i want to make something abundantly clear: i dont want to see anyone talking about "tankies" on my feed. as your resident fencesitter i have my own criticisms of both modern & historic ML movements, but derisive, factional reductionism during fascist resurgence is not acceptable.
fwiw: this applies to MLs railing against anarchists too (though the term "tankie" is more immediately inflammatory)
critique actions. critique tactics. critique positions if you must. but we are living in a global fascist resurgence and we don't have the luxury of factionalism.
critique actions. critique tactics. critique positions if you must. but we are living in a global fascist resurgence and we don't have the luxury of factionalism.
i understand many of you have frustrations with other tendencies, and their actions both in the present and throughout history. but i want anyone who does this to very deeply consider whether, in this moment in history, we can afford not to find and act on common tactics.
i also think it's worth saying: every tendency, and in fact every group of human beings, has a subset of awful individuals. you being able to point out one, or ten, or one hundred bad individuals online, does not make it indicative of the tendency.
additionally: the way we work through ideological differences is shared struggle. it is by organizing together and finding points of tactical unity in organizing. there is no shared struggle online, and therefore conflict is amplified. please keep that in mind and adjust for it.
im receiving a lot of pushback, so lets go into more detail:
1. if you read marx, or even lenin ("State and Revolution") a marxist-leninist or maoist vision of the future is very similar to an anarchist one in the long term. both argue for the eventual abolition of the state.
1. if you read marx, or even lenin ("State and Revolution") a marxist-leninist or maoist vision of the future is very similar to an anarchist one in the long term. both argue for the eventual abolition of the state.
1 (contintued). where MLs and maoists disagree is the path to abolition of the state, proposing a transitional proletariat state that can only be done away with through a slower withering of the state following (global, depending on the thinker) revolution.
1 (continued). this is the same end goal. MLs, maoists, and anarchists want the same society. and even the immediate path towards revolution looks largely similar. it is primarily the middle steps on that road that look fundamentally different.
2. something *most* people don't seem to understand: MLs and maoists believe in a fundamentally different version of history than anarchists, all of whom believe in fundamentally different versions of history than liberals. depending on your chosen philosopher, you could say that
2 (continued). MLs, maoists, and anarchist literally live in different worlds. to characterize MLs as believing in mass murder requires a massive misinterpretation: these aren't people who believe mass murder is good*, theyre people who fundamentally disagree on what occurred.
2 (continued). this is somewhat the lynchpin of how i understand my own multi-tendency beliefs: most left tendencies are correct for their version of history, and history has been filtered through so many extremely biased sources that i feel largely powerless to sift truth, and
2 (continued). therefore what i care about is: do these people have the same *goals*. i've seen people call MLs/maoist fascists, and that horrifies me on many levels, but it's willful misinterpretation: fascists want marginalized people dead. MLs want them liberated. MLs just
2 (continued). experience a version of history where achieving that liberation has significantly different requirements. i see my "allies" as anyone who believes that the current suffering we experience as unacceptable, recognizes capitalism as the cause, and envisions a similar
2 (continued). long term goal (this being distinguished from right-wingers, who actively want people dead, crushed, oppressed) etc.
* when i say "don't believe in mass murder", i mean that to the extent that anarchists don't either. both groups definitely have subsets who
* when i say "don't believe in mass murder", i mean that to the extent that anarchists don't either. both groups definitely have subsets who
2 (continued). believe in the mass murder of bourgeoisie, cops, landlords, etc. and regardless of your view of that, this is largely if not entirely a shared sentiment between MLs/maoist and anarchists.
3. this recognition of a shared goal is the premise upon which "we do not have the luxury of factionalism" is based: we are so small in number, weak in position, and low on time that we can't afford not to work with people who share the same long term vision. anyone who believes
3 (continued). in our collective liberation from capitalism must be a part of our revolutionary effort, because, if for no other reason, we're dead from climate breakdown (and fascism) if we don't. the tactical differences must be worked out in the ensuing struggle.
4. finally, as far as "next steps" looking the same, there's a variety of ways this is true. firstly, revolution will require a diversity of tactics and it is possible for anarchists, MLs, maoists, etc. to all be pursuing parallel tracks of individual tactics as long as these
4 (continued). are willing to coordinate and stop antagonizing each other at every turn. secondly, within the US i believe the most important next step is building a revolutionary base from which struggle can be launched
primer on base building: theleftwind.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/its…
primer on base building: theleftwind.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/its…
4 (continued). here is additional information on base building & dual power:
docs.google.com/document/d/1_5…
this is far from sufficient for revolution, but the US is lacking a revolutionary base and requires one before revolution is possible. while i also believe in diversity of
docs.google.com/document/d/1_5…
this is far from sufficient for revolution, but the US is lacking a revolutionary base and requires one before revolution is possible. while i also believe in diversity of
4 (continued). tactics in the current moment (forming of revolutionary militias, direct action, party-building, etc.), i believe no revolution will be successful without first building a base, and that task looks extremely similar regardless of tendency.
4 (continued). this belief has largely born itself out in my experience with local organizing: of any leftist experience i've had, organizing with philly socialists has seen the least ideological conflict and most multi-tendency participation because it focuses on concrete tasks.
that's it for now. i could go on for a very long time about this topic, & might do so elsewhere but in the mean time: people who believe in collective liberation are your allies, particularly in this moment, and most disagreements are based in different understandings of history.
wait, more:
5. a lot of generalizations flatten diversity within ML, maoism, etc. a great example of this is the castro quote: "blaming Stalin for everything [...] would be historical simplism", put in context *of significant criticisms of stalin* below.
5. a lot of generalizations flatten diversity within ML, maoism, etc. a great example of this is the castro quote: "blaming Stalin for everything [...] would be historical simplism", put in context *of significant criticisms of stalin* below.
5 (continued). this, the sino-soviet split, and plenty of struggles within individual movements and countries display a willingness to engage in criticism, recognize mistakes, and evolve ideas that generalizations about "tankies" flatten. which segues into my next point:
6. even if you decide that MLs, maoists, etc. are not someone you can work with, talking about "tankies", calling them (inaccurately) fascists etc. is unnecessarily inflammatory. it creates conflict that does not benefit an anarchist revolutionary cause, and most notably prevents
6 (continued). an environment where it is possible to engage in good faith criticism and encourages people to double down on "my ideas are correct". people will be more open to criticism if you do not do this. and fwiw: same is true ML to anarchist: shitty jokes and inflammatory
6 (continued). dunks on anarchists do not further your revolutionary cause and instead inflame factionalism tensions that actively hinder the US left. if there is anything i am asking for in this thread, it is: stop doing this. it does not help any tendency, and hinders the left.
7. this is one a critical response that i feel is a positive addition, and gets at a way in which i've also potentially failed to effectively present my thesis. i understand if you don't want to party-build with other tendencies, but stop inflaming them.
7 (continued). i can understand if nothing above is enough to breach the level of mistrust you have for another tendency based on historic perspective and perspectives on modern state, but it *should* be enough to decide not to *actively inflame cross-tendency conflict*
7 (continued). "tankie" rhetoric (and ML anti-anarchist rhetoric) both foster an environment of increased inter-tendency tensions that does not benefit your chosen tendency or the left. even if you believe these people are not allies you can work with, please recognize that
7 (continued). they are people with the goal of liberation, and recognize that rhetoric that inflames tensions between people with that goal, however misguided you believe those means may be, is harmful, especially when in the US we are far from having the capacity to establish
7 (continued). a revolutionary government and instead need to be working to establish a revolutionary base, which is an aim that is highly compatible across tendencies.
8. i now have multiple people saying "you could use #2's logic to justify fascist support for the holocaust", and no, you can't, and the fact that you'd say that, to a jewish leftist, is disgusting. fascists don't experience a different version of history where jews (or others)
8 (continued). didn't die: they just want jews, gay people, etc. dead. it's a core part of their ideology, which never was and never will be an ideology of liberation. equating anything i've said about MLs to be applicable to nazis and fascists shows a willful misinterpretation.
9. addendum about "strong opinions loosely held" and why i am therefore willing to work with people despite feeling this ambiguity as to historic and even sometimes contemporary events
10. *wow* just read this please
