It is impossible to speak seriously about Marxism in the West without incorporating the role of Christianity in each social formation. “Western Marxism has taken a historic distance from the concrete experiences of socialist transition in the Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam, and Cuba.”
I would recommend reading this and sending this to any radlibs/DSA/anarchists you know
I will say that part of the reason is probably because actually fighting the military is a really fucking scary prospect right now and we’d need actual left support from the working class to do that. Which unfortunately because a lot of America seem unable to accept the concept of supposedly “leftist” policies that benefit them with barely any downside so I have a hard time seeing them willing to risk their life for it
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is criticized in the article. Instead of turning yourself into a defeatist martyr ("Nobody seems to listen to my truthful Gospel" ), think about the problem is a more practical manner. For example, make a plan how to effectively unionize your workplace and try to execute it. If it fails, see why it failed, and repeat again with necessary changes. If people dont listen to leftist ideas, try to approach them in different manners and see which method works. Try to form an organized militia with armed leftists, try to convince them the necessity of discipline and organization.
Attempts at unionization will likely get you fired. Trying to spread leftist ideas will get you ridiculed. Forming an organized militia will likely get you on the list. So my point is, real effective praxis is dangerous, its messy, things wont go the way you want to. You'll probably have to compromise in many ways. But you keep at it anyway, and do it in a pragmatic manner.
Actual leftist work is incredibly dangerous and produces little ROI. This is why Western leftism has retreated into constant production and reproduction of ideological substitution for real praxis (reading theory, debating, posting online), and whatever actual praxis is done usually avoids any kind of direct conflict with capital, and is therefore mostly useless.
Western leftism has retreated into constant production and reproduction of ideological substitution for real praxis (reading theory, debating, posting online)
But what is this based on? Is this a survey? Is this just judging by things said online? I mean if you look online and find a bunch of shitposters, it's not really fair to say that all or even most of what exists are shitposters. Of course one finds a lot of arguing and reading online. These are fairly passive as is being online. Of course you're not going to see people going through the steps of forming a union, because that happens offline. Like we're not going to take pictures and video of filling out paperwork and going to court and filling out union cards. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We should be critical of ourselves but the criticism should be based on rational observations and solid reasoning. It shouldn't be a prejudice formed because it's funny to view westerners as big pampered babies while leftist movements in other places are protesting for months straight and dying in the streets. The whole point of unionizing and all that stuff is to try to stave off the bloody part for as long as possible. If you can strike and get your way, then that's better than dying from a drone bombing 10 mins into the bloody revolution you started.
I'm making more of a general obervation. My evidence is based on the lack of militant union activity, lack of organized and armed communist movements, and low penetration of communist ideas in western countries, as compared to say, 70 years ago, or compared to some modern third-world countries.
It shouldn’t be a prejudice formed because it’s funny to view westerners as big pampered babies while leftist movements in other places are protesting for months straight and dying in the streets. The whole point of unionizing and all that stuff is to try to stave off the bloody part for as long as possible. If you can strike and get your way, then that’s better than dying from a drone bombing 10 mins into the bloody revolution you started.
You have a severe misundersanding of unionization. Firstly, it is an end in itself, it gains economic power and real benefits to the standard of living of workers. Secondly, it gives real political power to the union members, beyond anything that electoralism can provide. The threat of a bloody revolution is lessened the more military power you have, which is why you need to form organized militias that wards off any potential military action by the state.
No, when I say "that's the whole point of unionizing" I don't mean that's the only point. I'm trying to say that unions are a way of avoiding an immediate armed conflict. At some point they're not going to tolerate unions and then it will be time to fight. My point isn't that you don't fight, or avoid fighting forever. I'm responding to the idea that the western left, whatever that means, is bad because it's not militant enough, ie it's not actively seeking armed conflict with the police/military. And we don't yet know that simply having a strong labor movement won't work. So it's a bit premature to say that union action without some undefined threshold of militancy won't work.
Can you explain specifically in what ways union activity needs to militant? Do you mean just having guns and walking around or do you mean unions should be physically engaging Jeff Bezos in a firefight? Do you think a communist militia marching on Elon Musk's home right now would benefit western leftism? If the criticism is we don't talk about the practical considerations of taking power, we can do that. What action are you talking about that needs to take place and how does it directly benefit the movement?
A militant union occupies workplaces when companies try to shut down to avoid dealing with the union. It organizes strikes regularly, not just for its own purposes, but as solidarity for other striking workers or related movements. It forms picket lines when striking and beats up scabs etc.
Okay so you're saying that because you don't see unions in the west striking regularly, occupying workplace, forming picket lines, and assaulting scabs, then they're not militant enough. And a lack of militant unions is a sign of how weak western marxism is?
Why don't they do these things? Why don't they strike regularly? Why don't they occupy private property? Why don't they assault scabs? Do you think it's just fear?
but it fails to realize the reason why it’s true is because people just don’t have (enough) of a material reason to revolt right now.
Please rid yourself of this notion completely from your mind. You are trying to divert blame from the Left for its lack of effective work put into organization, spreading propaganda, unionization etc, and instead just handwaving it using the excuse of material conditions. The left is far stronger in countries like Finland or Denmark, with their strong unionization and worker solidarity, inspite of having great material conditions. While the Left is destroyed and weak in countries like America or UK, where the material conditions are really bad for the workers, and have been for decades.
You are also preoccupied with revolution and martyrdom, when the focus instead should be on rational activities like acquiring political power, achieving real gains etc.
deleted by creator
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is criticized in the article. Instead of turning yourself into a defeatist martyr ("Nobody seems to listen to my truthful Gospel" ), think about the problem is a more practical manner. For example, make a plan how to effectively unionize your workplace and try to execute it. If it fails, see why it failed, and repeat again with necessary changes. If people dont listen to leftist ideas, try to approach them in different manners and see which method works. Try to form an organized militia with armed leftists, try to convince them the necessity of discipline and organization.
Attempts at unionization will likely get you fired. Trying to spread leftist ideas will get you ridiculed. Forming an organized militia will likely get you on the list. So my point is, real effective praxis is dangerous, its messy, things wont go the way you want to. You'll probably have to compromise in many ways. But you keep at it anyway, and do it in a pragmatic manner.
Actual leftist work is incredibly dangerous and produces little ROI. This is why Western leftism has retreated into constant production and reproduction of ideological substitution for real praxis (reading theory, debating, posting online), and whatever actual praxis is done usually avoids any kind of direct conflict with capital, and is therefore mostly useless.
But what is this based on? Is this a survey? Is this just judging by things said online? I mean if you look online and find a bunch of shitposters, it's not really fair to say that all or even most of what exists are shitposters. Of course one finds a lot of arguing and reading online. These are fairly passive as is being online. Of course you're not going to see people going through the steps of forming a union, because that happens offline. Like we're not going to take pictures and video of filling out paperwork and going to court and filling out union cards. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We should be critical of ourselves but the criticism should be based on rational observations and solid reasoning. It shouldn't be a prejudice formed because it's funny to view westerners as big pampered babies while leftist movements in other places are protesting for months straight and dying in the streets. The whole point of unionizing and all that stuff is to try to stave off the bloody part for as long as possible. If you can strike and get your way, then that's better than dying from a drone bombing 10 mins into the bloody revolution you started.
I'm making more of a general obervation. My evidence is based on the lack of militant union activity, lack of organized and armed communist movements, and low penetration of communist ideas in western countries, as compared to say, 70 years ago, or compared to some modern third-world countries.
You have a severe misundersanding of unionization. Firstly, it is an end in itself, it gains economic power and real benefits to the standard of living of workers. Secondly, it gives real political power to the union members, beyond anything that electoralism can provide. The threat of a bloody revolution is lessened the more military power you have, which is why you need to form organized militias that wards off any potential military action by the state.
No, when I say "that's the whole point of unionizing" I don't mean that's the only point. I'm trying to say that unions are a way of avoiding an immediate armed conflict. At some point they're not going to tolerate unions and then it will be time to fight. My point isn't that you don't fight, or avoid fighting forever. I'm responding to the idea that the western left, whatever that means, is bad because it's not militant enough, ie it's not actively seeking armed conflict with the police/military. And we don't yet know that simply having a strong labor movement won't work. So it's a bit premature to say that union action without some undefined threshold of militancy won't work.
Can you explain specifically in what ways union activity needs to militant? Do you mean just having guns and walking around or do you mean unions should be physically engaging Jeff Bezos in a firefight? Do you think a communist militia marching on Elon Musk's home right now would benefit western leftism? If the criticism is we don't talk about the practical considerations of taking power, we can do that. What action are you talking about that needs to take place and how does it directly benefit the movement?
A militant union occupies workplaces when companies try to shut down to avoid dealing with the union. It organizes strikes regularly, not just for its own purposes, but as solidarity for other striking workers or related movements. It forms picket lines when striking and beats up scabs etc.
Okay so you're saying that because you don't see unions in the west striking regularly, occupying workplace, forming picket lines, and assaulting scabs, then they're not militant enough. And a lack of militant unions is a sign of how weak western marxism is?
Why don't they do these things? Why don't they strike regularly? Why don't they occupy private property? Why don't they assault scabs? Do you think it's just fear?
My opinion- fear, lack of class conciousness, present unions being kinda shitty with their collaborationism, lack of organisation,
deleted by creator
Please rid yourself of this notion completely from your mind. You are trying to divert blame from the Left for its lack of effective work put into organization, spreading propaganda, unionization etc, and instead just handwaving it using the excuse of material conditions. The left is far stronger in countries like Finland or Denmark, with their strong unionization and worker solidarity, inspite of having great material conditions. While the Left is destroyed and weak in countries like America or UK, where the material conditions are really bad for the workers, and have been for decades.
You are also preoccupied with revolution and martyrdom, when the focus instead should be on rational activities like acquiring political power, achieving real gains etc.
deleted by creator
consumption of politics spectacle is literally /r/breadtube
deleted by creator