cucumovirus
☭
I would also add a book that helped me quite a bit with understanding diamat along side the things already mentioned, although I don’t know how valuable the examples are if you’re not familiar with some biology.
The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
Specifically the last chapter “Conclusion: Dialectics” is great because they go through the various aspects of dialectics with various biological (and some other) examples. A critical reading of this chapter with me analyzing the examples given and also trying to come up with my own really helped me.
Some essays like this one were also quite useful: https://redsails.org/what-is-dialectics/
I played a bit today with @Jonathan12345 and moved into one of the free apartments. It was fun playing Minecraft again after a few years and I’ll probably be playing more in the upcoming days as well.
To back up your analysis and clarify the need for it, I would like to add a few quotes from Lenin.
In A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism (1916) Lenin says:
How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war.
And also:
For the philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.
In Socialism and War (1915) he says:
For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.
Taking these principles into account it’s clear we have to consider the policies of the states involved in a war and not just decry the seeming aggressor. As you pointed out, NATO’s policy has been one of aggression and expansion, spreading into Ukraine. While Russia had been trying for years to abide by diplomatic treaties (particularly relating to the situation in Donbass) that the West has been systematically ignoring.
That whole thread by Roderic is great and really digs into the problems with midwesternmarx and this book.
They’ve been flirting with patsocs for a while, but it looks like when pressed about it now they are doubling down. Recently they had some friendly interactions with Haz even.
I think there is plenty of substance in Roderic’s critique. You can check out the response MWM gave and some back and forth with Roderic here (scroll up for the full thing).
As for accusing MWM of associating with patsocs, no accusations are needed as they openly do associate with patsocs. They’ve had multiple friendly interactions with Hinkle and Haz both on twitter and on some streams/podcasts. These have been ongoing for at least a year now, if not longer.
I don’t think patsocs fall into the “purity question” at all because they are simply neither communists nor leftists of any sort.
I’ve noticed a few times that decolonial points get brought up, specifically in relation to US settlers today, the comments expressing these ideas tend to get quite a few downvotes without anyone really offering a substantive critique. I find it a bit worrying but I don’t know if it’s some external brigading or if some of the users here hold these views.
In any case, like you said, the US is very much still a white-supremacist settler state. There is a very real material basis leading to differences in interests between racial groups in the US. This kind of divide makes it very difficult if not impossible to rely on a predominantly white working class to be a revolutionary force. There’s a reason that most of the theoretical development and all the revolutionary movements in the US have been led by minorities and the conditions to change that aren’t there yet. Not even close.
spoiler
though they are a severe right deviation, not understanding dialectics, material conditions or the character of nationalism.
I agree, but at some point a deviation becomes a full disconnect. I think some of the people that end up in patsoc spaces are just misguided while actually searching for an alternative to mainstream narratives, but I don’t think that applies to the leadership. I’m constantly reminded of stories of fascist movements starting out in Europe using all sorts of leftist sounding rhetoric while obviously being reactionary. A perfect example I think is Mussolini’s story.
I know you’re not saying we shouldn’t criticize (this part is not necessarily directed at you but at everyone in general), but we must criticize the patsoc positions (and ones like MWM that are either there already or seem to be on their way). How else will we ever build a proper communist movement? Marx, Lenin and all the other great communist theorists relentlessly criticized anyone that was deviating. Of course, this didn’t stop, for instance, the Bolsheviks from forming strategic alliance with e.g. the Mensheviks, but only to achieve specific political goals, and all the while still criticizing the incorrect positions held by their temporary, strategic allies.
I don’t think there’s much, if anything, to be gained from US communists allying with patsocs. Lenin talks about compromises, their nature and how to approach them (which types of compromises are beneficial and which aren’t) in ‘“Left-wing” communism, An infantile disorder’ and I think we should take that lesson a bit more seriously.
I’m also reminded of his criticisms of the Economists in ‘What is to be done?’ while talking about the need to build a genuine Marxist movement, and not to allow the class struggle to be limited only to certain areas (in that particular example, trade unionism) and that the Party should be ahead of the spontaneous class consciousness of the proletariat so it can guide it to the correct line and not chase it’s tail (tailism). The patsocs and patsoc-adjacent positions limit class struggle in the realms of settler colonialism and corresponding land-back and decolonial movements, and in a lot of cases in the realm of struggle for LGBTQ and other minority rights.
In the imperial core in general the conditions are not ripe for revolution (and I don’t think they will be for quite some time) so I think that building a proper ML party/movement should be the main goal. A movement that is ideologically “pure” if you want to call it that, but one that will be strong internally and ready to lead the revolutionary masses when the time come. Lenin talks about keeping the correct line and thus achieving actual results for the proletariat which will itself bring more people to the movement as opposed to other, deviating movements. Doing all this is of course much easier said than done but I think more effort going in that direction is sorely needed.
The main point I would like to say about this “purity” discussion is that I think it’s framed in an entirely wrong way. The material conditions simply aren’t revolutionary in the imperial core yet and we need to be thinking about long-term plans. This talk of purity in ideology is largely useless when the majority of the western working class is benefiting from imperialism. Of course they aren’t flocking to the ML line. The material conditions guide ideology, not the other way around. (sorry for the long comment)
The Lenin quote given at the start is taken entirely out of context. It looks like he just searched for a Lenin quote that would fit his flawed analysis.
Here are a few more quotes from the very chapter Rainer takes his quote from. Note that these are quotes from ‘“Left-wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder’ which was written after the revolution in 1920.
About the necessity of the struggle against the reactionary leadership of trade unions:
The Mensheviks of the West have acquired a much firmer footing in the trade unions; there the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, case-hardened, covetous, and petty-bourgeois “labour aristocracy”, imperialist-minded, and imperialist-corrupted, has developed into a much stronger section than in our country. That is incontestable. The struggle against the Gomperses, and against the Jouhaux, Hendersons, Merrheims, Legiens and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks, who are an absolutely homogeneous social and political type. This struggle must be waged ruthlessly, and it must unfailingly be brought—as we brought it—to a point when all the incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism are completely discredited and driven out of the trade unions. Political power cannot be captured (and the attempt to capture it should not be made) until the struggle has reached a certain stage. This “certain stage” will be different in different countries and in different circumstances; it can be correctly gauged only by thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable political leaders of the proletariat in each particular country.
About working where the masses are:
If you want to help the “masses” and win the sympathy and support of the “masses”, you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the “leaders” (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.
Rainer’s idea of allying with the movements he proposes is flawed in two parts. First, he doesn’t call for the struggle against the incorrect and harmful ideas of those movements. He points out some flaws in some of the socialist parties in the US which do exist but his analysis here seems to favor the reactionary parties over said socialist parties. To me it sounds like he’s just trying to send “the masses” to these reactionary movements without considering the level of organization, class consciousness and political involvement of “the masses”. The situation is not the same as at the start of the 20th century or at the end of World War 1. The working class then was a lot more organized and various communist and reformist parties existed with actual mass support. Today, especially in the West, this is not really the case.
Second, he doesn’t really talk about reaching the masses. He talks of allying and supporting these reactionary movements which he just assumes have some mass support already and he assumes that the support they have is from working class people. Neither of these can be taken for granted.
The movements he wants to support are not actual reformist movements, they don’t propose any significant reforms to the system, they barely even propose particular policies that they want to adopt. Reformist movements, while flawed, have historically had genuine mass support. The support of the working class that had at least some consciousness and wanted to systematically improve it’s conditions. These types of movement can be useful for communists but again, a proper strategy needs to be made. Blind support doesn’t lead anywhere.
Movements like RAWM also aren’t working class movements. They fall into a group of astroturfed movements that are supported by various right-wing elements. I don’t know much about Cornel West specifically, but from what I saw since he announced his campaign, he isn’t really supported by the working classes of the US and I don’t think he’s really connected with them either. He’s a (relatively) privileged life-long academic and is now attempting to approach “the masses” from above. “The masses” didn’t choose him so they won’t be radicalized when his attempts at “reform” fail. As far as I can tell, he also doesn’t really have any reforms in mind, just calls to empty phrases like “truth”, “justice”, and some calls for policies like “a living wage” which aren’t elaborated on at all.
Two very timely short threads by Roderic Day on this “purity fetish” phenomenon:
Thread 1
Thread 2
Unfortunately, the situation is largely the same in many countries. Especially the previously socialist European countries that are now in EU/NATO.
I mostly just go to second-hand bookshops where a lot of the good older books can still be found.
Michael Parenti - To Kill a Nation