their own theories correctly would lead to better unity with anarchists and other orgs and better united struggle and less bad takes. So no diverting focus into trying to "synthesize" with "anarchist praxis" and reinvent the weel
Yeah i agree that more decentralized and less heavy handed approaches to liberating people and building socialism would be more mainstream and valuable in western movements, again mainly angloshpere and western europe, based on the way more "advanced" social and material conditions and backgrounds these countries have compared to the third world. But not because we should accept the situation that a hundred years of violently suppressing 10s of millions of western communists, infiltrating and undermining thousands of communist parties and orgs and engaging the most piercing and catholic propaganda attack in human history has created , as the basis for judging "what the masses want or are attracted to". The fight against the cultural hegemony is the fight against capitalism. What the masses in any country want and support is and should be discovered in the process and struggle and by what framework can do the most to liberate them , benifit them , give them the tools to actualize and protect their gains. And MLs, just as anarchists should follow their experiences and theory to built their framework that will do so ,when chance arives if they believe it is the one that can do those things. And they should resist and not adopt frameworks that they believe on good analysis that they are untenable and a dead end. Same with how you resist democratic socialism as a framwork of theories and approaches, even if its more supported than anarchism and Ml in some western countries.
And what people want or are open to will suprise you in a momments , in a crisis more appropriately notice. Gauging it rn while looking from a desert devoid of these things, based on the margins of a political and ideological life and opinion shaped by the 100 years of anti communist hegemony i described isnt wise. Inspirations and ideas should come from all frameworks and projects but should be resisted existing in the context of "these are the good radical leftists and ideas and not the bad radical leftists ides", reinforcing and feeding of the capitalist oppressive framework's narrative and hegemony that has brough leftist organization on this low point.
My point was not about some sort of perfect synthesis of all tendencies but rather to say we don't need to. There are many different approaches we can take in attacking the beast that is capitalism. We don't know which will work best in which condition, all we can do is attempt to apply them. What we must do is act in solidarity across organizations insofar as possible. What we need to avoid is undermining others attempts. This is where critical support for places like Syria comes in. They aren't even leftist, but their struggle is against the same empire we are against and so we must have very critical support.
No offense but if you're worried about confusing people, I have to say this post is extremely hard to read.
im not a native english speaker so if problems with formating and wordiness are confusing im sorry, but its not the same type of "confusing things" that i point out in the original post. And i dont believe that my first comment (not this huge one) is really confusing in the first place