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
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.
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