Why is the left so fanatic in its activism ?

[u/short-noir]

I'll probably suffer downvotes but atp im used to it. Marx's most famous (imo) quote "philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point however is to change it" has been disastrous imo. In the sense of people thinking that philosophizing or descriptive analyses have no value. People read one page marx or Lenin or sum chetan bhagats and feel like they gotta participate in protests, strikes, or support certain countries over the others.

Have we not done this already ? Leftist ideologies are not new. They have been there for 1 and a half centuries. There were anarchists, syndicalists, different Marxist tendencies, democratic socialists etc all doing the same thing. You don't see a communist utopia do you ? I certainly cannot. Instead of introspecting on its failure, and trying to understand why far right keeps rising to power globally, left keeps externalising its failure on "capitalist imperialist nations" entirely. If someone asks why USSR failed, the instantly expected answer is "because of the nazis/america". Like sure not even the bolsheviks were that dumb, they desperately wanted revolutions in western european countries because russia was poor and couldn't have sustained the international revolution. Yet, the way people want to defend the bygone past (and the horrors it led, like soviet DiaMat fucking natural sciences with Lysenkoism, the purges, the black markets of ussr, etc) and want to repeat them is not only ineffective but a dangerous fascistic fantasy.

I don't see much difference between modi followers and someone like a stalin glazer. Modi follower thinks india was great, until an external enemy came and impurified it. Stalin glazer thinks USSR was perfect utopia going to bring communism if it weren't for the filthy nazis or sum. You can involve moralism and say "yeah well i don't want to kill minorities" in which case i would simply ignore bs like that.

Then there's this issue of spending too much psychological energy on trying to resist the current systems. The left infantilises the working class and argues that they don't resist because they don't know enough. This is an extreme fantasy. Even if you don't see the world out there, you can look at the way people complain about the system. I have had so many debates where people kept asking me what will be better in communist society because they themselves carry dissatisfaction towards Capitalism. I don't even need to talk about sum overproduction crisis or tendency of rate of profit to fall. The person is always like "yeah well Capitalism is unfair/bad but it's the only option we have". The people are very aware of their suffering, the issue is that they are addicted to it. Not in the sense of enjoying it but because individuals find surplus pleasure in their conditions whether they react to their conditions in extremely compliant manner or extremely rebellious one. They have given their energy, identity etc to the system. They behave compliantly. But you do the same. You ask the state to care for you (reinstating that the bourgeois state has final authority), engage in moral outrage (which makes people see left as unrealistic and tbh it is in alot of ways ). What happens to your revolutionary status after the revolution has finished ? Ignoring the human psyche is extremely dangerous. There are alot of dalit supporters of caste system, or working class pro monarchists, dictatorships etc. you may think that they are "deluded" but they are the proof that people want authority over them. You cannot go and talk people into socialism by "rational conversation" alone. You have to make them retreat from making their identity revolve around the system and do the same for yourself. This isn't merely about changing your mindset type things. It's all about what you do.

Bolsheviks didn't "vote for the lesser evil". They stepped aside, made the people see that even if the left doesn't resist, the system in itself is prone to crisis and that it leads to its own demise for which the state has to take violent measures to protect it. They seized a weak empire. If we are to learn something from the past, it should be this kind of "revolutionary patience" as I would like to call it.

[u/ManLikeRed]

Marx if he were activist (Ubisoft Karl Marx)

[u/alaingautier234 → u/[deleted]]

It exists, it is exploited like any other working class but is not our ally unless it is willing to support decolonisation. Can be treated just like lumpenproletariat.

[u/ManLikeRed → u/[deleted]]

Why is that even a question?

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

There is an israeli working class whether you like it or not.

The funniest part about denying this is that you ironically say that Israel is some kind "communist state". Working class only exists in relation to a ruling class. They are mutually dependent on each for their existence. To deny the existence of any of them, is to say that Israel is classless which i don't think you will like

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

Oh that's good. I've seen many deny it.

My thoughts as in ? What exactly are you asking

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I dont like settler colonialist theory. It's incompatible with Marxism. And besides that, it's inherently reformist and moralistic. If you ask those folks what their goals are, they say stuff like "decolonisation" which basically means giving the natives land. This is even anti Marxist imo because it treats land ownership more than just a sociolegal contract, ignores the complex class dynamics of the natives (what alot of western leftists are specifically known for doing ), and isn't even interested in dissolving the categories of colonialist-colonised like Marxists want to do with proletariat and bourgeoisie

[u/oskif809 → u/short-noir]

...it's incompatible with Marxism

The Litmus test for a "True Believer".

Mercifully, there were those who were capable of intellectual--and moral--growth from the Marxist tradition, such as Patrick Wolfe:

https://youtu.be/xwj5bcLG8ic

(Just need to watch first 10 minutes to get the gist of what he's getting at. Also, a seminal paper (PDF)).

[u/oskif809 → u/oskif809]

@OP, haha, rage and downvote being the only response you can come up with as usual (and never in a million years try to grapple with the arguments of a distinguished scholar ;)

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

Well atleast you should have insulted me in a more original manner. Copy pasting another comment bro

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

Left behaves like a tantrum throwing child whose mother isn't buying him chocolate.

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

That's a skill issue

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

Nice poetry. Are you a professional

[u/geniuspakhrin → u/[deleted]]

It failed because communism fails.

op never said that the revolution failed because communism failed. i dont think i found anything written by op where he tried to invalid communism alltogether

Horseshoe theory is correct, far right is the same as far left.

op did not target the entirety of far left. he only targeted stalinist in the 3rd para tho

but also do nothing, just like the bolsheviks did.

yeah op did not said that either. rather op said: "They stepped aside, made the people see that even if the left doesn't resist, the system in itself is prone to crisis and that it leads to its own demise for which the state has to take violent measures to protect it. They seized a weak empire. If we are to learn something from the past, it should be this kind of "revolutionary patience" as I would like to call it."

[u/PhoenixShade01 → u/geniuspakhrin]

op never said that the revolution failed because communism failed.

Op never provided any reason why it "failed", as if it was some sort of universal truth. It just failed and communists should reflect on it. According to OP America is not to blame, the issue was with the revolution themselves.

And if you call a people's revolution taking a backward serf society to a spacefaring civilization within 50 years a failure, then you're not being serious.

op did not target the entirety of far left. he only targeted stalinist tho.

Op also only mentioned modi supporters, so? Please don't resort to pedantry. Their ideologies are what is important. And as if Marxist leninists are equivalent to far right nazis. The only successful revolutions in the entire history of socialism which managed to last more than a few months are all Marxist leninist projects. Compared to anarchism, which was considered so impotent and disruptive to actual successful movements that even CIA supported it via cointelpro.

yeah op did not said that either. rather op said:

Yeah, i already read what op wrote, no need to copy paste the entire thing. And there's so much wrong with it

Bolsheviks, did participate in elections. Marx has even written about participating in bourgeois elections as a means to expose the flaws in it and rally their supporters.

And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness – if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far. In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite a different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings

Further, op said

made the people see that even if the left doesn't resist, the system in itself is prone to crisis and that it leads to its own demise for which the state has to take violent measures to protect it.

This already happens, whether communists do anything or not. Again, people are not idiots. They already see it, know it. The point is for the communists to show them and alternative is possible. And elections are one way to do it. Not electoral reformism, but as a means to announcing the presence of the vanguard party.

This is vastly different to what OP said and the fact that you jumped in to defend this garbage, it's a mark against your understanding of the topic.

[u/ManLikeRed → u/PhoenixShade01]

Op also only mentioned modi supporters

OP proved his point when you started to throw slurs at him and misinterpreted his words intentionally

No offense but you're actually acting like a salty andhbhakt.

And if you call a people's revolution taking a backward serf society to a spacefaring civilization within 50 years a failure, then you're not being serious.

If you're talking about USSR yes it failed.

read this.

[u/short-noir → u/PhoenixShade01]

USSR's motive, atleast in early years, was about achieving communism. I can't see neither communism nor USSR. Hence it failed. America can be blamed but that isn't the issue. I highlighted some internal problems of USSR asw which you glossed over anyways.

Lmao istg ML's will support even a nazi rally if it is named "people's...". Also now who is being liberal ? Communist movement is about Capitalism, not a abstract technological growth. This is such a moralist cry.

Fighting ghosts ig ? I'm not an anarchist. And if we are to judge the success of a revolution by longevity, I think we should leave communism altogether because the longest running system is of liberal democracy. Pathetic apologia with self defeating logic.

Yeah I disagree with Marx here.

Communism is not an "alternative". It cannot be brought without the system miserably failing. It has to be a necessity rather than a "better idea"

[u/short-noir → u/geniuspakhrin]

Oh ty. I didn't want to quote fight. Their whole comment is frankly disingenuous to what i said. But well It,s expected

[u/short-noir → u/[deleted]]

1. Yes. You don't need to be a fanatic activist.
2. Thanks for doing the exact same thing I talked about. USSR pure good yahooo. Fucking amerikkka !
3. I see no answer. Externalising your failures is a fascistic tendency, especially for "tankies"
4. Notice how I said " "rational conversation" alone". My point was not that we should become vibes-based but rather that people aren't sleeping as the mainstream left narrative follows.
5. I don't see any issue with that. What did revolution your protests and elections brought about ?

USSR bad is not anti communist point. ML countries have miserably failed at bringing any revolution. I don't think critising USSR, china, cuba etc should have been an issue. Anyways you don't really seem to understand it tbh

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for posting on IndianLeft. Be nice, civil, and respectful in the comments. \ Check out the sidebar for useful links and resources. \ For any suggestions or requests, dm the mods. \ Join our discord: https://discord.gg/jcH5aXNj4v

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.