First, a disclaimer: I am trying to avoid making any very controversial statements this time around so no one immediately dismisses the entirity of this post as Stalin apologism. (I mentioned Stalin two or three times and suddenly that was all anyone would talk about. I expected this but I delightedly inform the reader that this reaction entirely proves my point.) I feel this is inevitable, however, because to defend Marxism and any socialist experiment is inherently controversial even among the supposed left, so I will simply say my piece and hope for the best.
Anyway.
Theory informs practice.
Say this out loud.
Recognize that theory is only as good as its practical applications. Recognize that Marxist theory is meant to be universally applicable. Recognize the dozens of ways it has been applied in various states throughout the world. Recognize the millions of ways it has yet to be applied.
Theory informs practice.
We learn theory in order to become better Marxists. We become better Marxists in order to help build a better world. If you stop at the first step then you cannot move onto the second. If the point of Marxism is ultimately human liberation, then how can you stop at theory? Worse, why do so many want to simply beat their chests and quote Marx like they would quote scripture?
Communism has a glorious century long history of revolution and victories. This statement does not mean every single socialist experiment was perfect, which is something critics claim I believe. However, I do indeed consider every socialist experiment, no matter how long they lasted, to be a success.
I am aware that this is one of those dreaded controversial statements. I stand by it.
For it is one thing to be critical of socialist experiments, but it is quite another to completely rip every instance apart as not being perfect enough, or to deny they were even socialist at all. The latter is particularly interesting because it means you don't have to think critically about it. If the USSR wasn't really socialist then there is nothing to learn from it. We can simply dismiss the positives that socialism is capable of achieving for the people. It then goes understood that the negatives are an inherent part of any socialist experiment that does not immediately achieve utopian worker's paradise standards. As I explained in my last post, Marxists must think much like scientists--each new socialist experiment is an opportunity for us to observe, experiment, learn.
Theory informs practice. Your theory must go somewhere.
Say it again.
If you cannot verify and amend theory then it is unverifiable and scientifically worthless. This is not philosophy! Marxist theory is supposed to liberate humanity! If you can't--or worse, won't--consider how it has been used historically then do not call yourself a Marxist.
Because if theory does indeed inform practice then what of a theory that informs nothing at all? If you are unable to explain how your theory has real world applications then what are you doing? None of you are brave for being excessively critical of socialist experiments, especially not in the West. And strangely, it appears that many of you are distorting Marx to fit the reactionary belief that socialism can never exist in any form whatsoever.
Worse yet, it has gotten to the point where merely defending states like Venezuela and the DPRK (North Korea) from Western aggression is seen as an atrocity in itself. You cannot even suggest that perhaps propaganda against these countries is in fact dangerous and can lead to popular support for military intervention. Notice how this defense says nothing at all about Venezuela's or the DPRK's political economies, but instead merely says, "I don't believe we should permit Western propaganda to go unchallenged since historically orientalist lies have been used to justify military and economic violence against the third world."
It is clear where these people, affectionately referred to as "theorybros" on Twitter, stand. They are the pro-NATO left. They wrap themselves in thick, inaccessible discussions of Marx where no real world examples are permitted to verify their claims. It is clear that their supposed academic discussions are a smokescreen for their reactionary politics.
Not only do I believe that these people have nothing of value to say, I strongly believe that they exist solely to cause discord among an already fractured left. Nothing they say is in good faith and what's worse is that they refuse to let those of us who disagree with them have our discussions in peace.
I offer no solution that hasn't already been offered before so I will leave the reader with this:
Theory informs practice. If your theory informs nothing, if it does not contribute to the betterment of humanity, if it cannot be changed by real experiences, if it dismisses those working towards a socialist future, then it is worthless, and so are, in fact, its rabid adherents.
Yours,
Gabriel
quinta-feira, 9 de julho de 2015
quinta-feira, 2 de julho de 2015
The unbearable smugness of being (a fake ass Marxist)
Recently I have met some extremely smug and self righteous "Marxists" (the scare quotes shall be explained in a moment) giving me a hard time on Twitter. It is most definitely irritating dealing with people who seem bent on contradicting everyone they encounter--more so if they call themselves comrades. However, I decided to use this as a learning opportunity and as a chance to self criticize and reflect on my own reasons for choosing communism.
It seems that the moment I was born, I was destined to become a communist--I was born on July 26th, anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. But like any good Marxist, I don't believe progress is inevitable. History is made by movers and shakers. It is not pushed along by some invisible, incomprehensible force of nature. Throughout my life, many events have led me to becoming the person I am today--some good, some bad. Everything that has ever happened to me has molded me into becoming this person, this Marxist. Nothing is inevitable.
However, to many "Marxists" unfortunately, history appears to just happen spontaneously, especially when speaking about communist revolutions. The hyperfocus on individual communists like Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong is intentional because it erases how millions have fought tooth and nail for a better life. Stalin didn't industrialize Russia alone. Castro didn't fight in the Bay of Pigs himself. Mao didn't personally build every single school in rural China. The people who did these things were concerned with themselves, with their futures, with their children's futures, and with the futures of children all over the world. They were sincere in their motivations, regardless of what their leaders believed, because their leaders were not the ones on the ground molding the earth to meet their needs.
I personally have tremendous respect for people like Stalin and Castro because when push came to shove, they themselves were actually on the ground building and leading powerful working class movements. Of course, you will have these self-righteous "Marxists" declaring them despots and power-hungry, because apparently they are also omniscient in addition to being unbearably smug. But ultimately, I know that these leaders did not accomplish everything on their own and focusing entirely on them is ahistorical and fundamentally anti-Marxist, hence the previous scare quotes around "Marxist."
Those of you who believe a movement is only as good as its leaders are missing the point of communism--like, fundamentally so. How can you claim to be a Marxist while completely disregarding the millions who made history happen? How can you claim to be a Marxist while holding the masses in utter contempt? Do you believe that people are simply too stupid to know any better, and that only you know the true nature of humanity? How tremendously arrogant for a supposed "Marxist" to claim to know the desires of an entire population!
This goes beyond knowing your theory. You can spit Marxist theory back at me like some kind of perverse parrot all day--it doesn't make you a Marxist any more than quoting from the Bible makes you a Christian. You have to truly believe what you're saying and understand how that theory can be used to help people, otherwise what is the point? I will never understand these people, obsessed with theory and none of the practical applications, who shut down any discussion of actually existing socialism with, "well, it wasn't REALLY socialist". To which I have to ask, who cares?
Who actually cares if a socialist society didn't become a perfect utopia on the first try? In fact, Marxism is a science, and like all sciences we experiment and create hypotheses based off our experiences. Socialist states are not static entities sealed in some sort of vacuum away from any and all outside influences. These are former colonized states, countries that went from feudal slave conditions to achieving a near first world standard of living in an extremely short period of time. For the first time in history people have dignity and pride in their work. They have access to health care and quality education. These people can read and write their own names. These are things that first world "Marxists" take for granted while many of us from currently occupied and colonized countries know full well are rights only to the rich. If the revolution did not immediately create perfect utopia conditions, then that is because there is over five hundred years of colonialism and imperialism to reverse and unlearn.
Marxists are scientists. We must learn both the theory and how the theory was applied in practice in order to have a full understanding of how to liberate humanity. Disregarding an unexpected or unwanted result in an experiment is fundamentally unscientific and, by extention, unMarxist. Just because it wasn't what you expected doesn't mean it's irrelevent or unimportant. Marxism is a science that was specifically created to have real world applications anywhere on earth. From there, you would simply add to it. "But it's not really socialism, therefore it's worthless," is the retort, and I have to ask, "What is socialism to you?"
If there has never been a socialist state, then what are we clammoring for? Why are we fighting for an intangible romantic utopia? Revolution and state building is messy and difficult. People will be killed and injured and isolated and imprisoned. Revolution is violence. Running a state, even one that prioritizes the people instead of profits, is a violent venture. In order to maintain the people's power and right to self determine, you will have to behave violently--it is self defense! And yes things will go wrong, there will be mistakes committed and wrongful deaths and imprisonments and a slew of other horrific crimes.
But what is the outcome?
The outcome is a path towards liberation. It is real, tangible, actual gains. It is that insurmountable feeling of dignity, one that has been denied to the people for centuries for the sake of capital accumulation, that we fight for. If we have to kill every single landlord and cop on earth to liberate billions, then so be it--I will not shed tears for them, and neither will the oppressed.
To these "Marxists," whose politics are pure and exist in a flawless vacuum away from the messy masses who only seem to ruin a perfectly good theory with their sloppy execution, I would like to ask why you chose to call yourselves Marxists. What do you fight for? What drives you? What motivates you to study and protest and organize? Even in the first world, Marxists run the risk of even losing their jobs for their political beliefs. And for those of us in the third world, we even run the risk of losing our lives--just forty years ago, comrades (especially of color) were being executed in the streets by cops. Carlos Marighella comes to mind.
To these "Marxists," who only seem to criticize their "fellow" leftists, who believe they're morally superior for never considering how socialist states gave disenfranchised people a purpose for the first time in their lives, who parrot grotequse anticommunist arguments, whose criticisms never seem to be directed towards right wing counterrevolutionaries, who sometimes outright support reactionaries arresting and killing left wing activists--to these "Marxists," I say: if your main enemies appear to be the impure masses ruining your precious sterling theory with their own experiences while using them to construct a better world, drop the fucking act.
You aren't a Marxist if your rhetoric is exactly the same as some reactionary college Republican's. Your hatred of third world peoples is so unbelievably obvious that addressing you as comrades is insulting to those working right now towards a better world. Your disgusting queerbaiting and pinkwashing, your racism, your misogyny, your ableism, your general loathing of anyone who isn't YOU--you would do anything to make sure nothing changes for the most marginalized, so long as you get to keep your unbearable smugness.
The important thing to these "Marxists" is moral superiority. Never making a difficult decision, never thinking critically about oneself, never discarding your unwarranted self importance--it's extremely easy to be this kind of "Marxist" when you so deliberately divorce yourself from any and all struggles!
Applaud your own self righteousness. Being a bigoted crybaby fake ass leftist on the internet is exhausting, after all.
Yours,
Gabriel
It seems that the moment I was born, I was destined to become a communist--I was born on July 26th, anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. But like any good Marxist, I don't believe progress is inevitable. History is made by movers and shakers. It is not pushed along by some invisible, incomprehensible force of nature. Throughout my life, many events have led me to becoming the person I am today--some good, some bad. Everything that has ever happened to me has molded me into becoming this person, this Marxist. Nothing is inevitable.
However, to many "Marxists" unfortunately, history appears to just happen spontaneously, especially when speaking about communist revolutions. The hyperfocus on individual communists like Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong is intentional because it erases how millions have fought tooth and nail for a better life. Stalin didn't industrialize Russia alone. Castro didn't fight in the Bay of Pigs himself. Mao didn't personally build every single school in rural China. The people who did these things were concerned with themselves, with their futures, with their children's futures, and with the futures of children all over the world. They were sincere in their motivations, regardless of what their leaders believed, because their leaders were not the ones on the ground molding the earth to meet their needs.
I personally have tremendous respect for people like Stalin and Castro because when push came to shove, they themselves were actually on the ground building and leading powerful working class movements. Of course, you will have these self-righteous "Marxists" declaring them despots and power-hungry, because apparently they are also omniscient in addition to being unbearably smug. But ultimately, I know that these leaders did not accomplish everything on their own and focusing entirely on them is ahistorical and fundamentally anti-Marxist, hence the previous scare quotes around "Marxist."
Those of you who believe a movement is only as good as its leaders are missing the point of communism--like, fundamentally so. How can you claim to be a Marxist while completely disregarding the millions who made history happen? How can you claim to be a Marxist while holding the masses in utter contempt? Do you believe that people are simply too stupid to know any better, and that only you know the true nature of humanity? How tremendously arrogant for a supposed "Marxist" to claim to know the desires of an entire population!
This goes beyond knowing your theory. You can spit Marxist theory back at me like some kind of perverse parrot all day--it doesn't make you a Marxist any more than quoting from the Bible makes you a Christian. You have to truly believe what you're saying and understand how that theory can be used to help people, otherwise what is the point? I will never understand these people, obsessed with theory and none of the practical applications, who shut down any discussion of actually existing socialism with, "well, it wasn't REALLY socialist". To which I have to ask, who cares?
Who actually cares if a socialist society didn't become a perfect utopia on the first try? In fact, Marxism is a science, and like all sciences we experiment and create hypotheses based off our experiences. Socialist states are not static entities sealed in some sort of vacuum away from any and all outside influences. These are former colonized states, countries that went from feudal slave conditions to achieving a near first world standard of living in an extremely short period of time. For the first time in history people have dignity and pride in their work. They have access to health care and quality education. These people can read and write their own names. These are things that first world "Marxists" take for granted while many of us from currently occupied and colonized countries know full well are rights only to the rich. If the revolution did not immediately create perfect utopia conditions, then that is because there is over five hundred years of colonialism and imperialism to reverse and unlearn.
Marxists are scientists. We must learn both the theory and how the theory was applied in practice in order to have a full understanding of how to liberate humanity. Disregarding an unexpected or unwanted result in an experiment is fundamentally unscientific and, by extention, unMarxist. Just because it wasn't what you expected doesn't mean it's irrelevent or unimportant. Marxism is a science that was specifically created to have real world applications anywhere on earth. From there, you would simply add to it. "But it's not really socialism, therefore it's worthless," is the retort, and I have to ask, "What is socialism to you?"
If there has never been a socialist state, then what are we clammoring for? Why are we fighting for an intangible romantic utopia? Revolution and state building is messy and difficult. People will be killed and injured and isolated and imprisoned. Revolution is violence. Running a state, even one that prioritizes the people instead of profits, is a violent venture. In order to maintain the people's power and right to self determine, you will have to behave violently--it is self defense! And yes things will go wrong, there will be mistakes committed and wrongful deaths and imprisonments and a slew of other horrific crimes.
But what is the outcome?
The outcome is a path towards liberation. It is real, tangible, actual gains. It is that insurmountable feeling of dignity, one that has been denied to the people for centuries for the sake of capital accumulation, that we fight for. If we have to kill every single landlord and cop on earth to liberate billions, then so be it--I will not shed tears for them, and neither will the oppressed.
To these "Marxists," whose politics are pure and exist in a flawless vacuum away from the messy masses who only seem to ruin a perfectly good theory with their sloppy execution, I would like to ask why you chose to call yourselves Marxists. What do you fight for? What drives you? What motivates you to study and protest and organize? Even in the first world, Marxists run the risk of even losing their jobs for their political beliefs. And for those of us in the third world, we even run the risk of losing our lives--just forty years ago, comrades (especially of color) were being executed in the streets by cops. Carlos Marighella comes to mind.
To these "Marxists," who only seem to criticize their "fellow" leftists, who believe they're morally superior for never considering how socialist states gave disenfranchised people a purpose for the first time in their lives, who parrot grotequse anticommunist arguments, whose criticisms never seem to be directed towards right wing counterrevolutionaries, who sometimes outright support reactionaries arresting and killing left wing activists--to these "Marxists," I say: if your main enemies appear to be the impure masses ruining your precious sterling theory with their own experiences while using them to construct a better world, drop the fucking act.
You aren't a Marxist if your rhetoric is exactly the same as some reactionary college Republican's. Your hatred of third world peoples is so unbelievably obvious that addressing you as comrades is insulting to those working right now towards a better world. Your disgusting queerbaiting and pinkwashing, your racism, your misogyny, your ableism, your general loathing of anyone who isn't YOU--you would do anything to make sure nothing changes for the most marginalized, so long as you get to keep your unbearable smugness.
The important thing to these "Marxists" is moral superiority. Never making a difficult decision, never thinking critically about oneself, never discarding your unwarranted self importance--it's extremely easy to be this kind of "Marxist" when you so deliberately divorce yourself from any and all struggles!
Applaud your own self righteousness. Being a bigoted crybaby fake ass leftist on the internet is exhausting, after all.
Yours,
Gabriel
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)