I won’t speak for Geneva (Geneva isn’t a Marxist) but Marxists advocate for revolutionary party building. You can’t force a revolution into happening, but you can absolutely prepare for one and build the organ needed to carry it out. Herr’s a good diagram:
This explains the role of the party in forming a vanguard. This is the historically proven revolutionary strategy that has established socialism in many countries around the world.
You do condemn those fighting the empire, though. That’s why it’s necessary to both read and practice, not coast by on instinct alone. You have decent political instincts, but instead you obsess over Bad Empanada thought and treat it as a substitute for reading, and posting as a substitute for practice. It’s ultimately online progressivism at best, and is why it rings extraordinarily hollow when coming from you, especially as you haven’t given any indication of reading or practicing, let alone both.
So in other words you do nothing except write quippy comments on the internet.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo, you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
You aren’t talking to a Marxist-Leninist, Geneva doesn’t identify as such and does not read theory nor practice in a communist party. I do think Geneva’s critique rings hollow, considering that.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
This is bullshit. MLs say we need to act and think more, and do so by organizing in communist parties. From the Black Panther Party to PSL in the US, communist parties have been doing real organizing work, and that’s not to mention the orgs that have already succeeded like the CPC.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo
This is blind, vibes-based critique. “Authoritarian mindset” isn’t a thing. The problems with organizing in the west are not due to lacking in imagination, to the contrary, western “left” anti-communists let their imagination lead them to opposing real, existing socialism.
you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
This is further bullshit. Marxists of the past that successfully established socialism weren’t “pretending” to do so. Ironically, it’s yourself that is idealizing them into “Great Men of History,” and cutting out the billions of people that organized to create real socialism. MLs do not idolize Marxist figures, we study them, their contributions, their struggles, their successes and their failures, so that we can continue to sharpen our theory to guide our practice. Marxism is a science, not a dogma.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
I agree, though most of us that are committed enough are already organizing in real life too.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics. Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Its a common thing with the .ml to identity an issue and not act due to purity politics.
No? Marxists argue against purity politics all the time. “Left” anti-communism on the basis of existing socialist states not being perfect wonderlands is one of the biggest problems we have to tackle. Whenever a socialist country makes an error, or has not yet sufficiently advanced to the point of erasing problems caused due to uneven development, this is used as evidence that said socialist country is unworthy of support and therefore imperialist aggression is passively justified. MLs must relentlessly combat this.
Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).
Rejecting electoralism as a viable path does not mean doing so on the basis of “purity,” but practicality. Vote in the primaries all you want, the ML argument isn’t that this will make you “sinful,” but that it won’t ever be capable of enacting the change that is necessary.
If I need to change a lightbulb 20 feet in the air, and you come with a 4 foot stepladder, the lightbulb isn’t changing even if you get closer. You have to drive to the hardware store, buy the 20 foot ladder, take it back, set it up, and then change the lightbulb. The stepladder being closer doesn’t actually mean it gets you closer to your goal, that path is a dead-end to begin with, you cannot raise that 4 foot stepladder to a 20 foot lightbulb.
We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
Sure, and studying theory and applying it to our practice tells us what strategies actually work in the short and long term.
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about.
China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with “purity,” and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election.
No Marxist gives a shit about “purity.” Marx laughed at “moralists,” because that’s not how Marxists see the world. We don’t give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Again, you haven’t proven any of your points on “purity.” I don’t know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it’s “impure.” Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela’s democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela’s Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It’s about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I’ve been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is “Great Man Theory.”
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting?
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness. Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle. Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too. Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position?
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
Condemning the world’s largest resistance in its fight against the empire because of some “theoretical future” where Anarchists once again are incapable of organising any armed uprising because they don’t have a leadership structure is the only thing that happens.
Some people want a revolution and some people want their community fed. These are not mutually exclusive and I’m happy people are doing anything at all instead of hooking themselves up to the short form content IV every night like the vast majority.
Usually, both Marxists and anarchists are aligned on believing systemic change is necessary, not just individual and local charity to patch holes in the existing system.
That’s cool and all but that’s local tier good-samaritan stuff. While it’s good, it will never overthrow the system.
OK, so what are you doing to make a revolution happen?
I won’t speak for Geneva (Geneva isn’t a Marxist) but Marxists advocate for revolutionary party building. You can’t force a revolution into happening, but you can absolutely prepare for one and build the organ needed to carry it out. Herr’s a good diagram:
This explains the role of the party in forming a vanguard. This is the historically proven revolutionary strategy that has established socialism in many countries around the world.
I’m not condemning those actually fighting the empire for a start.
You do condemn those fighting the empire, though. That’s why it’s necessary to both read and practice, not coast by on instinct alone. You have decent political instincts, but instead you obsess over Bad Empanada thought and treat it as a substitute for reading, and posting as a substitute for practice. It’s ultimately online progressivism at best, and is why it rings extraordinarily hollow when coming from you, especially as you haven’t given any indication of reading or practicing, let alone both.
So in other words you do nothing except write quippy comments on the internet.
That pretty much confirms my personal stereotypes on Marxist Lenninists. Talk constantly about how we need to act more and think less to achieve something while simultaneously doing nothing to enact positive change in the world.
You guys are stuck in the authoritarian mindset, just like capitalists are stuck in the capitalist mindset. You can’t imagine any real alternative to the status quo, you just idealize people that pretended to do so in the past (Lennin, Stalin, Mao). But power and exploitation is still just that. Regardless of if private oligarchs enact it or the state.
You people need to grow up and actually try to do something that changes the world for the better, not just argue with anarchists online.
You aren’t talking to a Marxist-Leninist, Geneva doesn’t identify as such and does not read theory nor practice in a communist party. I do think Geneva’s critique rings hollow, considering that.
This is bullshit. MLs say we need to act and think more, and do so by organizing in communist parties. From the Black Panther Party to PSL in the US, communist parties have been doing real organizing work, and that’s not to mention the orgs that have already succeeded like the CPC.
This is blind, vibes-based critique. “Authoritarian mindset” isn’t a thing. The problems with organizing in the west are not due to lacking in imagination, to the contrary, western “left” anti-communists let their imagination lead them to opposing real, existing socialism.
This is further bullshit. Marxists of the past that successfully established socialism weren’t “pretending” to do so. Ironically, it’s yourself that is idealizing them into “Great Men of History,” and cutting out the billions of people that organized to create real socialism. MLs do not idolize Marxist figures, we study them, their contributions, their struggles, their successes and their failures, so that we can continue to sharpen our theory to guide our practice. Marxism is a science, not a dogma.
I agree, though most of us that are committed enough are already organizing in real life too.
So in other words you like to conclude a lot from no info of what I do.
Anarchists try to not pretend to have the moral high ground while doing absolutely nothing to fight the empire difficulty level: impossible.
Answer my question then.
What idiot would snitch on their own activities for online karma points? Wait let me guess: Anarchists.
It’s absurd to not help someone now because you could also do something highly theoretical and better in the future. Both things should happen.
Its a common thing with the
.mlto identity an issue and not act due to purity politics. Ask them about voting in primaries (pushing an existing party left or forming their own).We can do multiple things at once. Some for the short others for the long term.
No? Marxists argue against purity politics all the time. “Left” anti-communism on the basis of existing socialist states not being perfect wonderlands is one of the biggest problems we have to tackle. Whenever a socialist country makes an error, or has not yet sufficiently advanced to the point of erasing problems caused due to uneven development, this is used as evidence that said socialist country is unworthy of support and therefore imperialist aggression is passively justified. MLs must relentlessly combat this.
Rejecting electoralism as a viable path does not mean doing so on the basis of “purity,” but practicality. Vote in the primaries all you want, the ML argument isn’t that this will make you “sinful,” but that it won’t ever be capable of enacting the change that is necessary.
If I need to change a lightbulb 20 feet in the air, and you come with a 4 foot stepladder, the lightbulb isn’t changing even if you get closer. You have to drive to the hardware store, buy the 20 foot ladder, take it back, set it up, and then change the lightbulb. The stepladder being closer doesn’t actually mean it gets you closer to your goal, that path is a dead-end to begin with, you cannot raise that 4 foot stepladder to a 20 foot lightbulb.
Sure, and studying theory and applying it to our practice tells us what strategies actually work in the short and long term.
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that
mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it standsmltypes won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with “purity,” and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
No Marxist gives a shit about “purity.” Marx laughed at “moralists,” because that’s not how Marxists see the world. We don’t give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
Again, you haven’t proven any of your points on “purity.” I don’t know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it’s “impure.” Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela’s democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela’s Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It’s about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I’ve been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is “Great Man Theory.”
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness. Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle. Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too. Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
Condemning the world’s largest resistance in its fight against the empire because of some “theoretical future” where Anarchists once again are incapable of organising any armed uprising because they don’t have a leadership structure is the only thing that happens.
Some people want a revolution and some people want their community fed. These are not mutually exclusive and I’m happy people are doing anything at all instead of hooking themselves up to the short form content IV every night like the vast majority.
What do you think anarchism is all about…?
Usually, both Marxists and anarchists are aligned on believing systemic change is necessary, not just individual and local charity to patch holes in the existing system.
Failing to overthrow the system