Left Unity, when understood as a guiding ideological principle rather than a tactical consideration, does more harm to the movement by accepting the liberal pluralist position that your political ideology is catered to your individual personality, feelings, lived experience, etc. and denies the material basis of politics and of theory as constantly advancing and adapting with this material basis.
A "Left Unitarian" will always say that it is not the right time to bring something up, don't be schismatic. They have a "holier than thou" approach to conflict. They disavow it and see themselves as above it, and scold those in conflict for keeping us divided, ignoring that we are already divided by our disparate ideologies. The "Left Unitarian" wants the unity without the principled ideological struggle that precedes it.
I hope it's clear I'm not talking about hosting a site meant for an ecclectic leftist userbase and keepin a lid on vicious infighting as a tactical and strategic decision for running a good leftist forum. I also don't think joining broad orgs like DSA is a bad thing or linking up with orgs of different tendencies for certain campaigns. This is not about some abstract idea of "ideological purity," but this view does recognise that, although there are issues that are debatable and hard to agree on, at the end of the day there are correct ideas and incorrect ideas and Left Unity can, when someone takes it up as an ideological project, use an onslaught of thought terminating cliches (e.g. infighting is just an arbitrary purity test, united we are stronger than if we are divided, we aren't in or close to power so we can't afford that kind of conflict) to silence principled comrades trying to help people see their incorrect ideas and the value in the correct ideas.
Paralysing your local DSA with endless struggle sessions because they refuse to recognise Amerikkka as an illigitimate political formation and start training for a Protracted People's war is the other extreme; another unprincipled vice that should also be avoided and criticised.
Paralysing your local DSA with endless struggle sessions because they refuse to recognise Amerikkka as an illigitimate political formation
In my mind this is the far more common (and thus far more dangerous) issue. Too many people forget that radicalization is a process, you have to give people a pipeline from wherever they are to the left, and presenting yourself as too radical too soon will turn people off.
One thing the right has dialed down to a science is how to get people from moderate political positions to blood-and-soil extremism. One of the #1 things they don't do is putting all the radical stuff front and center right off the bat. They give people breadcrumbs to follow.
Depends on your context I guess. My only experience with this kind of wrecking in the name of purity has come from liberals believe it or not who think we can't continue to function until we have fixed some internal problem with respect to demographics or whatever. The left part of the org fails to recognise this as opportunistic wrecking because they haven't fleshed out their politics and are operating off their own activist common sense and take the bait. In trying to unify with these people and keep them happy, a wedge was deiven through the org and it was paralysed. So I guess sometimes it's not either too much unity or too hardline but both really. As an ML I'd identify the problem as a lack of Marxist analysis and unity in the leadership.
Many of us develop our politics online before and whilst we organise in person. That was the case for me, and if it were not for all the online discussions I participated in and read I don't think my views would be as developed as they are now. It loosened me up for views that were being presented to me in person and made me aware if an entierely different universe of discourse. Posting does serve a propagandistic function in a kind of low-grade, stochastic way; people dont change their mind with a single argument but after a position has been normalised to the point that they begin to seriously consider it and its merits. I also believe having a correct theory is necessary for good political action, which is the definition of praxis.
Left Unity, when understood as a guiding ideological principle rather than a tactical consideration, does more harm to the movement by accepting the liberal pluralist position that your political ideology is catered to your individual personality, feelings, lived experience, etc. and denies the material basis of politics and of theory as constantly advancing and adapting with this material basis.
A "Left Unitarian" will always say that it is not the right time to bring something up, don't be schismatic. They have a "holier than thou" approach to conflict. They disavow it and see themselves as above it, and scold those in conflict for keeping us divided, ignoring that we are already divided by our disparate ideologies. The "Left Unitarian" wants the unity without the principled ideological struggle that precedes it.
I hope it's clear I'm not talking about hosting a site meant for an ecclectic leftist userbase and keepin a lid on vicious infighting as a tactical and strategic decision for running a good leftist forum. I also don't think joining broad orgs like DSA is a bad thing or linking up with orgs of different tendencies for certain campaigns. This is not about some abstract idea of "ideological purity," but this view does recognise that, although there are issues that are debatable and hard to agree on, at the end of the day there are correct ideas and incorrect ideas and Left Unity can, when someone takes it up as an ideological project, use an onslaught of thought terminating cliches (e.g. infighting is just an arbitrary purity test, united we are stronger than if we are divided, we aren't in or close to power so we can't afford that kind of conflict) to silence principled comrades trying to help people see their incorrect ideas and the value in the correct ideas.
Eh when done right it's more "we can argue, but let's stick together and keep our eye on the immediate prize."
Paralysing your local DSA with endless struggle sessions because they refuse to recognise Amerikkka as an illigitimate political formation and start training for a Protracted People's war is the other extreme; another unprincipled vice that should also be avoided and criticised.
In my mind this is the far more common (and thus far more dangerous) issue. Too many people forget that radicalization is a process, you have to give people a pipeline from wherever they are to the left, and presenting yourself as too radical too soon will turn people off.
One thing the right has dialed down to a science is how to get people from moderate political positions to blood-and-soil extremism. One of the #1 things they don't do is putting all the radical stuff front and center right off the bat. They give people breadcrumbs to follow.
Depends on your context I guess. My only experience with this kind of wrecking in the name of purity has come from liberals believe it or not who think we can't continue to function until we have fixed some internal problem with respect to demographics or whatever. The left part of the org fails to recognise this as opportunistic wrecking because they haven't fleshed out their politics and are operating off their own activist common sense and take the bait. In trying to unify with these people and keep them happy, a wedge was deiven through the org and it was paralysed. So I guess sometimes it's not either too much unity or too hardline but both really. As an ML I'd identify the problem as a lack of Marxist analysis and unity in the leadership.
deleted by creator
Many of us develop our politics online before and whilst we organise in person. That was the case for me, and if it were not for all the online discussions I participated in and read I don't think my views would be as developed as they are now. It loosened me up for views that were being presented to me in person and made me aware if an entierely different universe of discourse. Posting does serve a propagandistic function in a kind of low-grade, stochastic way; people dont change their mind with a single argument but after a position has been normalised to the point that they begin to seriously consider it and its merits. I also believe having a correct theory is necessary for good political action, which is the definition of praxis.