Tendencies named after historical figures are a dead end and constrict the political imagination of Leftists and Communists. These labels and preoccupations with particular historical moments serve mostly as a way to mediate cliques in leftist circles and alienate outsiders. Fuck your Idols.
There's such stupid fucking fetishization over calling yourself ML, Anarchist, Posadist, at least online, and it produces terribly shallow takes. I told someone on /r/communism101 to not be too dogmatic and to keep an open mind instead of "knowing what tendency to support" and I got insta-banned. As Brace and Liz once succinctly said, "Don't be a dork, just call yourself a communist." In that sense, my "tendency" is really just an amalgamation of every tendency I've read about, agreeing with and drawing from some more than others.
On the other hand - reading about 1917 and its contexts, reading Marx / Lenin / Trotsky / Kautsky / Luxemburg / Stalin / even fucking Kerensky if you want, it's an immensely useful thought experiment to test your own theory of change to see who makes the most logical sense, and how that squares up with your situation today. History is the most useful experiment we have. Treating it scientifically while taking into account the limitations of your own bias / context / class position is how you become an educated leftist. That's my opinion anyway.
correct. I also think dialectics add an unnecessary layer of mysticism to material analysis. Contemporary research methods in the Social Sciences with paired with simple terminology is better.
Tendencies named after historical figures are a dead end and constrict the political imagination of Leftists and Communists. These labels and preoccupations with particular historical moments serve mostly as a way to mediate cliques in leftist circles and alienate outsiders. Fuck your Idols.
There's such stupid fucking fetishization over calling yourself ML, Anarchist, Posadist, at least online, and it produces terribly shallow takes. I told someone on /r/communism101 to not be too dogmatic and to keep an open mind instead of "knowing what tendency to support" and I got insta-banned. As Brace and Liz once succinctly said, "Don't be a dork, just call yourself a communist." In that sense, my "tendency" is really just an amalgamation of every tendency I've read about, agreeing with and drawing from some more than others.
On the other hand - reading about 1917 and its contexts, reading Marx / Lenin / Trotsky / Kautsky / Luxemburg / Stalin / even fucking Kerensky if you want, it's an immensely useful thought experiment to test your own theory of change to see who makes the most logical sense, and how that squares up with your situation today. History is the most useful experiment we have. Treating it scientifically while taking into account the limitations of your own bias / context / class position is how you become an educated leftist. That's my opinion anyway.
reading history will ruin the purity of my generic liberalism
Reading theory and history from many thinkers = good. Choosing one dead dude in particular to form a cult of personality around = bad.
your name is a play on hegel lol
correct. I also think dialectics add an unnecessary layer of mysticism to material analysis. Contemporary research methods in the Social Sciences with paired with simple terminology is better.
those 20th century feuds should stay in the 20th century tbh
But bro how is episode n. 22879 of kronstadt discourse going to end
deleted by creator