I'm not a hardline ML, nor am I a trot. I find myself attracted to theory from both. There's a lot of very valid criticism of Trotsky, Stalin, ML states, and Trot organizations. There's reasonable critique for all. But there's also good praise for all too. I've long tried to figure out what kind of marxist I am. I find myself drawn to Trotsky's transitional program, but also to the more (in my opinion) realistic idea of socialism in one country. When it comes down to actually organizing does it really matter? If there's a full ML movement going strong I'll join that. Or if it was a trotskyist movement going strong, I'd join that. I just want to see marxism advance. Much of the infighting feels like the narcissism of small differences. I guess I'm asking is it ok to be a heterodox marxist?
tbh there's no point in hewing strongly to dogma established 70+ years ago in entirely different circumstances. What we're going to need will not necessarily resemble Trotskyism or Marxist-Leninism or Anarchism or anything else, as it will have to contend with the alienation of our times in a more meaningful way than just shouting at people to do things how they used to. Take what's useful from each one, work with whoever you think is doing the right thing.
I will say there are fundamental tensions of strategy and theory surrounding the state and political organization, the global power of capital etc, what form of freedom one desires, that no matter what you label yourself you are taking sides on even as the questions surrounding those and other issues continually evolve. But one must treat those as questions of form, labeling should only be an afterthought. And really, that's what tendencies are supposed to do at the moment they are labeled, however as questions change, why keep the label. Only reason I call myself a Marxist is because Marx's fundamental critique of capitalism (though which thing one thinks the fundamental critique is, that's a can of worms to open) is still so pertinent. The value form has not changed. I cannot say the same about a label created out of a particular political struggle in x country in the 20th century, even if that struggle involved core things to still take a side in.
Kinda just describing Marxism-Leninism but with extra steps. MLs are anti-dogma and stress that understanding conditions and adaptation to the existing material circumstances are completely necessary. Anyone saying something has to be done exactly as anything in the past while calling themselves ML is not really getting the part of ML doctrine which is to just do what's best in the existing conditions. Doing something that will blatantly fail under the conditions would be extremely silly.
Sorry for being a logic bro, but this is “no true Scotsman”
Tons of MLs are stupidly doctrinaire. Trots are worse though.
Are they MLs or are they party-less people that claim to be MLs but aren't actually?
They're sympathisers. They like ML but they're not doing anything and they're not in party. If they were in a party they would have a proper political education and wouldn't be so obsessed with mimicking the past but instead testing in the present and using what works while tossing out what doesn't through proper investigation.
A lot of the ~material conditions~ of the past still apply today though! There's really no need to reinvent the wheel except out of narcissism. Yes, you have to adapt and build, but the framework of how Capitalism and bourgeoisie democracy work really has not changed all that much in 100+ years.
Matt on Chapo loves to mention that Americans have a very, very short collective memory. That's why reading theory is so important because when you read Lenin talking about how 5 families can buy up Parliament and Social Democrats spend their time pushing for Universal Suffrage as the cure for all the working class's ills, it should send chills up your spine
The petty-bourgeois democrats, such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just this “more” from universal suffrage. They themselves share, and instil into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage “in the present-day state” is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization.
"JUST VOTE" has been the Left-wing* strategy in the US going back decades and decades. Even in the 60s, what was most Civil Rights activism based on? Voter registration!!!
* For all intents and purposes, liberals are the American Left, and have been since the 50s purges. Walter Reuther was considered an insane radical, and when Khrushchev met him, he said "we shot people like that in 1917", just for comparison
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that they aren't, but there are enough differences that we will have to assemble a school of thought that addresses them.
Why? Capitalism works the way that Capitalism works. That's the beauty of Marxism-Leninism - the broad strokes still describe how Capitalism and the State work, even over a century later in a new environment. Yeah, the details change, but that's always been the case. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel unless you're some wrecker who just wants to "fuck shit up" or have delusions of grandeur.
The idea that the new movement will "not necessarily resemble Trotskyism or Marxist-Leninism or Anarchism or anything else" is complete bullshit, built on a lack of understanding of history and general narcissism.
the cold war's over, you're not gonna get money or resources from a major world superpower, so it literally doesn't matter what tendency you identify as. just be suspicious of people who want to burn everything down when you're still on square zero.
Like I've said before "I don't know what I am, I just know I hate capitalism."
I'm not a fan of them, but if you're for a transitional program, why not join SAlt?
I'm interested in them, but I live in the middle of no where.
Honestly if there's a mass ML movement, I'll join that. If it's a mass trot movement or anarchist movement, I'll join that. I really don't care so long as capitalism is destroyed. A lot of anarchism does appeal to me, but I worry it's too utopian and not practical.
I just mean where you are, you don't have to agree with the end goals to work with them, just what they're doing at the moment. But anarchist black cross has a list of political prisoners you can write to, black and pink has a queer prisoner penpal program. Food not Bombs is the organization most likely to have a branch in the middle of nowhere.
