There were quite a few people online, who after the attempted coup in Venezuela, and to lesser extent the successful one in Bolivia, would handwring about Maduro and Morales:
"I don't support what happened in Venezuela, but let's not pretend Maduro is a good guy, or is implementing liberatory socialism. I oppose both the government and the opposition, and support the people in a bottom-up assertion of their power."
The problem with this is A) Speech is performative, and B) it's idealism. What I mean by the former is that, even if your position is honest, and even if it's the correct position, by doing anything other than voicing ardent opposition for the coup while it's happening you are giving it legitimacy (to the extent what anyone says online matters at all). You may say "Maduro is evil because he is not far enough left" but what a liberal hears is "Maduro is evil, so it's a moral imperative to get rid of him". You saw similar things about Soleimani after the airstrike; playing up how evil he was after stating that the U.S. was wrong to do this only justifies what the U.S. did.
The second problem, its being idealist: even if it'd be best if the people united in a grassroots manner, organised together, overthrew Maduro and imposed Anarcho-communism, even if that's the best idea, that doesn't mean that it's a currently extant force. What you might wish were there just doesn't exist in order to support; they are not a real party to this conflict, and so you end up opposing both existing sides and supporting a phantom.
I don't necessarily believe this is an Anarchist tendency, as the meme would imply. I think it's more likely a Twitter tendency, where you are pressured to have the "most correct" take, in order to be superior to and more nuanced than everyone else.
On the other hand, it is solidly materialist to argue that relatively small numbers of unorganized leftists who post something short of unequivocal support for the CPC or Maduro on twitter are a decisive force in the outcome of working class struggle.
Oviously tankielover69 on a message board has no effect on what actually happens, but the reality is that a US backed coup will almost always be worse than the current system if governance, no matter how legitimate the criticism of it is or how bad it is.
The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
This also applies, largely, to praise of China, which is often detached and irrelevant, not coming from an understanding of the actual on-the-ground forces at work that produce certain results, and with no attempt to connect these to local conditions.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
There were quite a few people online, who after the attempted coup in Venezuela, and to lesser extent the successful one in Bolivia, would handwring about Maduro and Morales:
"I don't support what happened in Venezuela, but let's not pretend Maduro is a good guy, or is implementing liberatory socialism. I oppose both the government and the opposition, and support the people in a bottom-up assertion of their power."
The problem with this is A) Speech is performative, and B) it's idealism. What I mean by the former is that, even if your position is honest, and even if it's the correct position, by doing anything other than voicing ardent opposition for the coup while it's happening you are giving it legitimacy (to the extent what anyone says online matters at all). You may say "Maduro is evil because he is not far enough left" but what a liberal hears is "Maduro is evil, so it's a moral imperative to get rid of him". You saw similar things about Soleimani after the airstrike; playing up how evil he was after stating that the U.S. was wrong to do this only justifies what the U.S. did.
The second problem, its being idealist: even if it'd be best if the people united in a grassroots manner, organised together, overthrew Maduro and imposed Anarcho-communism, even if that's the best idea, that doesn't mean that it's a currently extant force. What you might wish were there just doesn't exist in order to support; they are not a real party to this conflict, and so you end up opposing both existing sides and supporting a phantom.
I don't necessarily believe this is an Anarchist tendency, as the meme would imply. I think it's more likely a Twitter tendency, where you are pressured to have the "most correct" take, in order to be superior to and more nuanced than everyone else.
Yeah all it does is aid the US in manufacturing consent to invade or coup, no matter the actual intention, so it's very idealistic.
On the other hand, it is solidly materialist to argue that relatively small numbers of unorganized leftists who post something short of unequivocal support for the CPC or Maduro on twitter are a decisive force in the outcome of working class struggle.
deleted by creator
Oviously tankielover69 on a message board has no effect on what actually happens, but the reality is that a US backed coup will almost always be worse than the current system if governance, no matter how legitimate the criticism of it is or how bad it is.
deleted by creator
The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
"The emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists"
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country."
"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality "
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
Agreed
deleted by creator
Like I said, I think it's a Twitter thing.