There’s a difference between a difference in opinion, and a difference in understanding of what is clear-cut. I specifically singled out Trotskyism as an example because it’s an overwhelmingly western ideology, hasn’t seen any real practical success, and the fact that Trotskyists have historically ended up indirectly supporting Capitalism by attacking AES with the same or sometimes even greater vigor. I don’t denounce Trotskyism out of arrogance or pretentiousness, most Trots spend more time fighting Leftists than working to overthrow Capitalism, and can therefore not be seen as genuine allies.
Are there good Trots? Yes, many in fact. The Party for Socialism and Liberation has Marcyite roots, but due to adopting a strong, pro-AES internationalist position, they end up, despite differences in opinion and what I consider clear-cut theoretical shortcomings, as actual allies worthy of support. In fact, that’s why many Marxist-Leninists end up joining PSL. I also get along quite well with many Anarchists, as I used to be one myself.
If you mean that I in general am pretentious and arrogant, I try not to be. In fact, I try to always take a positive and gentle approach when correcting misconceptions about Marxism, and try to disengage when it’s clear that that isn’t working. If you have suggestions for how I can be better, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am not going to stop correcting misconceptions when I see them, as to not do so when I know better weakens the movement overall. It’s akin to the Socialist Revolutionaries in pre-Revolutionary Russia denouncing theory as “divisive” and celebrating individual acts of terror as “real victories,” when we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
To give an example, I disagree on this. Now, if you were to approach this discussion under the pretense that my disagreement is based on poor understanding of history or of theory, that would be pretentious, and therefore unproductive if you actually want to change my mind. Instead, keep an open mind and be willing to entertain an alternative perspective.
In my opinion, the Bolsheviks were oppurtunists who co-opted the revolutionary fervor in order to centralize power and influence in the movement under their control. They did indeed use Marxist theory to guide and justify their actions, but that doesn’t make it right. I understand that Marxist theory advocates for the centralization of power and control, I just disagree with it, which is a view more in line with Trotskyites than Marxist-Leninists.
I’m not trying to say that you are particularly arrogant or pretentious, but Marx and especially Lenin certainly were, and that is reflected in their work.
If you want to make that point, I would ask that you back that claim up. There are a few important things you need to tackle in order to do so:
The mass support for the Bolsheviks among the Working Class, and the Soviet system in general
The mass expansion in democratic power under the Socialist system as opposed to the prior Tsarist system
You need to prove the cause of the Bolsheviks being “power/control” and not a genuine adherance to the pursuit of Socialism
All 3 of those are hard truths that we can see through commonly accessible historical texts and archival evidence. We can track metrics like the doubling of Life Expectancy, free healthcare and education, the highest literacy rates in the world, massively lowered wealth disparity, a huge emphasis on teaching Marxism to all workers, and more. What we find, is that while not perfect, the USSR was indeed a massive progressive movement for the working class not only in Russia, but the whole world over, from Cuba, to Algeria, to Palestine, to China, to Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more. The presence of the USSR forced the New Deal into existence, among other western concessions, even those not aligned with the USSR benefited.
If you have an opinion and feel confident enough to stand by it, I would hope you also have reasons and experiences that back that up. From what I have shown, and if you want me to link stats and sources I can, I think it’s fair to say that the Bolsheviks were genuine Marxists that upheld and carried through the revolution. Regardless of percieved arrogance of Marx and Lenin, their teachings and theory provided the theoretical backbone for every long-lasting leftist country, even the EZLN who most think of as more Anarchistic (they have their own ideology but much was inspired by Marxism-Leninism).
There’s a difference between a difference in opinion, and a difference in understanding of what is clear-cut. I specifically singled out Trotskyism as an example because it’s an overwhelmingly western ideology, hasn’t seen any real practical success, and the fact that Trotskyists have historically ended up indirectly supporting Capitalism by attacking AES with the same or sometimes even greater vigor. I don’t denounce Trotskyism out of arrogance or pretentiousness, most Trots spend more time fighting Leftists than working to overthrow Capitalism, and can therefore not be seen as genuine allies.
Are there good Trots? Yes, many in fact. The Party for Socialism and Liberation has Marcyite roots, but due to adopting a strong, pro-AES internationalist position, they end up, despite differences in opinion and what I consider clear-cut theoretical shortcomings, as actual allies worthy of support. In fact, that’s why many Marxist-Leninists end up joining PSL. I also get along quite well with many Anarchists, as I used to be one myself.
If you mean that I in general am pretentious and arrogant, I try not to be. In fact, I try to always take a positive and gentle approach when correcting misconceptions about Marxism, and try to disengage when it’s clear that that isn’t working. If you have suggestions for how I can be better, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am not going to stop correcting misconceptions when I see them, as to not do so when I know better weakens the movement overall. It’s akin to the Socialist Revolutionaries in pre-Revolutionary Russia denouncing theory as “divisive” and celebrating individual acts of terror as “real victories,” when we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
To give an example, I disagree on this. Now, if you were to approach this discussion under the pretense that my disagreement is based on poor understanding of history or of theory, that would be pretentious, and therefore unproductive if you actually want to change my mind. Instead, keep an open mind and be willing to entertain an alternative perspective.
In my opinion, the Bolsheviks were oppurtunists who co-opted the revolutionary fervor in order to centralize power and influence in the movement under their control. They did indeed use Marxist theory to guide and justify their actions, but that doesn’t make it right. I understand that Marxist theory advocates for the centralization of power and control, I just disagree with it, which is a view more in line with Trotskyites than Marxist-Leninists.
I’m not trying to say that you are particularly arrogant or pretentious, but Marx and especially Lenin certainly were, and that is reflected in their work.
If you want to make that point, I would ask that you back that claim up. There are a few important things you need to tackle in order to do so:
The mass support for the Bolsheviks among the Working Class, and the Soviet system in general
The mass expansion in democratic power under the Socialist system as opposed to the prior Tsarist system
You need to prove the cause of the Bolsheviks being “power/control” and not a genuine adherance to the pursuit of Socialism
All 3 of those are hard truths that we can see through commonly accessible historical texts and archival evidence. We can track metrics like the doubling of Life Expectancy, free healthcare and education, the highest literacy rates in the world, massively lowered wealth disparity, a huge emphasis on teaching Marxism to all workers, and more. What we find, is that while not perfect, the USSR was indeed a massive progressive movement for the working class not only in Russia, but the whole world over, from Cuba, to Algeria, to Palestine, to China, to Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more. The presence of the USSR forced the New Deal into existence, among other western concessions, even those not aligned with the USSR benefited.
If you have an opinion and feel confident enough to stand by it, I would hope you also have reasons and experiences that back that up. From what I have shown, and if you want me to link stats and sources I can, I think it’s fair to say that the Bolsheviks were genuine Marxists that upheld and carried through the revolution. Regardless of percieved arrogance of Marx and Lenin, their teachings and theory provided the theoretical backbone for every long-lasting leftist country, even the EZLN who most think of as more Anarchistic (they have their own ideology but much was inspired by Marxism-Leninism).
I highly recommend listening to Michael Parenti’s 1986 “Yellow Parenti” lecture.