for example all time greats are:
Intersectionality is opposed Marxism
Queer Theory is opposed to Marxism
Postmodernism is opposed to Marxism
Postcolonialism is opposed to Marxism
Feminism is opposed to Marxism
Identity politics exists because of Stalinism
it's all just shit like that, they seem to fundamentaly oppose any theory after Lenin.
I've tried arguing wih them for example about Intersectionslity, but they just say that it can't incorporate class because then they wouldn't need to use it anymore because it is the only thing that matters.
all reform is useless because it doesn't remove capitalism(black liberation, lgbt+ liberation?)
They now try to explain foucault and described him as anti-marxist.(turns out that's true)
"Queer Theorie says it is reactionary to be cis." "intersectionality leads to infighting about who is the most opressed"
They use postmodernism and idealism as some kind of slurs for ideas and all of the above is idealist, only the material ever matters. Idealism is petit-burgoise, post-modern nonsense
Also they are explicitly anti-pluralist in their organisation and don't want to do anything except growing by recruiting students. Like I can't even convince them to go help the foodbank.
Because these people(at hte foodbank) are apparently too pre-occupied with survuval to educate themselves about marxism. So any energy on them is wasted. They can't be useful as activists and we must grow first before we can help people. (which is a shit reason)
They also say shit like that all opression is based on class, and that intersectionality splits the working class and should be avoided. That privileges don't exist because you can't make individuals responsible for opression because it all comes from above.
This video explains what is happening here. It's their exact points.
They only ever go somewehere to hand out flyers, not for support. (one guy actually said we couldn't go to the foodbank beecause we would have to do work there and couldn't just hand out flyers)
I don't know if still have the energy to fight against this bullshit and I've read some more about intersectionality but, they've "indoctrinated" themselves about this shit for years and i am not making any progress. It makes me angry and tired.
god this sounds like an org I was part of. Get out. These guys just like feeling smart and being in charge, Marxism is just a thing to lord over people for them. Also the leader of the org was later uncovered to be a fed so lolololol. There isn't any revolutionary potential in these orgs.
They also always talk about how they have the best takes and shit. They also collect a bunch of money for the org, as charity, but i told them i had no money.(which i really don't have)
i think i know the org you're talking about, and they tried to sell me their newsletter. i declined and then the guy came back five minutes later and gave me one for free anyway ¯_(ツ)_/¯
we really really need an actual marxist party around here
When i first radicalized they were the only org in my geographic area, wondering now if they were the reason they were the only one.
i wouldn't be surprised. if your city is like mine (it might even be mine lol) you'll find a lot of the opposite - people who just do the work and aren't building a party or thinking about growth at all. i tend to hang around that crowd more, and am hoping summer or covid improvement will allow for some organizing
If you call them fightback, you are sadly in the wrong continent.
they've covered for and denied at least one sexual assault within their org, are notoriously bad at working with unions and other groups, and from this post it looks like they've got the same class reductionist shit as your bunch
in my area i don't even know if any of their members are workers; they all look like students to me
Here they explicitly focus on only recruiting students. Apparently to focus on educating them, but the thing is. They never do anything with their orgs. Also ew to the SA. I've been a member for half a year or so and as far as i can see they've done jackshit. I can work with bad theory as long as praxis still happens, but neither is there and they also actively oppose doing anyhting. Sorry for ranting a bit. Thanks for the answer.
Edit:reading that comment from that ex member is like looking in a mirror, thanks for the link.
Sadly their membership frequents my favourite bar, so i'll still see them. (Post-corona)
Let's see what's in the future. i've already been warned that another org around here also is some weird cult.
I was at first thinking of trying a bit longer to convince them to do anything that's not selling papers, but now i don't think i will. as a member i have access to all their planning documents, and it really is just no praxis wanted.
Thinking about sending these links to members to see how they react.
Foucault was a leftist, but he was somewhat anti-Marxist. He left the communist party over the antisemitism and homophobia he encountered, and generally thought that orthodox Marxism was outdated.
Not to say that one shouldn't read Foucault as a Marxist, but there is actually some basis for this one.
Ok, yeah the problem is i do not trust anything theoretical from them anymore,
Edit:i am also just about fed up with orthodox marxism.
they have this eternal hateboner for post-modernism, anything bad is always post-modernism.(also post-colonianism, queer-theory and intersectionality are also post-modernism)
they have this eternal hateboner for post-modernism
[Scooby and gang removes the mask of this group]
Old Man Peterson!?
They also have a problem with queer-theory because it's apparently unscientific and unmaterialistic
I find that's not uncommon for people who are hardcore into orthodoxy. But I don't think all of theory post Marx should just be footnotes on his work, so
They also keep to the marxist model of societal development(written by either marx or engels), with slaveholder societies and stuff.
Which I am skeptical of because it was written in the 1870 or somewhen around there.
Are there better alternatives to it? It seems most Marxists accept that general idea without getting into the details.
I don't quite know, I am just very sceptical because they believe in it and used it to argue that modern slavery doesn't exist because we are past that society. It is also probably extremly eurocentric and from 1860.
I don't think they understand what the model is , if they draw that conclusion from it. Of course slavery can exist a world in which capitalism is the dominate mode of production. Slavery didn't end when feudalism began, and some places remained feudal long after capitalism became commonplace. The point of the divisions in the model is to illustrate the main mode of production, not the only mode of production.
But i would argue that even feudalism is not a good way of describing a lot of systems around the world around the time of european feudalism. It's just a very eurocentric word. Regardless of mode of production, a lot of places were very differently organized.
Well, Marx was European. i don't know how much he knew about the world outside of it. I'm under the impression a complete view of history would require socialism, if not communism. I don't want to pretend Marx knew everything and maybe that's where your org and I differ.
Even for class reductionists these guys sound terrible. I'm sure there's tons of other orgs that would love to have you.
Until this post I thought class reductionists were either A. a lib Twitter term for anyone that focuses on class in any capacity or B. totally made up. :sadness:
I've had a lot of arguemnts with them about it, it is real and a problem.
I imagine if you live somewhere with an org like this, you probably have other local orgs you can join? Also wtf the take about foodbanks, holy shit is helping people really such a problem
Apparently we must focus on growth first, at this stage of the revolution
I just want to be somewhere were the final goal is not just growth(and discussing bad theory) but actually helping people. and vehemently opposing anything that's not just primarily growth oriented.
I often feel like "class reductionism" is just an insult thrown at people who recognize that class is the oppression that we all share. Not this time. This is class reductionism and quite frankly idiotic. Intersectionality is how you form coalitions, and this group doesn't seem to want to do anything.
If you are interested here 's one of their sources.
I argued with them about it, but for them if you are not fighting class and only class you are wasting your time. They always say how intersectionality cripples organizations because they think aknowldeging opression makes people do stupid stuff, i don't get their reasoning to be honest.
I actually agree with a lot of the article. The definitions seem to be different to me, though. I view intersectionality as an inherently Marxist idea, and that liberal views of intersectionality aren't intersectional at all. This source seems to believe that all intersectionality is liberalism, despite talking about intersectionality on their website, i.e, "As reforms are never handed over willingly by the ruling class without a struggle, the best way to win any reform is through mass, militant, and collective action from below that make the bosses and politicians sweat for fear of revolution. The struggle against oppression and for any reform to alleviate it should not just be the responsibility of the group experiencing the particular oppression or discrimination in question, but must involve the whole working class, encompassing all oppressed groups. Men and heterosexual workers have a vested interest in standing up for women’s and LGBTQ rights, white workers must join the struggle against racism, and so on. Our strength is in our unity, and a gain for any layer of the working class is a gain for the whole class and all of the oppressed."
Seems like the members of your party don't understand what intersectionality is and don't follow what they say in their literature.
I tried telling them that, but they just start say that privilege doesn't exist and that they are fundamentaly opposed to intersectionality in their organisation and class is the only thing that matters(no shit, that what was they told me). Other hilarous takes: we are marxists not feminists. We reject feminism(said by a women)
I also noticed that they seem to use post-modernism as a stand-in for lineralism.
If they refuse to change their definition of intersectionality, that's understandable, it's been bastardized by liberals over the past decade. Do talk about how coalition building works, though. Talk about the history of the working class and how reforms have been won. If they still refuse to do anything, it's probably best just to leave.
I will try for a bit more, but i feel that i already am on thin ice for critizising their refusal to do any praxis except handing out fliers at schools and going to protests and also handing out fliers. I also got a bit uncivil when one guy said that, the opinions of lgbt+ don't matter when defining a postition to lgbt+ movements.
It doesn't. Many people in many countries outside the US are like that.
Like I said. Does that matter if they are doing the same thing an op would do?
Maybe I’ve not read enough Marx (I haven’t), but I have trouble completely believing that some opium addict from the 1800s managed to construct a 100% comprehensive worldview that requires absolutely no further considerations beyond it. We can & should read other shit
No gods, no masters. Do not fall for false prophets, nothing is sacred.
Don't fall for false prophets, but actually read what Marx said and understand it before critiquing it. Don't take it as religion. The fundamental issues around value and commodity form and historical materialism are vital and a lot of leftists fall into a false prophet, where their false prophet is ideology that utopians ages ago argued incorrectly and just repeat capitalist positions as socialism.
The account is LiterallySatan so maybe it's a bit. And they, Satan, are our true master. Good advixe though, regardeless
Well, at the very least it took until Lenin to work out the first treatment of Imperialism.
Lenin's treatment isn't exactly original lol outside of taking an established framework and applying it to WW1. He based his essay heavily off of Hilferding and Hobson.
I don't think there are many semi-serious people who believe you shouldn't read anything after Marx, even the most obsessively "orthodox" of Marxists won't go there. The people who do believe that are usually young leftists who have read 5 books and now they think that's pretty much everything.
However, the main reason people stress the importance of Marx etc is that while his theory is far from touching everything relevant, it set a number of very useful principles, like importance of material analysis, materialism vs idealism, scientific socialism vs utopianism, purpose of philosophy is to change the world, primacy of class struggle, etc.
because i hate quitting stuff. helped me with school and shit times, but is now hindering me a bit, but they are getting angrier about my questions and opinions, so I probably don't have a future there anyway.
If you stay, it's just going to make you bitter about the movement and activism. Get out so you can be a better communist.
Yeah, it feels like an op to redirect activists energies into useless busywork. If i did not have the online left to see how it can be i would probably be deradicalised, it's exactly what happened to my uncle when he was active.
So real quick remember the rule for dealing with potential cops in your org.
If they are doing the cops job it doesn't really matter whether or not they actually are.
Does it matter if this org actually an op or not if(you feel) its achieving the same results?
Α couple of these are actually true:
They now try to explain foucault and described him as anti-marxist.
This is mostly true, especially about Foucault at an older age.
They use postmodernism and idealism as some kind of slurs for ideas and all of the above is idealist, only the material ever matters. Idealism is petit-burgoise, post-modern nonsense
Idealism is indeed petit-bourgeois, so is postmodernism FOR THE MOST PART.
ALSO there are some reasons why trying to radicalize people at a foodbank may be a pretty bad idea. The rest is dumb and honestly it sounds like it's not terribly great for you to be in said org.
You are right, but i can't really trust what they are saying anymore, thanks for telling me good to know. i am also just about anti-marxist and about to become an anarchist after these clowns.
They mostly use idealism and post-modernism to dunk on intersectionality and gender-theory and i don't think those are bad parts.
The foodbank originally was more about helping people as an org, the idea was a bit like team building and helping people. But they did not care about helping anyone, only growth, so i brought in that aspekt.
i am also just about anti-marxist and about to become an anarchist after these clowns.
This is the wrong way to react though, it's gonna lead you to a perma-loop of disappointment and disillusionment.
They mostly use idealism and post-modernism to dunk on intersectionality and gender-theory and i don’t think those are bad parts.
These things aren't necessarily idealist. Idealism in general means philosophy that is removed from political practice, and that is anti-materialist, which is why it is reactionary. So the issue isn't that idealism is a good thing, the issue is that they are unfocused in their attacks against various things as idealist that aren't. As for postmodernism, postmodernism is a very general descriptor that can apply to many different things. It doesn't really have a well defined meaning. There are people who usually fall under that label with very useful ideas. But then there's the rest.
A lot of gender theory/postmodern feminist theory etc is indeed idealist and pretty useless. I'm saying that because I've tried to read that sort of stuff and if you try to yourself I think you'll understand why. HOWEVER that doesn't mean it is all like that. But unfortunately academia is mostly dominated by libs, which means you have to look extra hard for the rest of the stuff.
I'm pretty sure you're German (German username and saying "aspekt" instead of "aspect") so something you should know is that the left in most places isn't like the left you see on the internet. This is because the internet is US dominated, and you are getting an image of the left that is skewed towards what it's like in the US. So some of the stuff you brought up which seemed weird to you isn't really weird, it's just that the American left focuses more on these things than the left in other places. So not all of what you said was extremely concerning, but the stuff you brought up about them not wanting to do actual work and just doing their work via distributing flyers (which is terrible practice generally, flyers are supplementary, if they refuse to do work and opt for distributing flyers then it kinda sounds like they prefer to feel like they're doing something just by giving flyers to randos), trying to "educate" people on Marxism instead of trying to produce a mass line or something like that, dismissing all feminism etc as idealist nonsense, these are pretty concerning and maybe you should start looking for something else. Also growth is something that happens when you are doing things right. You shouldn't be trying to "force" growth.
Although you should expect some degree of busywork from any serious org, busywork is unfortunately impossible to avoid because someone's gotta do it.
Yeah, i mean busywork in this context means handing out fliers, making presentations and doing education. I don't really have a problem with any of that and like doing presentations, but that's not why I am a leftist and that's the problem for me. Also they want to do growth first to get and educated core of people before they do anything else, which i told them sounds likea bad idea.
Thanks for explaining the theory and the problems of these to me. I really are having problems seeing which of their takes are wrong and which aren't. Also thanks for pointing out thst there are cultural differences ib leftist orgs, i actuall did not think that that could be a problem for me.
When you say growth, roughly how big are they? Is it like 10 people? Or more like 100?
But yeah, presentations, flyers etc.. Are they trots? They 100% sound like trots lol. You are right though that this kind of stuff is putting the cart before the horse.
I forget who said "It doesn't matter if you're a cop or not if you're doing a cop's job." I'm not saying the org is for sure an op, just that it seems to be doing everything in it's power to be completely ineffective in a way tha makes it hard to distinguish from an op.
I was just thinking how i joined to help people and how my biggest problem there isn't even the bad theory but also the lack of anything close to helping people or praxis in general.
I think i could bite my tongue and work with for example conservatives if we would actually help anyone.
I am pretty sure even the stupidpolers are "class first but not exclusively" when polled. These people sound wild.
Identity is 100% used as a cudgel to divide the working class.
Which is precisely why intersectionality is so important. The entire point of class analysis is to identify mutually shared interests that can be used as the basis for organizing the mass action required to challenge the status quo. Our only strength comes from unified action, so if the enemy is trying to divide you up then you need to fiercely combat that. Class intersects with all oppression, but not everyone's oppression boils down to purely class. If you want to build class solidarity, you need to have skin in the game fighting against all the kinds of oppression that class intersects with.
Your org is so awful it's not even doing my bidding. Leave it.
.... You may have found yourself in a pig pen ... if its all talk, isolation, and actively opposed to action... don't feel bad for ditching.
