Sectarianism is cancer

discuss

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EAjRLLa5YFE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

depends, does the sectarian have a real basis (like between the idpol 'left' and us) or is it dumb historical LARPing that is irrelevant since the USSR doesn't exist anymore?(stalinists and trots)

anyways, vid related

youtube.com/watch?v=EAjRLLa5YFE

I agree, anarchists should work together.

Fuck Marxists though.

ideology is a cancer FULL STOP.

Marxists anarchists and every other leftist should work together towards there common goal of democracy and socialism and then let the proletariat decide what they want.

Amen comrade, finally someone who remembers the whole definition of the "Left" is that it's the proletariat who will decide which way to go, not some activist vanguard whether ML or anarchist.

why haven't anarchists tried forming a political party in recent years

not even to partake in elections but to simply organize things and get their message out easier?

Anarchists have proven to me they still are the "fuck u mom I'm not going to bed" ideology that I thought they were before becoming a leftist.

The proletariat have already decided what they want; Neo-Liberalism.

If you support any system other then Neo-Liberalism, you will not see it achieved alongside the cancer that is democracy.
I would advise you to consider what you consider to be most important to you, Socialism or Democracy; You will not be able to achieve both.

The proletariat isn't class conscious yet.

Sectarianism is bad because it divides people who usually have similar goals and prevents them from achieving their shared agenda but sectarianism is also good because there are people who unironically support the DPRK and raving lunatics on the left who only serve to make us look bad.

Sectarianism is with it if it means I'm not associated with Unruhu.

Respectfully disagreed. If the notion of a "common goal" among left-ideologues wasn't already probIematic enough because it posits that it is a particular brand of injected politics and its parties, circle and cliques – not the proletariat as revolutionary subject itself – that will ultimately transform social relations, there is the much more probIematic fact that what this supposed "common (end) goal" entails is in fact only vaguely similar, and that's being generous. The truth is that anarcho-communists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, ultra-leftists, et cetera all have an existence prior to notions of uniting precisely because there is a real area of non-compromise between them; one that in every instance of "unity" has ended in backstabbing and compromises that went in favor of those who had the opportunity. In the name of "left unity" nothing truly good and lasting for the proletariat has ever come and only the Stalinoid "victors" who still have a few states officially following their brand of Taylorism under the red banner would truly disagree.

...

The proletariat does not want to be 'Class Conscious'.
Indeed I think an argument could be made that they are incapable or it at this point.

It would be a trivial matter for the proletariat to educate themselves, yet they refuse.
You can lead a camel to water, but you cannot make it drink.

Well direct democracy is the system that would let people decide what they want and direct democracy sort of naturally leads to democracy in the workplace.

youtube.com/watch?v=EAjRLLa5YFE

fuck off, COINTELPRO
if you want to be more than an anarcho-liberal LARPer you need to read Marx

So you're telling me only ML has the ability to defeat capital.

Can't see it, please elaborate.

A revolution would require class consciousness so if it happens we won't need to worry about them voting in neo-liberals.

...

Also how does workplace democracy dismantle the existence of capital?

stop antagonizing narchos REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I've read Bordiga and Dauvé and you people are still asshats

Same reason anyone would want to dismantle capitalism, a falling rate of profit and overproduction of commodities

I warned you about the leftcoms man

What the hell is socialism to you if it isn't democratic?


The goal isn't the problem, it's exactly the way they should achieve this goal they disagree on. So you're telling them to ignore the discussion, and just tackle the goal - the question remains, "how?".


this

...

Anarchists are idealists

Useful idiots.

I'm quite aware.

But that is really my point.
The proletariat has no interest in being 'Class Conscious'.
If the implementation of your system is built off of an assumption that is clearly never going to come about.
Then you are never going to see that system implemented.


You tell me.
I'm not a Socialist.

Well I have come across some rather interesting ideas regarding a centralized, syndicalist state.
That is really the closest thing to Socialism I could realistically see being implemented.

Never. And none of you will be free of being antagonized.

And I won't have it any other way.

I believe in sectarianism in the sense that we should be divided according to our ideas and platforms instead of coming up with "one big tent" shit, but I do think there should be enough understanding and maturity to make coordination between these groups possible when we find common goals.

This depends.
If you're using the term to describe an aversion to hierarchy because of a materialist line of reasoning, it is not.

Either you haven't looked into communizaton or you're COINTELPRO

Communization indeed takes the best of anarchism and it's a good refuge for lost and disillusioned smashies, but all anarcho-socdems left behind will face the pain of my contemptuous and smug sectarianism.

I'm not an anarcho-liberal or a smashie if you haven't noticed. I read Marx. I understand the poverty of activism and realize that praxis needs to be accompanied with theory.

Frankly, this is something you write your first four months as a leftist, when you still have no real grasp of the history and practical considerations behind most divisions and cleavages of the Left.

Bakuninists, Marxists and Lassallists all had the common goal of Socialism. But what use was it when one groups preaches abstention even from political organization, the other preaches a combination of organization, electoral politics, unionism and revolution, and the other argues against revolution and in favor of electoral politics alone? If they didn't fight over it, they'd be reduced to inaction, because what does our praxis even becomes when you remove all the points of divergence and conflict for the sake of putting all the apples in one basket? Clearly the mixture is not workable, as these three factions learned the hard way.

As far as working for democracy and Socialism, take that one step further and ask yourself "how?" – Inevitablt you'll already be dealing with question of practical consideration and theoretical principles and that are at the roots of every Socialist division.

This is empty rhetoric that sounds nice, democratic and populist but has literally nothing behind it.

Decide what they want, how? Elections? So we have a state? What will this state encompass? A Nation? So nations will be already competing against each other for all the leftovers of the propertied class, giving them power of choice, ringing the bell of restoration. Or you can not have it, and then have different proletariats with different cultures and standards of living compete with each other. They can easily just want status quo back, now what? Do we just allow Restoration because that's what the people want? Does everyone partake in the decision process, even if they are (formerly or not) from the propertied classes? Imagine a democratic mechanism that even begins to answer questions like that and then ask yourself if this is not a retarded fantasy.

"Forget this Left and Right stuff, let's just work together for the best!" is the sort of idiotic insight you'll see popping up on Facebook written by some finance moron you went to high school with, and there's no place for equivalents of that on the Left. Those happy with the status quo can afford it, because they're not part of the decision process anyway, so they can preach unfeasible idealistic unity as much as they want. But if we're going to be revolutionaries and socialists, we need to be realistic about prospects, make the right diagnosis and prognosis, come up with coherent plans and don't allow feelgood platitudes to give us a deceitful idea that there's a calm, simple, harmonious solution to all the problems we've had so far.

what does praxis mean

You can't have a materialist line of reasoning for anarchy because you'd have to start from the assumption that a superstructural entity is the dominant one, not the opposite.

quality howard

Express yourself further on these to me. I'm genuinely interested.

shit ppl do

Praxis is fulfilling your historical role. Not to be confused with 'activism'.

Like Zizek says, what we need now is 'Don't act. Just think.' instead of the opposite, which has become the motto of the new activist left. Bordiga was also involved in union activity and so on. It's about the distinction between action which actually furthers our goals and actions which only serve to affirm the current state of affairs.

This

That is literally true.
It has never been easier to disseminate information.
Yet the proletariat staunchly refuses to embrace it.

I did not say this at all.
I said that the modern proletariat may simply lack the ability to be class conscious.

Please do explain why they are overwhelming voting to be exploited now.

Praxis refers in general to action, activity; and in Marx's sense to the free, universal, creative and self-creative activity through which man creates (makes, produces) and changes (shapes) his historical, human world and himself; an activity specific to man, through which he is basically differentiated from all other beings. In this sense man can be regarded as a being of praxis, 'praxis' as the central concept of Marxism, and Marxism as the 'philosophy' (or better: 'thinking') of 'praxis'. The word is of Greek origin, and according to Lobkowicz 're- fers to almost any kind of activity which a free man is likely to perform; in particular, all kinds of business and political activity' (1967, p. 9).

In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts Marx sometimes seems to suggest that theory should be regarded as one of the forms of praxis. But then he reaffirms the opposition between theory and praxis and insists on the primacy of praxis in this relationship: 'The resolution of theoretical contradictions is possible only in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man' (ibid. 3rd MS, 'Private property and Communism'). In the Theses on Feuerbach the concept of praxis, or rather 'revolutionary praxis', is central: 'The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary praxis' (3rd thesis); and again: 'All social life is essentially practical.

I can't believe you're posting this at a time when the proletariat of nearly all western nations have voted or will be voting for radical alternatives that promises to abolish neo-liberalism and further the workers class interests. If you where user I'd give you the benefit of doubt but I think the only honest thing for you to do now is to delete your trip.

Yet the proletariat staunchly refuses to embrace it.
What is ideological conditioning. Also their has been a large underground shift to the left in wake of the recent right surge. However as prior mentioned, it is hard to convince people on Communism when so many people think we are literally the incarnation of Satan.

we can both agree this is a large may

As I stated earlier, Ideology is a hell of a drug. And part of the ideological conditioning is leading the proletariat into thinking they are doing something. No one is consciously voting for oppression, They all think their precious Bernie sandals will implement a Scandinavian succdem state and save them from the Koch bothers; Or their daddy trump will build a wall and save them from the evil 🍀🍀🍀globalist🍀🍀🍀 bankers. Both these things are similar in the fact that people think they are fighting some oppressor, however in reality they are just being taken for the liberal democratic ride. Class consciousness does not need to push people to become outraged with their conditions, they already are, it just needs to direct that rage at the right target.

hint: don't reply to tripfags that say stupid shit.

This is the most fucking pathetic shit I have seen in quite some time.
Have you fucking reds really been so utterly defeated that you think socdems believe in the furthering 'workers class interests'?

The only thing people have been voting on is whether to support internationalist Neo-Liberalism or Protectionist Neo-Liberalism.
No-one is voting for 'radical alternatives', they are voting for what form they want their Neo-Liberalism to be.


Sanders, Corbyn, Mélenchon.
These people are advocating for Neo-Liberalism with a human face.
They are certainly not in favour of the sort of thing you reds want.

Hell.
They all lost/will lose anyway.
So it is clear that even leftism-lite has been rejected by working peoples.


Given the shit you reds say.
You should be thankful I grace you all with my presence.

Noted.

HNMMMMMMMM MAKES YOU THINK ESPECIALLY HOW ALL LEFT UNITY MEMERS ARE AUTHORITARIAN

...

Oh look it's another "why are anarchists so sectarian" posts

sorry but your smokescreen of left unity exist only to protect your irreverent and reactionary ideologies.

why the fuck did I use this out of context version

Just kill the tankies then.

this is exactly my point

A sizable portion voted for them non the less, you seem to just breeze over the significance of a candidate calling themselves "socialist" and not getting destroyed immediately just because we don't live in the USSA at this very moment.

I think I'm going to heed and stop b8ting on the tripfag. I for one have a large amount of respect for the technocracy movement and feel it has a place in socialist society. However your insufferable and sociopathic pseudo-intellectualism makes the whole thing sit sour with me.

...

The truth is they will never be conscious, or rather, they will, but only insomuch as they voice their dissatisfaction. Even if they decided to vote for a radical alternative, it will only be if that alternative is willing to play the game.

The majority of people don't want revolution, they want to retain what comforts they have now, and attain more via democratic measures. That's it.

This is partly true. The proles don't necessarily all want revolution. However the same was true during the bourgeois revolutions, even among the bourgeoisie themselves. Revolutions do not rely on consensus.

Democratic forms of "socialism" will never truly be radical in their aims.

You seem like an alright bro.

The problem is, in this day and age, they will legitimately fight back against radical change. The sheer majority of the populace wouldn't fight physically, but they would actively undermine the new regime, left, right, or somewhere else in the spectrum, until universal democratic governance is restored.

I get what you're saying. I think people are a lot like women. You can't just walk up to them and say, "Hey, do you want to have a revolution?" No, you gotta be more smooth about it. First you have to get them drunk, maybe light a few fires to set the mood. Then you have to be really aggressive so they know you're the guy in control of the situation, and basically they just let you do what you want.

You're proving my point even more.

I've seen one of those people multiple times on facebook. Leftbook is small and very sectarian.

I wouldn't be a communist if they could actually provide a decent and sustainable living standard.

...

you have to go back
>>>/reddit/

Tankies are not my comrades.
Fuck them. I'd enjoy slowly torturing them to death.

THIS

I disagree on the democracy part, but it certainly seems like most of the population isnt class concious and cought in the web of idpol.
I think a democratic state that whould have manifested things like public property and distributism into their constitution whould be socialist. But Im still unsure about how to achive this. It will be neccesary do whipe out bourg democracy before anything.

It's not a party if it doesn't want to seize state power. You're talking about the General Union Of Anarchists, the platformist mode of organization. It's been around since the '20s.

If the wider anarchist movement had accepted Makhno's work and continued to grow with it into the '40s and '50s, we would see mass platformist movements in all likelihood. Instead, Spain killed everything and we got anarkiddies like Abbie Hoffman and the rest of the New Left.

Just so. Sectarianism is a necessity; we can't all be right and the disagreements have very real and far-reaching consequences.