3 full-length video essays done and dusted. We're going to keep up this momentum in September with new videos dropping on Friday the 16th, the 23rd and the 30th. Next up: the life and teachings of Che Guevara specifically from a MLM perspective
OMG I have just begun learning about Che Guevara :) I get chills watching him and seeing him. Looking forward to your videos!!!! Good to see people portraying the raw history, the revolutionaries the socialists. We need to get rid of the outmoded imperialism.
From my perspective, the most important element of Left Unity is recognizing that even if we disagree with each other's tactics and ideas, Leftists with different leanings are not so starkly opposed as we all are to the Right, and shouldn't be positioning ourselves as opponents until that shared enemy is defeated. What this means in practice isn't that we shouldn't criticize each other's ideas or argue in favor of different strategies, but that we should respect gains made through different strategies (i.e. whether it's Anarchists or Marxists initiating a revolution in a given area, people of the opposite tendency should wish them the best and follow their strategic lead in that area until Capitalism is abolished; similarly, successful elections of Democratic Socialists should be viewed as possible steps in the right direction even if we doubt the long-term effectiveness of a reformist strategy), compromise where viable (i.e. Revolutionaries backing Reformists when our numbers aren't sufficient for Revolution, Anarchists and Marxists agreeing to blend aspects of our ideals together through models like Democratic Confederalism, Reformists in positions of power listening to policy suggestions from Revolutionaries, etc. depending on what tendencies are strongest in a given area), and under absolutely no circumstances should we direct our attentions toward fighting each other while Rightists are still an active threat (i.e. Even if you think Reform is better than Revolution you don't send in Reactionaries to kill Rosa Luxembourg, even if you think Reformists kill revolutionary momentum you don't target them while Nazis are gaining seats, even if you think Anarchism has no potential for success you don't attack Anarchist experiments instead of the states they oppose, even if you think the state can never bring about Communism you don't try to sabotage any ML states while Capitalist ones still exist, etc.). We can't always hold to these ideals because they only work if they're universal (i.e. if DemSocs are like "fuck Left Unity" and decide to direct state power to repress Revolutionaries, Revolutionaries can't ignore it), but if we all held them as ideals I believe it would substancially increase our likelihood of defeating Capitalism. Once Capitalism isn't the dominant world order, then we can all start accusing each other of hindering the progression toward Communism.
There is a crucial flaw in the very analysis of "Leftism" and "Rightism", this are part of a bourgeois framework of politics devoid of materialist understanding. Social Democrats do not share any actual goal with communists/anarchists, their objective, their very political project consists of maintaining capitalism and class society through state intervention on the economy, they are opposed to communism and are not allies, they are in fact just the left leg of the bourgeois democratic regimes, deceiving the working class and stalling revolution. We must look at the class interests beneath all these different political groups to understand and form coherent tactics, socdems/demsocs represent the interests of the labor aristocracy and the lower levels of the bourgeoisie, anarchists and marxists represent the interests of the proletariat, both are antagonic, there is no long term unity or support that can last beyond small and puntual actions and demands, they are class enemies at the end of the day.
@@nopasaran7534 You're correct that the line between "left" and "right" is often an arbitrary division between Bourgeois factions, but in this case I am strictly using the terms to distinguish between supporters of Socialism and Capitalism, respectively. Note that I said Democratic Socialists, not Social Democrats; I was referring to those who believe Socialism can be achieved via electoral politics and reforms, not people who want to make Capitalism more comfortable and call it a day. Now, members of this former group often become members of the latter when in power due to the pressures of Bourgeois politics, but as long as they remain principled, we can work with them to weaken global capitalist influence, even to further the aims of revolution (for example, Demsocs (or even Liberals in some cases) can electorally help to push back against anti-Union policies, allowing for labor organizing that forms a pillar of certain revolutionary strategies).
One criticism I've heard of "let's not fight each other until we defeat capitalism", from the perspective of anarchists, is that anarchists have seen persecution from communist parties. Anarchists, therefore, would not be interested in supporting an ML state or something which may create an ML state. I can certainly understand the position of not wanting to replace capitalism with a state that would lock me up. How would we resolve the contradiction there?
@@ThomasBomb45 Excellent question. My take on things is that both anarchists and ML's are in a paradoxical relationship. Both are right in some ways and both are wrong in other ways. ML's, in my opinion, accurately asses the magnitude of the enemy, capitalism. Others don't. This includes the anarchists as far as I can tell. ML's understand that the struggle demands organization within their ranks and organizing the larger population outside their ranks. ML's understand that the pro-capitalist general population is extremely biased against socialism and will use anything to create and legitimize a straw man. This means that the organizing efforts by ML's are constricted by capitalist society to such a large degree that the window of opportunity for effective opportunity must come from failures by capitalism. ML's can't create the conditions for effective organizing alone. Capitalism's failures must make a large contribution in order create enough people who need revolutionary change. What ML's don't do well, in my opinion, is they don't understand that people are not vehicles for social mechanics. People are complex and emotional. People want fairness for themselves and others, but are too brainwashed to see what their conditions are, much less how to change them. In come the ML's at this point again. ML's understand what our social conditions are and what it takes to make real change. Anarchists don't seem to have a handle on this, yet. Anarchists understand the magical, mystical side of life. ML's don't. Bah humbug on them. Anarchists come across as privileged bourgeois babies, ML's do not, although the American media deliberately conflates ML's and anarchists because Americans have a deep rooted case of Protestant Work Ethic - Stockholm Syndrome that makes them behave like robots whenever the media scapegoats "lazy" people. I'll leave this issue to rest, because it's too deep to sum up in a paragraph. We need ML's to be the bulldozers and we need the anarchists to guarantee civil liberties once the bulldozers have done their job. We need both groups. I have a quick way of summing up the difference between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists say, "Show me what you are, and I'll show you who you are," meaning that social class determines what kind of person one is more than any other factor. Anarchists say, "Show me who you are, and I'll show you what you are," meaning an open minded honest person who isn't afraid to make themselves vulnerable and wants others to do the same can be from any social class or background, and that person will no doubt a socialist.
I run a Food Not Bombs chapter, and we get folks from all over the spectrum helping us: we've had ancoms, MLs and a Ho Chi Minh Thought advocate help out. Left unity is absolutely possible if you focus on a goal.
Folks who actually show up and do things usually don't go online bashing "tankies" or "anarkiddies", because they know how hard it is to get folks out and doing tangible good in their communities. FNB is a perfect example of left solidarity in action.
I volunteer at an anarchist activist space (the sumac centre nottingham UK) . Because it's a space specifically for all kinds of left grassroots capeigns we get people with all kinds of political ideas. Recently the vegans have been feeding nurses soup, teas and coffee on their strike pickets. Extinction rebellion had a solidarity presence at the recent strike rally too. The anarchist punks support the vegan fundraing events for rehoming abused and resuced animals. Every politcal left persuasion volunteers with me on the non profit members bar, we can all literally sit down and have a pint together and be friends. We respect each other and our work. One of my tankie friends loves the anarchist book fair. Lots of socialists help out with organising the green festival. We can make a great community when we want to.
I certainly hope that the beliefs that are communicated in this video are heartfelt, and acknowledge that no single person who exists now, or in the past, is above criticism and self-criticism. Our beliefs are always evolving as we learn. Today's social democrat may be tomorrow's marxist or anarchist. Your outlook changes as you are exposed to new ideas.
Another example of single cause unity in Ireland is Repeal. The Abortion Rights Campaign uses anarchist organising principles and are quite radical in terms of final goals for abortion access in Ireland. But prior to the referendum also had the largest and most motivated grassroots activist network. It was recognised from a few points that a single, broad group to fight the Yes side of the campaign was needed, similar to Yes Equality was for marriage equality, and the more liberal elements of the pro-choice movement began to form that while also coming to the conclusion that they needed ARC on-board. From our side of things, we recognised that the decision-making process inside ARC was democratic, it was also slow to move as a result of communication between the steering group and working and regional groups defaulted to monthly meetings. So ARC held an emergency meeting to ask the general membership if we wanted to support the referendum as a whole, with the understanding that the proposed legislation would not go as far as we wanted, and would we be willing to join the broader Yes campaign with the understanding that it would mean having to set aside other normal principles and voting process, instead trusting our representative co-chairperson to stand up for our rights and principles in a far more horizontal organisation. Both votes came back 100% yes. And while the campaign had its problems, we did win the referendum and ARC keeps fighting for better abortion access and reproductive rights.
On the question of who to be friends with... be friends with all people who have values which basically align with your own. You can learn much from people with different perspectives and similar values and they can learn much from you. But not only that having friends and people who care about you and people to care about will make you a better revolutionary.
Great video as always, comrade! But in this one, and the last 5 or 6 before that, you have really outdone yourself. Looks like you're getting better all the time. O7! Workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite!
@@Marxism_Today Well, you certainly managed to do that. Keep it up. But watch out for yourself and your health in the process. You and your work are highly appreciated.
While to non Marxists and even some Marxists. Stalin is a very controversial figure. However he penned and excellent essay on Marxism and anarchism in regards to unity. He disagreed. That being said I haven't watched the video yet so it might just be mentioned. Edit: it was not but took the United front approach which is fine. At least until after the revolution or during in the case of Spain and Russia. Say what you will about stalin but the man clearly deeply understood Marxism if you take even a cursory glance at his writings. He also saw himself as a student of Lenin while Trotsky saw himself as on par and his successor. Stalin saw Lenin as his better and only attempted to expand or further explain Lenin like Engels with marx.
Another outstanding video! You never disappoint! I am all for left unity unless that means that we, as MLM's, have to water down our ideology and just be happy with slightly reforming the system. But we should definitely work with other leftists on causes we can all agree on.
First part of the video i completely agree with on united fronts, however i think i disagree with certain points made in the second part. It was said that a revolution requires a revolutionary party which is well versed in marxist leninist theory to lead it. while i think theory is valuable, i also think that not everyone has the ability to study theory, and the people who have the greatest ability to study theory are those who come from more materially fortunate backgrounds. Therefore, i think that to choose our vanguard for leading and directing a revolution we should consider each person on a case by case basis and take many more factors into account than just their knowledge of marxist theory. For instance i think a leader with deep roots in their local community, deep feelings of class consciousness and an intuition for intersectionality should be considered a better choice than a rich kid with just a deep understanding of theory
question : how does the revolutionary state formed by the workers not strenghten over time ? it would be in the personal intrest of those who work in the state apparatus to make it stronger if they stay there for any lenght of time
To answer your question: you’re right. States will ALWAYS seek to increase their power or at least keep the power they currently have. States have never dissolved themselves, they must be smashed by revolutionary movements. States will never abolish themselves and create Communism.
@@DrAnarchy69 A proletarian state increasing its power is a good thing, it means it is more stable, more easily able to keep reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries in check, and is more equipped to defend itself against imperialism. A strong proletarian state means a strong proletariat. The state cannot be abolished until there is no more threat to the revolution, i.e. until imperialism and capitalism have been dismantled globally and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established in all countries. Then the elements of the state that cease to have a function to fulfill will wither away, while the elements which still fulfill a useful and necessary role in organizing society and production will remain though at that point they can no longer be called a state. Communism cannot be created overnight, it takes decades and decades of work building up the productive forces of a society in the process of socialist construction even under conditions where no external threat exists anymore. It takes generations for the diseased mentality and degenerate culture of capitalism to be eradicated from a society. To not veer away from the revolutionary path regular purges (aka "anti-corruption campaigns") are necessary within the ranks of the vanguard such that it is free of revisionists, opportunists and liquidators (like those who dismantled the Soviet Union after it stopped purging traitors out of the ranks of the party) who would seek to restore bourgeois rule.
for the state to be working for the benefit on itself is to imply it cannot be held democratically accountable for its actions, as Rosa Luxemburg once said, "there is no socialism without democracy" a dictatorship (in the conventional sense) or oligarchy will simply strengthen themselves, a worker's democracy will do what the workers approve of whether that's strengthening or weakening the state
hey I'm a budding marxist youtuber, and this video is giving me a lot to think about and interrogate. Thanks for the highly informative and insightful issue
@@lochnessmunster1189 that’s a petit bourgeois business, a guy who’ll probably be crushed during the next economic downturn. Or we’re talking about a massive business that exploited labour to build, ship and maintain those machines. Even in the magical world you’re painting value comes from a guy working and using those machines.
@@lochnessmunster1189 I can make up stupid stuff too. What if the owner of the business has a perpetual motion machine because he doesn’t believe in the law of thermodynamics? To answer your earlier question value comes from the guy working on the machine and from all the people who build, maintaining, design and or transport it. Also I’ve got another dumb scenario, what if the owner of the business is a machine like an iPhone or a blender ?
Even if there's no "left" in america (have to disagree on that, despite the flaws of many american orgs), theres still a large and growing number of leftists. The progress of revolutionary organizing in north america is several steps behind many other projects, but that only means more effort and discipline is needed. The disunity of the modern western Left was deliberately encouraged and inflamed for *decades* by the forces of capital (mainly thru intelligence agencies), meaning our current fractured state is completely unnatural. Knowing that, I think our goal in north america should be to assess our situation as thoroughly as possible, analyze any split or contradiction we face between orgs, and bridge the gap by eliminating any unnecessary splits we can. To do that, I believe we need as much dialogue and collaboration (not just antagonistic "debate" streams) between serious left-wing orgs as possible. If any 2 parties can come together in conversations, analyze their shared conditions, and conclude that a split is unnecessary, eliminating said split should be a top priority. If we start with the least-wanted/most trivial divides between organizers, bring some orgs together, publicize that unity to the wider left, and repeat, then I genuinely think a general drive towards unity of action could gain momentum. It's been a long fight and there's a lot of work ahead, but I'm dead-set on saving our movement and urge everyone reading to take action
While I understand what you’re saying around unity for one specific cause, I don’t agree with the first goal being “always trying to convince people to come to your side” type of thing. Especially when you’re dealing with minorities struggle and protest. Fighting against racism is FONDAMENTAL and I believe that trying to convince someone about your political views, even if they could benefits greatly from coming along, in the moment their fighting for their life basically, can come across as opportunist and not genuine. I will argue reading the context very well and understand what you’re doing, why and to benefit who. For me fighting against racism should be a core principle, not only a mean to bring people to your side. I’m not at all saying that this video specifically say anything like that, but I’ve seen a lot of people joyning action only to gain attention or access to an audience. People who struggle come first than belief, and if you don’t share my exact political view but you’re marginalized I would fight for you. I can guarantee everybody that real solidarity, mutual aid and clear action and intent do a lot of convincing. Sure, bring educational material, make contacts, create bridge and provide access to information and resources whenever you can.
Kick ass video! I especially liked the ending 2 lines. Don't look at it like can I be friends with x but consider it through strategic organizing and revolutionary principles. I'm sort of an ignorant revolutionary leftist and find aspects of both communist Marxists and anarchists to be very appealing.
As a person whose not as informed on these topics i would like to know how marxists-leninists feel about anarcho-communists and if the methods and and goals are the same or at least compatible. Also, amazing video as always.
TL;DR Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism are fundamentally different in some ways, but there is crossover between the two in strategies and goals, theorists of both tendencies have drawn from each other in the past, and while MLs and Anarchists often have negative views of each other for reasons both justified and less-so, there's a lot of potential for reconciliation, collaboration, and compromise if we listen to each other as comrades. In some matters, MLs and Anarchists are fundamentally and seemingly irreconcilably opposed - MLs think the State can be seized and directed toward the advancement of Socialism (and in fact consider this a necessary part of the transition), while Anarchists generally believe that the state must be torn down with the same priority as Capitalism. As such, MLs and Anarchists often consider each other enemies, and some of their methods and goals are diametrically opposed. However, both can and do draw from some of the same methods, and their ultimate goals are similar (not all Anarchists are Communist, but many are, and those who aren't are still anti-Capitalist). For example, as both are Worker driven movements, both may use labor unions as a major component in revolutionary organizing, and may use strategies related to Unions in the Revolution (for example, general strikes). The original Soviet System, which was ultimately repressed in the USSR for reasons of Centralization but played a major role in Lenin's ideals of governance, heavily resembled the Anarcho-Syndicalist model of governance and economic management favored by many Anarchists. Additionally, some opposition between MLs and Anarchists is rooted more in semantics than actual strategy; for example, Marxists tend to use the term "state" in a slightly broader way than Anarchists, so some Marxist/Anarchist arguments involve a lot of talking past each other (i.e. the Marxists will argue the "state" is needed for something, when the Anarchists would call the same organization a "government" but not a "state"). Revolutionary Catalonia, an Anarchist experiment, had a lot in common with the early USSR's system of organization, doing many similar things, but these similarities often get ignored because the terminology and framing was different in each case (note that ML is not the same as the Leninism of the early Soviet Union, and the evolution of Leninism into Marxism-Leninism deepened some divides between itself and Anarchism, but the point stands that some differences are not as stark as theoretical texts would suggest). It is also fully possible for Anarchists and MLs to draw from each other; for example, Mao drew heavily from the Chinese Anarchist movement, and Anarchists drew from Leninism to develop their model of Platformism (which developed out of critiques of the Leninist Vanguard Party, serving a similar role in slightly different ways). There is also the ideology of Democratic Confederalism, which is a synthesis of Anarchist and ML principles, which I personally think has great potential (it allows for the existence of non-state governance within autonomous zones of a broader state, which I think could do a lot to draw from the strengths of both Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism to address the weaknesses of each). So, while some factors of ML and Anarchist ideology are irreconcilable, there is potential for people of both tendencies to collaborate, draw from each other, and compromise, rather than being quite as sharply divided as people of both tendencies usually think.
@@SomasAcademy Do you think that the contradictions between Marxists and anarchists would or even have in the past led them to work against their own anti-capitalist goals to sabotage potential gains by the other side? Basically a left analogy to the inter-proletariot conflict between different SES classes?
@@jeffisfine There are historical examples of Anarchists and MLs working against each other in ways that directly hindered their anti-Capitalist goals, yes, though I believe this is driven more by ideological factors - the narcissism of small differences - rather than actual contradictions. On my channel I have a video about the Chinese Anarchist movement (which I plan to cover in more depth later); they're an excellent example, as despite being Communists and Anti-Authoritarians, they were so put off by the Bolshevists (this was before Marxism-Leninism was synthesized) of the CCP that they worked with the Authoritarian, Anti-Communist Right-Wing of the KMT against them. And on the other hand, the MLs of the USSR sabotaged their own Anarchist allies during the Spanish Civil War, contributing to the success of the Nationalists, as well as crushing the Anarchists of Ukraine, and even suppressing Anarchistic labor organizing within their own borders to consolidate power after the Revolution (which I think was to their detriment long term, as well as directly contrary to the ideals of worker's liberation). These are impulses which I think we must overcome if the working class is ever going to achieve liberation.
@@SomasAcademy Thanks for the info. I'll definitely check out that video and others on your channel. I didn't know that China had an Anarchist movement back during that time, but it makes sense.
@@jeffisfine Oh yes, it's an interesting topic. Anarchism was actually quite popular in East Asia during the early 20th century, to the point where it was almost synonymous with Revolutionary Socialism. Marxism was largely spread in East Asia by Anarchists, and was actually believed to be a moderate, reformist alternative to Anarchism by many, surprising as that may sound. Mao Zedong studied Anarchism and Marxism alongside each other (and incorporated some Anarchist ideals into his own ideology; some of the major areas where MZT differs from ML are places where it was probably influenced by Anarchists, like the greater emphasis on the Peasantry as a revolutionary force), and many later CCP leaders got their start in the Anarchist movement. Marxism (more specifically Leninism) only overtook Anarchism in popularity after the Bolshevik Revolution demonstrated to Asia that it could lead to real Revolutionary results.
I don't know if i agree with the historicity of this analysis. Frankly, i think it is idealistic and dogmatic, which i see as a trend in the western left in general. If i was more adventurist, i might go so far as to say that this disappointingly shallow and pedantic analysis serves the bourgeois status quo more than the proletarian struggle you claim to represent. For the new leftists reading this - the THEORY presented in this video is mostly solid. The PRAXIS - leaves something to be desired. For one, I don't think enough credit is given to the century of red scare propaganda and cointelpro the US in particular has been exposed to. As an on the ground marxist-leninist organizer, there is frankly no escaping the fact that the "politically principled" coalition stance is one that has actually severely impeded the political development of our class and the revolutionary parties that attempt to organize them. In other words, it has severely LIMITED our access to the proletarian masses, because frankly, even among the younger generations who claim to "favor socialism" here, their is a viscerally negative reaction to the ACTUAL historical analyses that are necessary to achieve a class consciousness and form a Marxian revolution. By maintaining hard redlines about issues that the American working class frankly doesn't care that much about (yet), or has been thoroughly indoctrinated against, we deprive ourselves of great opportunities - these types of "unprincipled" coalitions can actually pay huge dividends, as we've seen with the development of the bernie-to-marxism pipeline. Trotskyite/internationalist orgs in particular are rampant - but also fractured and isolated - on college campuses here because so many "leftists" within the imperial core are unable to properly reckon with their own complicity in the colonial mode of production, and therefore it is much more palatable to accept the dominant western-backed imperialist narrative which asks us to dismiss the valiant, historical people's struggles and socialist experiments in places like the USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuala, Libya, Iran, etc... On a related note, the arguments here against left unity also smack of the same kind of "what aboutism" that leads so many western leftists to take a revisionist stance to past socialist experiments - that is to say, ignoring or discrediting the massive successes because of a few small but glaring mistakes. I think it is no more correct to say that Cuba's socialist experiment was a failure because of the unfortunate but historical contradictions they had on LGBTQ issues than it is to say that Left Unity should be avoided now and forever because of how the tactic has failed in the past. In general, I think this analysis is prescriptivist, patronizing, and completely detached from the material conditions of on-the-ground organizing in the way that only infiltrators and/or armchair revolutionaries with deeply-entrenched colonial mentalities can produce. As well-intentioned as it might be, I suspect that this video will cause even more politically-underdeveloped western progressives/'leftists' to double-down on sectarian and fractional divides that are THE biggest obstacles to developing the class consciousness of the American masses in terms of both material conditions (by further promoting the atomization of our movement in an already hyper-individualist society) AND popular appeal (by further enforcing the negative stereotypes of the Left in the public consciousness - we are already losing the culture war here, if you hadn't noticed). To give a more concrete example, the nature of the settler-colonial state here in the US has created somewhat of a rift between national liberation struggles and internationalist socialist parties. The history of white leftists (especially white feminists and LGBTQ activists) misinterpreting intersectionalism and/or completely disregarding standpoint theory (oppressed people have privileged access to knowledge and experiences that others cannot ever gain) is a very demonstrable example of how theoretical dogmatism does *actually* alienate and impede the movement. Great historical example is the BPP - by the interpretation of the theory discussed in this video held by many organizers in the west, The Panthers should never have attempted unity with the Young Patriots under the Rainbow Coalition, much less work with Governor Reagan's administration to expand the free breakfast program statewide. Or, to provide a contemporary example, I believe it'd be extremely pragmatic and realistic for a revolutionary marxist-leninist party to form coalition with existing national liberation orgs like APSP, the Brown Berets, and Union Del Barrio to achieve wide-spread revolutionary change in our society, despite the fact that these orgs don't claim to follow marxist-leninist ideology. It'd also be incredibly patronizing and, frankly, imperialist, for a Marxist [party] to do coalition work with these groups while believing that African Internationalism/Raza Internationalism are somehow inferior to traditional Marxism-Leninism, and that any such coalition work should be done with the caveat/expectation (implicit or explicit) that the political line of each org will necessarily develop to become more "Marxist." TL:DR; like all tactics, unity work has its time and place. That time and place is EXACTLY here and now. Class consciousness is so incredibly low in the west, that (at least in the US) no revolutionary party has even come close to achieving the scope that lenin was talking about, and we actually alienate more people than we attract by maintaining dogmatic red-lines against organizing with other popular progressive/grassroots/populist movements where they exist. point of clarity: i am a US national and the criticisms I levy against "western leftists" here all come from a place of self-criticism but also - and arguably more importantly - 6 years living in china. I attribute much of my own political development to 1st-hand experiences i gained there - witnessing China's development and poverty alleviation as well as close friendships with members of the party, state-owned enterprises, and the PLA. Since returning to the US and organizing here, i've become aware of a lot of really disappointing and sometimes embarrassing contradictions, and this draconian stance towards coalition work is definitely one of them.
But what about anarchists? Marxists aren’t the only leftists. I don’t believe we need to have a left unify that makes the left into one conglomerate, like a tactical unity, that can then work independently but with cooperations when needed, like for defending against imperialism. Just one idea I’m pulling out of my head. But I just can’t see how we can create global post capitalism on a single approach. Human philosophy is characterized by multitudes of interpretations and approaches. And as much as I feel Marxism is one of the most important political philosophies in human history, it isn’t the only idea for a post capitalist society. Can we really not find common ground when tactical and work separately when not, to allow other ideas of post capitalism to coexist?
@@georgeavery5965 ya you see that’s my issue, is we’re still on this 200+ years in. Anarchists hate MLs, MLs hate anarchists and there are factions within both that hate each other. It’s old. When will we realize that the human animal is not uniform but diverse. And can we really not find ways to rise a diversity of post capitalisms without playing the “ideological superiority” game?
@@georgeavery5965 hey remember when anarchists established genuine workers' democracy in Revolutionary Catalonia and then the "real" communists stabbed them in the back because Daddy Stalin told them to?
@@the.bloodless.one1312 when u say anarchy it's v vague, and most anarchists, at least where I'm from r supporters of capitalism, they just don't like government. I think Anarcho communists could be useful to work with every now and again, but I don't see a way for Anarcho communist to achieve their own goals without some form of MLM as a step in that direction, much like socialism is a step towards communism. So, to me anarchists don't have any set consistent ideas, and saying anarchy means different things to different ppl. I think overall MLMs at least have a vague unity whether we agree on history or wat constitutes as a real communist country, we agree on the basics and general action needed.
He had some useful, concise theoretical analyses. It's better to compartmentalise his theoretical work from earlier on, like in the 60s and 70s, from the actual practice of the Peruvian people's war that began in the 80s, all of its violent excesses, etc.
Kind of off topic: response to a video I watched from BadEmpanada, much love to them as well: When I listen to right/wing arguments/racist and arguments from white supremacists, historical denialists, who discuss how the status quo gets killed is ironically referring to Colonization and Genocide of white supremacy/European imperialism and colonialism. I am not sure if this is a connection, but at times, denialists, especially white, tend to project their own understanding and knowledge of something, yet spin it around into suggestive hypotheticals to a nonsensical conclusion. Their basis of argument holds truths they deny but used as a method of rebuttal what they do not want to accept, is uncomfortable and challenging for them to accept or learn.
It's worth mentioning that the Anarchist critique of left unity with Marxists is much the same as the Marxist wariness of reformists. Namely, Marxists always demand unity with themselves, but never actually act in solidarity with Anarchists. Every time we try to compromise with Marxists we get betrayed, most famously by Stalin siding with Franco in the Spanish Civil War and the Bolsheviks warring with the Ukranian Anarchists. This is doubly distressing because y'all are super vulnerable to co-option. Bolshevik means minority, remember; they were very much a co-opting and less revolutionary force. And your program of state power will always create a state that seeks to preserve itself and its power over, hence why you've only managed to avoid devolving into state capitalism twice (in Yugoslavia and Chile, both of which were glaringly vulnerable to co-option in other ways). Meanwhile we're out here working to avoid vulnerable centralized power, and to build communism directly without taking a big detour through state socialism. We're the ones leading the way through the direct action that actually radicalizes people and creates the institutions necessary for communism. Like, we still like tactical unity, don't get me wrong, but y'all need to stop burning us if you want us to stop being shy about unifying further.
Salvador Allande described their front, Unidad Popular, as a "workers' front" and it consisted of a wide variety of Social-democratic, democratic socialist, a few different christian socialist parties and the Communist Party. In general this front had a program that was revolutionary that if enacted would have fundamentally changed society and the state: workers' control of industry and people's councils with political power. The issue was that after they won the election they had to give a lot of it up to win support from the Christian Democrats to form a government. Furthermore, they started to rely more on the Christian Democrats to continue than the masses, abandoning most of the local organs of power and disproving of self-organization in the "slums" and among the agricultural workers and poor farmers. Especially the Communist Party, while some of the smaller parties in the front were more prone to support the masses self-organization. After the coup the Revolutionary Left Movement(MIR) was already organizing a committees of resistance and invited all other left parties and the left-wing of the Christian Democrats to join but were rejected. The Communist Party, with directives from the Soviet Union, continued to support the line that they have to work with the Christian Democrats, despite the Christian Democrats trying to be accepted by the new regime. The Communist Party even blamed MIR for the coup. So while it was in the beginning a united front between different left-wing parties with a base in different sections of the working-class and farmers it eventually turned into a "popular front" like from the 1930's where they based themselves more on a bourgeois party.
While I don’t support uniting directly with anyone who isn’t essentially a communist, it is my very controversial opinion that anyone who is what i’d say is a “reasonable leftist” is basically the same ideology with differences that are either good to have for a diversity of material conditions and options to deal with them or are basically just superficial (like say your exact definition of a state). I’d say the “reasonable leftist” title can apply even to anarchists, though i would not give that to all of them, but i also wouldn’t even give it to every communist. So i think those id call the reasonable leftists should unite, but that definitely doesn’t include any social democrats and other people whose ideas really do fundamentally go against the goals of marxism (like people who call themselves a leftist socialist while still basically being pro capitalism), rather than being different on a superficial level.
I dont want to watch this video because I have my own opinion about this topic and dont need someone to tell me what to think. Im not crticising you here I just want to function as a good example to some who feel the same way. Because people these days really are NPCs and just get programmed what to think if you talk to one of them... forming own opinion without any influence is still a viable tactic on this planet comrades
First of all, stop using umbrella terms (as lefist , rightist etc). These are not concrete, they are not grounded in the objective reality, these words reflect no particular phenomena. There are people, whose main and foremost goal is to abolish classes - they want classless society (communism) That's a concrete and precise term - a communist. Person whose actions are directed to the sublation of the root, main contradiction of the society,existing today. On the other hand, There are people who want equality, freedoms, who want particular groups (minorities, genders, races, nations, women/men, you name it) to live better, people who fight for environment, want some kind of progress (another loose relative term) etc. They basically don't see class abolishment as their foremost goal, they try to fight the consequences of the main contradiction, not addressing its aforementioned root, postponing the class abolishment. Just like the so-called rightists (another meaningless term) So, you're either for class society or for classless society. There are some people, who understand marxism, but don't use it as a tool for propaganda to abolish classes, but just to observe and analyze the world, or defend/attack socialist countries of the past. So it's about the goal and the methods. I don't understand how and why some marxists and some communists, who must be diamat users, still apply idealist political spectrum of the bourgeois society to decide on whether to have true unity with this or that self-proclaimed "leftist". I agree that communists can have tactical unity with aforementioned do-gooders, but the positions on class existance must be irreconcilable
I'm personally a fan of Big Bill Haywood's approach. He was a Marxist-Leninist who founded the IWW, which is usually described as anarcho-syndicalist. He was a staunch supporter of the Socialist Party until it abandoned revolutionary direct action, but also fought with IWW co-founder Daniel De Leòn to prevent IWW from being affiliated with any political party. I think that's the right way to go, because each of these two institutions makes up for the weaknesses of the other as long as both remain independent. Also lmfao at seriously citing Gonzalo thought. Like, if ever there were a time to apply criticism-self-criticism, The Shining Path would be it. I don't think Guzmán really adds anything of value to the theory, and when we look at the Peruvian revolution in practice, it's like taking Mao, removing all the good parts, and keeping all the bad parts.
@@Marxism_Today I don't disagree with that quote specifically. But the basic idea being expressed in the quote is hardly unique to Guzmàn. I don't think we should cite Guzmàn when a quote from Marx, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ho, Newton, Guevara, etc. will do. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson said some stuff that I agree with. But, for every Jefferson quote I like, there's a quote from a communist that says the same thing but with a better framing and a better material context. I don't go around citing Jefferson because I don't need to cite him to say what I want to say and by citing him I risk inviting in his framework. When Jefferson says "all men are created equal", the context of him being a slave owner changes the interpretation of that quote. Unless you think there's something in Gonzalo thought that is unique to Guzmán and necessary for the class struggle, I see citing Guzmán as something that can only hurt an argument and the reputation of the person making it by inviting in the rest of what he and The Shining Path did. More specific to the context of this video, it seems like you want this channel to be a resource for both established Communists and newcomers. For newcomers, this channel is a pipeline to learning more about the theorists and revolutionaries you cite, and I don't think it's a good idea to be directing them towards Guzmán without giving some proper critical context at the least.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. Gonzalo's writings on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, like Stalin on Marxism-Leninism, and Engels on general Marxism, are broken down in a way that's very concise, clear and easy to understand - exactly the kind of writing that's needed for these kinds of educational videos. And, let's be clear, this is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-oriented channel. There's never been any secret made of that. So it shouldn't ever come as a surprise when major theorists within the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist canon are quoted or referred to - unlike Thomas Jefferson who has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
@@Marxism_Today Internet communication is not supportive of comradely interactions, and I think I started us out on a bad footing with my original comment. I honestly didn't expect you to respond and for this to turn into a conversation. That's on me. So let me step back so that we can actually talk productively. I understand that this is an MLM channel. That's why I'm here, and I have appreciated a lot of your work. You are insightful and I like that you draw on a wide range of sources in creative ways. In some ways, it is your generally high standard of content that made your use of Guzmán so shocking to me. I used Jefferson as an example because I knew we could both agree that quoting Jefferson is a bad idea. Sorry if I was unclear about that. My intention was not to say that you should cite Jefferson, or even discuss him in your videos. And it should go without saying that there are significant differences between Jeffersonian Liberalism and Gonzalo Thought. Instead, I was trying to use Jefferson as common ground so that I could make an analogy to Guzmán and explain why I think citing Guzmán weakens your argument. Clearly I gave you the wrong impression, and I hope this clears that up. As you so rightly say, there are other figures in the MLM canon who wrote clearly and effectively. I think we have a lot of common ground for agreement when it comes to people like Stalin and Engels. And honestly if there were some theoretical point that really required you to use Guzmán, I could probably even agree with that choice (though I'm not sure that situation actually exists). In this case, I think you used Guzmán where another theorist with a better track record would have worked better.
On this particular matter as it pertains to the video, the important insight regarding the nature of the vanguard party itself as a unity of opposites - or a contradiction - is crucial. Specifically as it relates to the two-line struggle within the party between the bourgeois line and the proletarian line. And the way he so concisely linked that to criticism and self-criticism was really useful. You rarely get that clarity on the nature of a modern revolutionary communist party from any of the major theorists of communism. You can find fragments of it of course, but that quote used in the video was the best summarisation that I found of the particular matter. If you've found anyone else with a passage that's as thorough yet concise on the matter, then I'm all ears. The nearest alternative I can think of would be Comrade Ajith from CPI (Maoist), in his article on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, but his work draws from Gonzalo's work and in that sense it would just be filtering the message through someone else just for the sake of it (no disrespect to Ajith, I adore his writing). But yeah I think we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I'm certainly not someone who has no criticisms of Gonzalo (as I would have criticisms of all revolutionaries when they've committed errors), though I would generally keep those criticisms a bit closer to my chest and discuss them among close comrades (similarly to how I would discuss criticisms of Stalin, Mao, etc.) Unfortunately, principled criticisms from revolutionary communists often get taken up by reactionaries and weaponised to smear the communist movement in its entirety, so I've learnt that it's better to focus on the positive aspects that we can learn from when it comes to discussing matters in places like here on RU-vid, and leave the criticisms to be contained within explicit communist spaces IRL, organisations, etc.
5:55 I don't know, it's a tough line to walk because I've seen a couple rev-com parties that seem like they're just taking advantage of other people's organizing. I like the idea of education during an uprising, but make sure you aren't just showing up with a megaphone to a protest that someone else actually put together.
Any opportunity for revolutionary education and agitation must be seized. A revolutionary must have no scruples in this regard. It is the duty of marxists to take over the leadership of spontaneous protest movements, bring organization and structure where there was chaos, bring ideological clarity and revolutionary theory to where there was previously just populist anger and enthusiasm. If a protest was organized by non-marxists who are leading the masses down a wrong path then they should be usurped from the leadership of said protest by the better organized, more disciplined communist forces.
@@transsylvanian9100 that kind of behavior is why I know several activist groups who refuse to work with rev-coms. Because they show up with megaphones thinking they have all the answers. It's very childish.
@@jacobedward2401 Revolutionaries may not have all the answers but if you are not a revolutionary you have no answers at all. Wars are not won without leadership, discipline, organization and a clear battle doctrine. The class war is no exception. That being said, the trust of the masses must be earned in the course of the struggle, one cannot simply show up and declare onesself a vanguard. In this sense i agree, the scenario you describe with the megaphone is clumsy and a sign of an inexperienced revolutionary. That hypothetical comrade would be better advised to work alongside the masses and demonstrate the effectiveness of revolutionary organizational tactics first.
@@transsylvanian9100 that makes more sense, I have seen people who really seem to just show up and declare themselves the vanguard. But I have also seen groups that do a better job by showing up to rallies sponsored by the big non-profits, and passing out signs and pamplets that are explicitly Marxist. This doesn't upstage the original protest/rally, but it gives the people attending a chance to express their support for socialism.
My take on things is that both anarchists and ML's are in a paradoxical relationship. Both are right in some ways and both are wrong in other ways. ML's, in my opinion, accurately asses the magnitude of the enemy, capitalism. Others don't. This includes the anarchists as far as I can tell. ML's understand that the struggle demands organization within their ranks and organizing the larger population outside their ranks. ML's understand that the pro-capitalist general population is extremely biased against socialism and will use anything to create and legitimize a straw man. This means that the organizing efforts by ML's are constricted by capitalist society to such a large degree that the window of opportunity for effective opportunity must come from failures by capitalism. ML's can't create the conditions for effective organizing alone. Capitalism's failures must make a large contribution in order create enough people who need revolutionary change. What ML's don't do well, in my opinion, is they don't understand that people are not vehicles for social mechanics. People are complex and emotional. People want fairness for themselves and others, but are too brainwashed to see what their conditions are, much less how to change them. In come the ML's at this point again. ML's understand what our social conditions are and what it takes to make real change. Anarchists don't seem to have a handle on this, yet. Anarchists understand the magical, mystical side of life. ML's don't. Bah humbug on them. Anarchists come across as privileged bourgeois babies, ML's do not, although the American media deliberately conflates ML's and anarchists because Americans have a deep rooted case of Protestant Work Ethic - Stockholm Syndrome that makes them behave like robots whenever the media scapegoats "lazy" people. I'll leave this issue to rest, because it's too deep to sum up in a paragraph. We need ML's to be the bulldozers and we need the anarchists to guarantee civil liberties once the bulldozers have done their job. We need both groups. I have a quick way of summing up the difference between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists say, "Show me what you are, and I'll show you who you are," meaning that social class determines what kind of person one is more than any other factor. Anarchists say, "Show me who you are, and I'll show you what you are," meaning an open minded honest person who isn't afraid to make themselves vulnerable and wants others to do the same can be from any social class or background, and that person will no doubt a socialist.
The hub of modern social life is the class struggle. In the course of this struggle each class is guided by its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology - so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology -this, as is well known, is socialism. We shall not here examine liberalism - that task had better be left for another time. We want to acquaint the reader only with socialism and its trends. Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism. Reformism (Bernstein and others), which regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing more, reformism, which actually repudiates the socialist revolution and aims at establishing socialism by peaceful means, reformism, which advocates not class struggle but class collaboration - this reformism is decaying day by day, is day by day losing all semblance of socialism and, in our opinion, it is totally unnecessary to examine it when defining socialism. It is altogether different with Marxism and anarchism: both are at the present time recognised as socialist trends, they are waging a fierce struggle against each other, both are trying to present themselves to the proletariat as genuinely socialist doctrines, and, of course, a study and comparison of the two will be far more interesting for the reader. We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless. Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved. Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends. This is a great mistake. We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects. The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses." Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.
you’ve definitely not read enough lol you yapped and said nothing but glaze MLs and shit on anarchism.. plus u say the anarchists are usually the ones coming from white bourgeoisie background but from what ive seen most openly MLs ive seen on the ground has been mostly white middle class? and the anarchist leaning ive seen are literally mixed from minorities, queer, white, immigrants and originated from the 3rd world who had a strong ML leftist movement but became disillusioned because they are not doing enough and have even supported people with fascist tendency as a means to an end (personal experience from Philippine politics)
@@transsylvanian9100cap lol read more buddy ur alone in this opinion no one who actually has done anything on the ground believes this crap you espouse.. theres literally 2 subcategories of anarchism it’s individual and collective and most anarchists are collective.. ur literally acting like it wasnt anarchists that founded or influenced alot of the early communist parties and labor unions around the world when they were still illegal during the 19th and 20th century because it was them who pushed for those actions at a time when the world was rapidly changing and in societal transition.. read history kid u yapping paragraphs and dont know a lot of things especially about the things you critique
Is it possible if when anarchists established their own network/confederation of communes to be left alone by marxists (ml/mlm)? And by left alone, I mean not to be bothered by their vanguard party/proletarian government. Because if it is, then count me in with that left unity
In my opinion, if a Marxist/other leftist nation is founded anytime soon, they should set aside some land for the Anarchists to live. Idk if I just said what you said or not.
As a Communist, I would gladly work and allign myself with Socialists and Anarchists for singular issues, as well as an array of issues. I think Socialism isn't going far enough, but it's going the right direction. And while I genuinely agree with Anarchism on every level, most people are programmed to rely on both an organized government and currency, making them instinctively against Anarchism. Luckily, neither of those are outright baned or abolished by Communism. And so because Communism is the furthest we can go toward betterment that can possibly avoid war, I feel I have to settle for it. But it's also a settlement which I don't feel bad about, as while I don’t think government or currency are necessary, I do think they can work in very specific and heavily managed instances.
The argument with anarchism was never that anarchists were wrong or that their goals were undesirable, but that anarchists themselves did not have adequate tactics and that their methods would not lead to socialism successfully. Anarchism is also generally polluted with a bourgeois, vulgar individualist mindset where the primary goal is to convince the entire population of anarchism and found an anarchist society from nothingness rather than to build a socialist society with the proletariat out of the pre-existing society. Also, perhaps you need to read more on how socialism develops from capitalism, and communism therein from socialism once socialism has become the primary global economic system? You seem confused on this point, or perhaps the meanings of the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' in a Marxist context.
@@therat1117 I feel like this is just a misconception. I think you should read "The Anarchist Collectives" by Sam Dolgoff, regardless, organization through the anarchists’ means has been successful and well executed in the past. It actually has only ever been crushed by the help of the USSR. I would argue that the authoritarian means of organizing will never be successful purely because they’re fully contradictory to the ends we’re trying to achieve. You cannot expand the state to get rid of it. Another thing I would like to add is that Anarchism inherently kills individualism because individualism is hierarchical.
@@therat1117 I have mo confusion on the terms Socialism and Communism. I understand how they CAN naturally evolve from other economic systems, but it doesn't mean it will. Rather the opposite, actually, people are so adamant against change that they ensure it does not happen. I also do not believe that the only way for the systems to come about is through natural progress and change over time. I also find the idea of needing to read material in order to "understand something better" (or understand it at all) to be rather asinine. I think of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism more about what they are, rather than how they come about. I actually don't care jow they come about for the most part, as long it's mot forced. I just care about what the systems actually are. Obviously forced change is an issue, and is often how previous attempts at Communism and Anarchism quickly became Fascist and is often why Fascism is conflated with the left or seen as a natural result of it. But when we look in history, we can find the same Fascistic regimes arrising in many cultures, many of which were also Capitalistic or cultures that resembled modern Capitalism far more. For example Feuadalism which was prevalent mainly in monarchies. Feudalims in concept is rather a lot like slavery or gang protection, and isn't far off from Capitalism in how it works. And Monarchy is almost by definition Fascist as a Monarchy is a form of government controlled by one individual and enforced by his army. And so if we acknowledge that these economic systems don't only come about through evolution, which is often fought against and prevented, and only focus on the ideas themselves, all of my original comment still stands. Edit: Also, I think you misunderstand Anarchy, as you seem to think it is something that leads to Socialism or that is intended to, but it's actually supposed to be far beyond that. Socialism is instead a step on the path fro. Capitalism to Anarchy. Anarchists would typically like to ignore the steps and either start fresh with Anarchism as the base or refuse to take steps when changes an existing society. And while I don’t think either of those is inherently wrong (and there is no real reason why the former of the two shouldn't work at all), they do certainly lead to pushpack. Also, Anarchism, in the way its been described to me by those who either are Anarchists are who are at the very least interested in engaging with the idea in an unbiased manner, is far more community based and oriented than even Communism, which is why I think it's actually the better of the two. But again, Anarchy would lead to more violence. Not because of what Anarchy is, but because the misinformation and propaganda against it is so hardwired into people that they will themselves choose to fight against it. So oddly enough the "chaos" that many say would ensue from Anarchy would most likely be caused by the resistance to Anarchy, and not the existence of Anarchy itself. And rather then suggesting you read literature (partly because reading can be quite boring and taxing), there are definitely great videos you could watch that probably demonstrate what I've just said but in a far more eloquent manner.
@@numberoneplutofan If organisation through anarchist means really has been either successful or well executed and significantly distinct from Marxist formations, please give an example. 'Authoritarian means of organising' again, I would need a definition that distinguishes 'authoritarian organising' from simply 'organising'. Current Marxist formations have also not expanded the state, if anything it has contracted relative to modern capitalist formations (cough cough NSA cough). Individualism is not inherently hierarchical, and pure individualism would require an absence of hierarchy anyway to function, which is basically what anarchism is.
@@DarthTingleBinks You do understand that what people think rarely has to do with how society changes, yes? And Marxists do actively want to change society above and beyond its natural progression. Reading is how you learn, I do not understand many Americans' opposition to it. But nonetheless - the existence of something cannot be abstracted from its origin. No more can I adequately describe the origin of the printing press than by the technologies and pressures that led to its invention then can I describe capitalism. Attempting to describe social processes as if they have no origin, no continuation, and no end, is like attempting to describe a tree as if it magically appeared one day - you can get a lot of the function, sure, but you will not understand how to make new trees nor the dangers of cutting one down. Fascism is a project of capitalism. Communist, feudalist, or anarchist projects inherently cannot be fascist, even by liberal definitions. Fascism is a project of complete surrender by the liberal government to right-wing forces to preserve capital by allowing capitalists to recapitulate complete economic control in exchange for supporting a right-wing junta. Ex. Hitler 'inventing' privatisation. Communist and anarchist projects do not have capitalists, and feudalism does not allow for complete capitalistic economic control. 'Focusing on ideas themselves' sounds nice for a college classroom, but it doesn't really track with having to do things in the real world. There is a reason Marxism is a materialist philosophy, and avoids pure ideas and hypotheticals, as it is easiest to change society to something better if its circumstances and what is possible are focused on, and not aspirations or theories about its status. Yes, yes, I understand anarchism adequately and that it wants a communist society by skipping socialism as a developmental step. I simply think this is impracticable beyond a very basic community level. And personally I like sewers that someone else has control over. Also recommending me videos is an alternative version of recommending me literature, it really isn't that much better.
The Left has a leadership crisis and an integrity crisis. When you're fundamental unifying principle is that we humans are all basically the same and we should be cooperative, it is difficult to maintain organizational integrity and keep out those who would coopt a progressive organization. We need special principles of organization which are separate from and do not mirror those of the sort of public institutions we aim to create. We can't make ourselves so easy to sabotage. If someone at a meeting asks everyone else to be quiet because they don't like the sound of low talking, that person should be politely told to not raise such complaints and escorted out if they don't comply. Just an example, but across the board their needs to be a philosophy of leadership which the neoliberals can't just flick over with hardly any effort.
This view that we just need one small party feels like a very modern perspective that picks from certain periods in the history of the intentional socialist movement. Until the 21 conditions of membership in Comintern were established the main marxist view was still that there was a need for mass party with "freedom in discussion and unity in action"(August Bebel, 1903 during SPD congress). It was first with the 21 conditions that the view was that all "center" and "right" elements had to be purged. In 1924 they also made all Comintern sections ban factions. A decade later Comintern changed line again, now according to the adopted resolutions written by Dimitrov, the Communists should strive to again form socialist proletarian mass parties with the Social-democrats, to rectify the split from the world war. This view on united front also feels like a very specific view that wasn't how it was used by Lenin, Zetkin or communists but popular fronts or just inter-class cooperation. The united front in the way comintern used it was specifically working-class parties and organizations working together. In Germany this meant local or regional cooperation with SPD and USPD around programs of action, in Sweden it meant having a broad front in the trade union movement. We need to establish large pluralistic socialist parties with the right to form factions. Like PBP in Ireland or Rödt in Norway.
im interested in this video, by quite a lot, mainly and at this point basically only fly the black flag, but i love to organize on the borders of my values
How is the high-trust society, needed to fulfil not just the functioning of a post-capitalist order but also the continued principles of revolution, formed from disparate and divided factions of people in the first place?
Would Grenada's New Jewel Movement and its People's Revolutionary Government be an example of a Unity of Marxists in a Revolutionary Party or would it be better understood as a Popular Front?
Unity? 1 gov faction (why?) carried out coup. murdered NJM leaders, lie Maurice Bishop,.to have excuse (like they needed any) to invade + to re colonize Grenada.
Always be dubious about any group that talks about the need for leadership from a party, especially for a movement (socialism) that is meant to bring about greater democracy. They may have good intentions, but they will tend to consolidate power just like any other state, and instead of fighting "only" the economic interests of the bourgeoisie that also heavily influence the state (including laws that make police intervention the standard), you'll have to fight a central authority that has its own vested interest in staying distinct and above the citizenry, and the monopoly of both force and media control to ensure that the people neither get out of line nor think they need to. The notion that the people must constantly keep the party in check by keeping a close watch on it and rising up against it when it steps out of line reveals its elitist nature, even if it is made up of proletarians. That notion of party leadership is just a replacement for bourgeois dominance that will only lead to stronger statist tendencies, regardless of what the people want. The party should include the elite thinkers, yes, because you want it to always be evaluating the current conditions and what the next steps *should* be, but the party should still hold nothing more than an *advisory role*, there to help the proletariat understand its situation and its options, so that the proletariat can, through the deliberation and inter-community cooperation, decide for itself. It can't be the one-size-fits-all approach of the top-down party-directed approach, because every locality is different. It must be the bottom-up approach, where each community (small/large) decides based on local conditions what actions it will take, accounting for the advice of the party. The advice of the party, then, must be two-fold: first, it must give the general pathway to greater democratization and social benefit for the whole society to use as a guideline, and second, it must give more localized guidelines for the smaller societies (if we're talking nation-scale socialism, then all of the different counties or territories or states within the nation, and then the different subdivisions all the way down to the small town) to base their activities around. As an example, my neighborhood in Washington state has different concerns than one in Washington D.C. or any small town in Idaho or Texas or Kentucky or anywhere else, so what we do over here will be different from what they do over there, even though our goals are the same. The differences may be vast, or they may be small, but they will require different approaches regardless. It *MUST* be bottom-up driven by the people on the streets, not top-down by the party or the state, in order for it to have a chance at being democratic and "collective" in nature. To accomplish that, an approach similar to that of the Zapatistas should be taken, where each small community has its council, which then sends representatives to confer in councils of representatives, and on up until all that need to be have been included in the discussion, and then the results of the debates get sent back down the chain the same way they went up. This keeps the party grounded by requiring both that the people remain informed and that they give their consent. The party can inform the public through this chain, and be informed by it of the different conditions and concerns. The key, again, is that everything be bottom-up so that it doesn't turn into statism or get coopted by opportunists who say the right things to get into power and then use excuse after excuse to transform the system into just another constitutional dictatorship with the title of "president." All that said, another great video.
Put into words exactly what I was thinking, otherwise U end up with all the pitfalls of bureaucratic soviet style communism where in reality the workers have very little control over the means of production, barely more than under capitalism and you get an elite dominant section of society in the party structure. I don't know how well anarchist theories work in practise I need to do some more reading, but the underlying idea of a bottom up approach seems much more prevelant in that ideology than that of ML. I think there are some important take aways and lessons from ML theory and revolutions but in so far as it has been implemented around the world it seems to lead to mostly party dominated systems that don't make room for the proleleriate have meaningful power. I don't think that from the moment a socialist revolution occours socialism is the outcome but it seems to be a recurring trend that following ML revolutions the proletariat never seems to ever be in the dominant position in society even in the long-term, china and USSR are good examples where the stated it's goal was to give power to the working class, but once in control never seemed to make any advances towards empowering the workers. China seems a little more optimistic in that front with the 'stated goal of socialism by 2050' but whether it reaches that goal or not is really in the hands of the CCP and not the people. If you think I'm wrong on anything feel free to inform me. Always open to new ideas or perspectives I haven't heard or thought critically of.
@@averagecitizen4122 The irony is that Lenin's ideas were all about bottom-up democracy, and not about top-down control. The interpretation of many MLs of Lenin seems to be the complete opposite, based on propagandized ideas of what happened during Lenin's time and what he advocated for, but I've read enough Lenin to see the contradictions. There's a reason "All Power to the Soviets" and "democracy from below" were often repeated by Lenin...but there's also a reason full implementation of "democracy from below" was untenable at the time (insanely low literacy, a huge lack of solidarity between the peasants and workers driving peasants to grow less and hoard more, the lack of normalized democratic and pro-social behaviors, etc, all coupled with regular and devastating famines, disease outbreaks, WWI, Allied interventionism, etc). One of the biggest reasons that revolutions, regardless of whether we're talking ML/MLM or even just the rabble rising up, is that other countries like the United States are there waiting to suppress them under the guise of "law and order" or "freedom and democracy" or other such nonsense. In truth, they often devolve into top-down systems largely because of interventionism forcing the need for centralization for no other reason than self defense, not so much because of anything Marx, Lenin or Mao wrote about centralizing; what those three wrote about centralizing revolves around the means of production, banking etc, being centralized under the democratic control of the community, rather than randomly controlled by individuals with no accountability or responsibility to the community (whether we're talking neighborhood, city, or global). There's a lot of propaganda surrounding the many revolutions, and sadly, much of it is accepted by lefties simply because the information is so heavily controlled/whitewashed and the narrative so consistent that they give in. I suggest looking into "The Marxist Project" for more reliable content on the historic analyses of these movements, as well as their ideological bases. That channel dives deeper into this stuff than anyone else I've seen, and they do it in 5-15 minute documentary-style videos.
Professional Revolutionaries? Thanks I'll be using that for whenever someone asks me why I don't have a traditional capitalist wage slave job :D Though in all seriousness I'll just be that one guy who's constantly looking for any future Deng Xiopings, or fill in the blank with any other revisionists, to make sure future revolutions can avoid those pitfalls.
Yes, we should use his teachings just like we should use Engels and Stalin. There are important points in there that shouldn't be disregarded because you've seen right-wing propaganda parroted off about the Peruvian revolution in supposedly left-wing spaces - spaces which are often all about "nuance" and countering capitalist propaganda when it comes to the bourgeois narratives about Stalin and Mao killing 100 milling people, but suddenly abandon all kinds of critical thinking when the very same demonisation occurs with the Peruvian Revolution
@@Marxism_Today Valid point, i fully agree on the virtue of learning from past revolutions. Im more worried it might scare off new leftist, who upon hearing of the shining path might be turned away.
Time goes in cycle, right? It's just an endless circle- a loop. Nothing ever changes. It's just the same thing over and over, and therefore history will repeat itself over and over. That's the hallmark belief of all conservative and reactionary ideologies
@@Marxism_Today Well, kind of. But tell me this, what is the real difference between slave societies, feudalism, and capitalism when we do a class analysis of all such societies? All these societies have a lot of superstructural differences, but when we examine them on the basis of who owns the means of production and how permeable those classes are: i.e. How easy/difficult it is for a member of the oppressed class to switch classes to the oppressor and vice-versa, they seem almost identical.
Why do you think that's "inevitable?" Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen now. Things and circumstances change you know.
@MVAL The Gamer Tell me, what's the difference between the primitive communal society that existed for >95% of the human race's time on this planet and slave society, feudalism and capitalism?
I am genuinely left with the impression that you are the unprincipled one. Liberation isn't for your brand to be the dominant one You are not truly for freedom, if you are not underfunding and considerat of the other left wind groups, and especially if you put your brand first befor the task at hand
I think your analysis is incorrect. There is no reason that Marxist Paul shouldn't push for MLM to be the dominant ideology. After all, that's what this channel is all about! Do you think an anarchist RU-vidr wouldn't push for anarchism as the dominant ideology? We push for what we believe in. As an MLM myself, I have no problem with Anarchists, Social Democrats or even progressive liberals. But I believe the MLM point of view is the correct one. So I will promote MLM thought to others in those groups.
In science the "state" of multiple theories Is Just a temporary One. Same goes to marxism: sooner or later the most effective theory must emerge and be dominant.
@@CertifiedHamasMember must? I am not convinced. Post modernists make some points that should not be disregarded, rather be taken as challenges to overcome. But don't become closed minded: there might not be only one correct way. And what do you mean "efective"?
@@Octoberfurst sure, I agree, it is the most normal thing to promote the point of view that one deems right over other views. Perhaps, I am a bit unfair here I will thank about it and come back to it
"Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers' cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism", said by Lenin a revisionist and a distorter of Marxism.
He modified it. He claimed to continue + develop it. But a few main changes--- 1) He, when he thought necessary, sup ported 1 party gov over earlier multi party coalition, which did cause some problems or have other problems. Marx + Engels supported a coalition.of all revolutionary left factions..which SRP. Mensevik (=Minority) faction, later party were not. So---?
2) He bizzarely used a capitalist neutral or positive use of the term ideology. Marx + Engels used worldview for A) ALL systems of thought.abiut society B) Accurate +,true systems of thought on society C) They used ideology ONLY for largely Inaccurate, false ideas about society = false consciousness, (+ 2arily minority of accurate ideas.). This comes from dominant classes. To Marx + Engels, so called "Marxist ideology" would be seen as a self satire joke or else reactionary right wing slanderous attacks? 3) Capitalism was always imperialist aided by gov s that helped conquer new raw materials, lands, trade routes, cheap labor. captive consumers, etc. not the last stage of capitalism but the 1st, last, always.
@@Marxism_Today Thanks for the reply. Look I don’t think it’s very good time to after keffals right now and making her seem unsympathetic. She just got chased out of her country by kiwifarms who literally doxed her when she moved away from her house after receiving bomb threats by cross referencing the bedsheets of every single hotel in her town. She’s been sent death threats by a site that has doxed trans people and made 3 of its doxing victims commit suicide
Yeah, it sucks what happened to her. I agree. And support her work taking down reactionary hellsites - good on her. I'm not criticising her in her totality, just the one action of pinkwashing the horrific, murderous PSNI. Being the victim of horrific transphobic violence doesn't make it okay to support horrific colonial violence (which was the result of her supporting that PSNI officer)
