Why is Leftism so insanely sectarian...

Why is Leftism so insanely sectarian? I haven't seen this much infighting over details and eagerness to throw one's ideological allies under the bus since back when I used to post in Christian communities.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_10_28.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because it's much closer to religion in it's performance than let's say liberalism or fascism.

Pretty much as simple as this tbh

Because leftism dosn't exist any more than rightism exists.

The left is a loose grouping of a wide variety of views. The most significant difference is between the authoritarian left and the anti-authoritarian left. In actuality, anti-authoritarianism is a code word for pro-imperialism. Anti-authoritarian stooges of imperialism, in the service of foreign intelligence agencies, are paid to vehemently attack anyone that is opposing imperialism for being "authoritarian." Remember all the "leftists" that suddenly came out and opposed Gadaffi for being "authoritarian" and a "dictator" right when it served NATO's interests. So really the biggest difference is pro-imperialism and anti-imperialism.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_10_28.htm

Sectarianism is the very nature of the left, and it is a double-edged sword: good but hard to achoeve ideas are defended without compromise, shit but easy to achieve ideas are corrallead with much glee.

Anti-imperialism, the cry of every dictator who just wants to be left alone while he slaughters people.

You dumb ass third worldists will accomplish nothing while you center anti-imperialism. Fuck imperialism and all imperialist powers, but you aren't going to win people over while centering anti-imperialism. Most people in the West have no understanding of what imperialism is and likely wouldn't give a shit if they knew.

If a "dictactor" like say Saddam or Gadaffi is so bad why don't the people rise up on their own to overthrow them? Why do you need an imperialist power like America, Great Britain, or France to come in and imperialistically attack the country like with the imperialist war in Iraq? Despite the flaws that these leaders may have, the anti-authoritarians come out and oppose them right at the same time that they are being attacked by NATO and other imperialists.


Who said anything about "third worldism" every Leninist makes a serious effort to oppose imperialism. A serious effort means opposing imperialism in deeds and not just in words.

There's a far broader diversity of ideas within leftism than outside of it. Liberal democracy is literally one single ideology with all disagreement amounting to minor tweaks.
It feels overly sectarian because that's a natural result of having so few people occupying such a broad swath of ideas. Look at how your average liberal will lament that "politics is too polarized, and we can't get compromise." Then extend the difference between opponents' positions tenfold and reduce the number of people to a ten-thousandth.


KEK
Imperialism is inherently authoritarian, first off. Second, the "enemy of your enemy" is not necessarily your friend, as years of neocon adventurism has shown the world. Credulous support for any regimes that NATO currently opposes is eminently wrongheaded. This adversarial relationship doesn't itself give them any form of revolutionary significance, just as the "adversarial" relationship between the tsarist apparatus and the nascent Russian bourgeoisie didn't equip the bourgeoisie to carry out a liberal democratic revolution and didn't preclude class collaborationism.

your biggest enemy is always the one who looks a lot like you except for a tiny difference.
seriously, it's way easier to accept totally different people than people who are similar but not the same.

So is every anti-imperialist. No serious force fighting imperialism, colonialism, fascism, etc has ever been anti-authoritarian nor could it be because you need military, police, etc to put up a fight and not get taken over by enemy intelligence agencies and military forces. The Soviet Union didn't fight the Nazis by being anti-authoritarian. Marxists, contrary to anti-authoritarians, state that the imperialist authorities are the primary enemy and that opposing them first is the best way to bring about communism.

This is honestly pretty simplistic and I consider myself Authoritarian Left.

Anti imperialism is not solely the domain of third worldism.

The left has a strong tradition of critique going back to Marx. This influenced other leftist theorists who came after Marx. With this emphasis on criticism of ideas, leftist groups tend to splinter over time based on what may seem to be small ideological differences.

I'm fine with any system so long as they're not ML or Maoist

Fissiparousness has always been the left's original sin. If I managed to crack that enigma m8, I'd be the next Marx and Bakunin rolled into one.

Seriously? This is your brain on Stalinism. Choose your ideology carefully!

Because they're more focused on instituting some perfect form of socialism instead of vanquishing capital first and figuring things out from there

I dont even know if this is a well done parody of "anti-imperialists" or if he is actually serious.

Figuring things out later is retarded. You have to have the seed of the post capitalist society ready or tankies will take over.

This is sadly true in many cases.

Your meme is fucking retarded. Most fascist dictatorships across that line have historically been imposed and supported by imperialist countries.

Name one relevant country that isnt imperialist.

Uncle Joe fought the Nazis by making a pact with them.
What I'm saying is that the pro/anti "authoritarian" dichotomy is a shitty, useless way to understand politics. There's no such thing as a categorically authoritarian or anti-authoritarian left, only competing theories of how the world really works.


Nobody really occupies themselves with utopian fantasies of how the world "should" look under socialism, man. "Vanquishing capital" is just a far more involved, complex project than you let on. There's a huge amount of historical data to sift through and analyze, and we naturally disagree on how that is to be done

The left is so segmented because your average 18-30 year old lefty is mainly interested in moral and intellectual signalling involving what ever specific brand of UTOPIAN ECONOMIC THEORY they think makes them seem the most enlightened among their R Selected peers.

The sectarianism comes from the sheer amount of UTOPIAN ECONOMIC THEORIES made available to masturbate over by a certain ethnoreligious tribe.

Good day, my good reddit goonsirs!

There are twelve tribes, you filthy goy

because nobody wants to be the first to die
jfc you're literally defending dictators with a "well why doesn't anybody stop them huh" argument

This is retard tier logic. Could literally see some ancap faggot saying "if capitalism is so bad why havent people over thrown it?"

If capitalism is so bad then why don't people rise up on their own and overthrow it?

Leftwingers are backstabbing, a circular firing squad, im really shocked any countries ever had any communist revolutions.
Read about the soviet union, stalin purged trotsky, and the rest of the ultra left garbage squad, probably would have purged lenin too if he didnt die of natural causes and being shot.

Then look at china, mao dies, his successors are arrested, and or mysteriously die in plane crashes

then you have this whole generation of libs who have been brainwashed by identity politics and have forgeten what the word class and economics are

And before the imperialism accusations start: Killing Gadaffi was a mistake. Invading Iraq was mistake. And I don't want to see Assad gone.

Using "anti-imperialism" as an excuse for state capitalist tyranny is intolerable. There is a point where "anti-imperialism" ends and it just becomes bourgeois nationalism.


Don't forget anyone actually trying to do anything at all will end up being accused of being "imperialists", "capitalists", "liberals", "revisionists", and so and so on.

I've read people accusing Rojava of being bourgeois, capitalist, tankies, imperialist, liberal, reactionary, identitarian, nationalist, fascist, socdem, terrorists, anarkiddies, saying that worker coops aren't socialism, that they aren't doing enough to abolish private property, etc.

My question to those people is: What are YOU doing to bring about socialism?

It's better to try something and figure out the details later, rather than do absolutely nothing at all. (I.e. Bordiga)

He didn't
His arteries were fucking rocks, and he suffered several seizures unexplained by the official cause of death.


A-and you are lynching negroes!

Please list the amount of (successful) leftcom revolutions, ruling parties and/or states.

Please list the amount of (successful) socialist revolutions, ruling parties and/or states.

this is the real answer

Cuba, North Korea

Because little details tend to matter. Even if they're little details.

The problem with the alt right is they're hardly sectarian at all, they don't focus on little details because they're world is so simplified they skip over these little details that are otherwise critical to how a society functions.

In general if you want to fail in the long term, generate a broad echo chamber that can be easily stereotyped

Wow

To begin with: Rojava.
Cuba is moving away from state capitalism.
And a lot of the revolutions of the 20th century had potential, if they hadn't been subverted and perverted through constant backstabbing.

In reality the revolutions of last century were mostly premature. There just didn't exist the information and transportation infrastructure to create a working confederation of worker cooperatives.

[cont]

Even if we consider the past revolutions, civil wars and uprisings failures for whatever reason. It's still better that they took place, giving us an opportunity to learn from them, than if they had not taken place at all.

Totalitarianism doesn't allow minor disagreements.

But isn't it moving towards regular capitalism tho?

It is too soon to know if Rojava will succeed. Actually, everything seems to indicate it will either be wiped out by Turkey, or link back up with the Syrian government.

We are the inheritors of Christian Universalism; heretics must be purged of their doctrinal deviations.

We've been hearing this for years. Meanwhile the YPG is taking more ground.

Not gonna lie, this kinda sounds like the paranoid Holla Forumsacks that claim "diversity is a code word for anuddah shoah".

Hello comrade. When do you think they're going for Raqqa?

A non neglectible part of our local tankies are recovering Holla Forumsacks, wjat did you expect?

wtf i love stalin now

No idea. It's obvious something is planned, but with the current troop numbers and lack of heavy equipment I don't see how they will do it.
Now that they're in open conflict with Turkey I don't see it happening any time soon.

Which sort of makes you wonder if that was the intention all along.

what did he mean by this?

Soviet Russia thought it was "vanquishing capital" and look how that turned out.