I'm an ML, and have been feeling closer to that side as time has gone on, but I wanted to address some things.
I think MLs definitely have a problem of relying too much on history.
I agree in the sense that MLs too often adopt the solutions of past MLs as valid solutions in their time/location. This is anti-Marxist, and I think develops out of a habit to defend Chinese or Soviet leaders/decisions from bad-faith criticism/regurgitation of propaganda.
I would not use the phrasing "relying too much on history" to describe it though. History should absolutely be looked to for guidance, but you must approach history from a scientific perspective, taking care to separate historical material conditions from your own. (I'm an American, so I'll phrase things from that perspective below).
As much as this phrase hurts me to say, American MLs need to start thinking in terms of "Socialism with American characteristics" rather than Soviet Union 2.
The Soviet model will not work in America. The Chinese model will not work in America. The Cuban model will not work in America. The Vietminese model will not work in America. You cannot simply take any of these, scribble out a few parts you don't like, and present it as workable here. Any model must be built from the ground up based on our unique material conditions and culture.
To me, "Socialism with American characteristics" looks a lot more like anarchism than any of the aforementioned models...in large part because the US is already industrialized, so there is less emphasis on building productive power during a (hopefully shorter) transitionary period. I still believe in a vanguard party, the mass line, and dictatorship of the proletariat, but I think a large part of the praxis is going to be based heavily around mutual aid, co-ops, dual-power, and open source software (and its analogues into other areas).
I think that's the trap with reading theory (or pretending to read theory)...tons of shit you see is correctly identified and labelled and the theory makes lots of new logically sound connections you've never made before, so the temptation to just retweet everything is too hard to resist for many people.
History is important, but what I mean is the assumption that past decisions are positive examples. These need to be critically assessed in their original context before even trying to take lessons from them, because sometimes these were disasterous and their lesson is "don't do this". Even if if worked out in the end, we should question it to see if the alternatives may have been better.
Like, there was a discussion here on the Cultural Revolution. Many MLs lept to "Mao did nothing wrong", refusing to engage with the concerns raised. This is definitely a response to the exploitation of the "communist massacre" narrative by reactionaries, but it's also a refusal to engage with their comrades or admit the possibility of legtimate criticism. This is why Tankies are hated by so many people on the "moderate" left. SocDems and the like. Their combative, uncompromising stance often ends up aimed against those who would otherwise be open to radicalization.
When I started exhibiting ML tendencies, it wasn't because any ML had actually convinced me of anything. I felt compelled to defend Stalin because I kept running into centrists and reactionaries who use a falsified image of him to defend Hitler. When I wanted to get an explanation of China's economic system from a tankie, I had to bash through dozens of layers of insults and bad arguments aimed at libs before they'd actually discuss it. They had constructed this narrative where anyone not 100% on board with them was a liberal and unworthy of an actual Marxist analysis of the situation.
100% agreed. Especially with regard to the Cultural Revolution.
There's so much bullshit surrounding any piece of history related to communism, that you cannot have a discussion without essentially being forced to debunk an assload of propaganda. You can't argue the merits of communism with people who believe it starved or murdered hundreds of millions of innocent people. Turns out, having to do that every time you want to discuss your political beliefs makes you much more likely to dismiss real failures as capitalist propaganda.
Their combative, uncompromising stance often ends up aimed against those who would otherwise be open to radicalization.
I agree, but this is exactly how I feel about anarchists and any socialist project that has a state...Except their uncompromising stance against the state wins them favor with the normies/libs, instead of hurts it. MLs must not only present communist ideology as a positive, but also convince you that the effects of historical socialism were a net positive and justify vanguard parties/DotP. It's a hell of a lot easier to be combative and not be hated when you can just be like "nah, we don't want it like that" whenever the USSR or China is mentioned vs. having to debunk like 15 pop-fiction beliefs on the Soviets before getting to your point.
When I wanted to get an explanation of China’s economic system from a tankie, I had to bash through dozens of layers of insults and bad arguments aimed at libs before they’d actually discuss it. They had constructed this narrative where anyone not 100% on board with them was a liberal and unworthy of an actual Marxist analysis of the situation.
This is 100% exacerbated by the internet. In most forums, esp reddit, you cannot possibly vet everyone who comes into your replies, most of which are just dipshits repeating the "venezuela no iphone", "100 quadrillion starved", & "not real communism!!1" tropes. This makes productive discussion hard af anywhere that isn't a dedicated space for leftists. Anarchists deal with it too, but to a lesser extent bc their ideology allows them to never engage the falsehoods about the USSR, China, or Cuba.
I still peruse the same anarchist spaces I used to. I see substantially more hostility to "tankies" from anarchists than vice versa...especially in the past year. It feels like an op.
I love discussing things w/ anarchists, but Bernie dropping out and BLM protests have caused a huge influx of liberals who like radical aesthetics to adopt the "anarchist" label. Tons of internet "anarchists" will praise Chomsky in one sentence, then uncritically repeat US State Dept. propaganda in the next when the topic is any irl socialist project. Ironically, I've had to outline Manufacturing Consent like a hundred times to reddit "anarchists". I have never once had this problem with offline anarchists. Most of them just have some valid skepticism surrounding vanguardism/DotP...which is completely reasonable.
Anarchists here are SO MUCH FUCKING BETTER at both engaging in good faith, but also deciphering propaganda.
I love talking about the failures of communist projects because its fascinating and allows us to truly explore ideas beyond mere regurgitation...so long as I'm assured the people I'm talking with appropriately understand the context. Why would I choose to talk about communist failures knowing 90% of the audience is just going to add that info to their bank of "why communism bad" quips? I refrain from saying anything that discourages anti-capitalist thought. Most critique of the Soviets or Chinese does more to reinforce belief in capitalism than it does to win over non-comrades...so I shut the fuck up. I'll discuss anything with people who will engage in good faith, especially anarchists, and demsocs, but anyone who calls me a "CCP shill" is getting cyberbullied.
I've found that while posting isn't praxis, it is a useful way to expose people to ideas they may not have considered. Successfully got several redditors to concede that CEOs are not more inherently doing more work than any other worker and opened the door to radicalization by linking that video essay that goes into excruciatingly deep detail (with evidence) that capitalism isn't good at doing business.
I'm an ML, and have been feeling closer to that side as time has gone on, but I wanted to address some things.
I agree in the sense that MLs too often adopt the solutions of past MLs as valid solutions in their time/location. This is anti-Marxist, and I think develops out of a habit to defend Chinese or Soviet leaders/decisions from bad-faith criticism/regurgitation of propaganda.
I would not use the phrasing "relying too much on history" to describe it though. History should absolutely be looked to for guidance, but you must approach history from a scientific perspective, taking care to separate historical material conditions from your own. (I'm an American, so I'll phrase things from that perspective below).
As much as this phrase hurts me to say, American MLs need to start thinking in terms of "Socialism with American characteristics" rather than Soviet Union 2.
The Soviet model will not work in America. The Chinese model will not work in America. The Cuban model will not work in America. The Vietminese model will not work in America. You cannot simply take any of these, scribble out a few parts you don't like, and present it as workable here. Any model must be built from the ground up based on our unique material conditions and culture.
To me, "Socialism with American characteristics" looks a lot more like anarchism than any of the aforementioned models...in large part because the US is already industrialized, so there is less emphasis on building productive power during a (hopefully shorter) transitionary period. I still believe in a vanguard party, the mass line, and dictatorship of the proletariat, but I think a large part of the praxis is going to be based heavily around mutual aid, co-ops, dual-power, and open source software (and its analogues into other areas).
I think that's the trap with reading theory (or pretending to read theory)...tons of shit you see is correctly identified and labelled and the theory makes lots of new logically sound connections you've never made before, so the temptation to just retweet everything is too hard to resist for many people.
History is important, but what I mean is the assumption that past decisions are positive examples. These need to be critically assessed in their original context before even trying to take lessons from them, because sometimes these were disasterous and their lesson is "don't do this". Even if if worked out in the end, we should question it to see if the alternatives may have been better.
Like, there was a discussion here on the Cultural Revolution. Many MLs lept to "Mao did nothing wrong", refusing to engage with the concerns raised. This is definitely a response to the exploitation of the "communist massacre" narrative by reactionaries, but it's also a refusal to engage with their comrades or admit the possibility of legtimate criticism. This is why Tankies are hated by so many people on the "moderate" left. SocDems and the like. Their combative, uncompromising stance often ends up aimed against those who would otherwise be open to radicalization.
When I started exhibiting ML tendencies, it wasn't because any ML had actually convinced me of anything. I felt compelled to defend Stalin because I kept running into centrists and reactionaries who use a falsified image of him to defend Hitler. When I wanted to get an explanation of China's economic system from a tankie, I had to bash through dozens of layers of insults and bad arguments aimed at libs before they'd actually discuss it. They had constructed this narrative where anyone not 100% on board with them was a liberal and unworthy of an actual Marxist analysis of the situation.
100% agreed. Especially with regard to the Cultural Revolution.
There's so much bullshit surrounding any piece of history related to communism, that you cannot have a discussion without essentially being forced to debunk an assload of propaganda. You can't argue the merits of communism with people who believe it starved or murdered hundreds of millions of innocent people. Turns out, having to do that every time you want to discuss your political beliefs makes you much more likely to dismiss real failures as capitalist propaganda.
I agree, but this is exactly how I feel about anarchists and any socialist project that has a state...Except their uncompromising stance against the state wins them favor with the normies/libs, instead of hurts it. MLs must not only present communist ideology as a positive, but also convince you that the effects of historical socialism were a net positive and justify vanguard parties/DotP. It's a hell of a lot easier to be combative and not be hated when you can just be like "nah, we don't want it like that" whenever the USSR or China is mentioned vs. having to debunk like 15 pop-fiction beliefs on the Soviets before getting to your point.
This is 100% exacerbated by the internet. In most forums, esp reddit, you cannot possibly vet everyone who comes into your replies, most of which are just dipshits repeating the "venezuela no iphone", "100 quadrillion starved", & "not real communism!!1" tropes. This makes productive discussion hard af anywhere that isn't a dedicated space for leftists. Anarchists deal with it too, but to a lesser extent bc their ideology allows them to never engage the falsehoods about the USSR, China, or Cuba.
I still peruse the same anarchist spaces I used to. I see substantially more hostility to "tankies" from anarchists than vice versa...especially in the past year. It feels like an op.
I love discussing things w/ anarchists, but Bernie dropping out and BLM protests have caused a huge influx of liberals who like radical aesthetics to adopt the "anarchist" label. Tons of internet "anarchists" will praise Chomsky in one sentence, then uncritically repeat US State Dept. propaganda in the next when the topic is any irl socialist project. Ironically, I've had to outline Manufacturing Consent like a hundred times to reddit "anarchists". I have never once had this problem with offline anarchists. Most of them just have some valid skepticism surrounding vanguardism/DotP...which is completely reasonable.
Anarchists here are SO MUCH FUCKING BETTER at both engaging in good faith, but also deciphering propaganda.
I love talking about the failures of communist projects because its fascinating and allows us to truly explore ideas beyond mere regurgitation...so long as I'm assured the people I'm talking with appropriately understand the context. Why would I choose to talk about communist failures knowing 90% of the audience is just going to add that info to their bank of "why communism bad" quips? I refrain from saying anything that discourages anti-capitalist thought. Most critique of the Soviets or Chinese does more to reinforce belief in capitalism than it does to win over non-comrades...so I shut the fuck up. I'll discuss anything with people who will engage in good faith, especially anarchists, and demsocs, but anyone who calls me a "CCP shill" is getting cyberbullied.
I've found that while posting isn't praxis, it is a useful way to expose people to ideas they may not have considered. Successfully got several redditors to concede that CEOs are not more inherently doing more work than any other worker and opened the door to radicalization by linking that video essay that goes into excruciatingly deep detail (with evidence) that capitalism isn't good at doing business.