Thursday, May 7, 2015

On the Shamefulness and Inaccuracies of Sectarian Leftism



If there are two points I could make in-regards to the course of Leftist tactics, it might have to be these:
-          That if we truly believe in Materialism we must promote Socialism via materialist methods (e.g. worker unions, organizations etc) to change the working classes’ conditions and their way of thinking via shift in the ethos or general culture of society which will occur far more naturally utilizing general materialist tactics.  Idealist tactics (similar to that of the New Atheists) are to be utilized but only as a secondary approach.
-          Comrades must be unified.  All sectarianism unless it is sectarianism of fundamentals (such as whether to be materialist or idealist) is pointless bicker that only functions to segment the intellectuals of the left and further themselves from the real potential of the class-movement and the working-base itself.
Comrades of all affiliations and ideologies are guilty.  Anarchists who remain in the past and discuss the actions of Trotsky and Marxists who complain the Anarchists are bourgeois without giving proper refutation or even making any distinction ‘tween Individualist and Social Anarchism – as Lenin fails to do in his two essays (if you can even call them that considering their length) regarding a supposed distinction ‘tween Anarchism and Socialism.  Firstly let me state that I’ve only read these two pages in-regards to Lenin explicitly arguing against Anarchism (though he does mention it in some of his other essays I’ve read which I won’t bring up) and that these are the only pieces I’ll use in both depicting his lack of understanding of Anarchism and the waste of time that is sectarian bickering.
He begins his essay Anarchism and Socialism (1901) by saying the Anarchists (he includes Stirner and once again makes no reference to the radical distinctions ‘tween Egoist Anarchism – or any other form of Individualist Anarchism – and Social Anarchism.  Though this is a fundamental problem about his critique of Anarchism, I’ll simply note it one final time and move on) in their history have done nothing but produce “general” statements against exploitation – as opposed to either giving cries to specific forms of exploitation (which Anarchists do) and giving a methodology of revolt (which Anarchists do).  I would be amazed if Lenin ever read Bakunin, well, maybe that’s not entirely the case.  It could very-well be that Lenin has read Bakunin’s assertions for the need of worker camaraderie and materialist revolt against the Capitalists (as-well as specifically demonizing the bourgeois and class-relations for Man’s plight, so this idea that Anarchists speak only the vague platitudes against oppression that have been spoken since the Roman Empire is simply absurd) and is a liar.  Honestly whenever someone expresses something of such profound ignorance it seems just as likely they are being dishonest. He also seems to not understand that in the Capitalist sense private property would not exist under Social Anarchism – once again stunning ignorance.  Mentions failure to understand class struggle – once again has he read Bakunin or Kropotkin?
He mentions fragmentation of the working class.  If anything, wouldn’t Marx (whether reasonable or not) have done this by kicking out Bakunin from the International?
He shows the true mindset of the Bolsheviks in the beginning of his second essay Socialism and Anarchism (1905)[1]  Of course the “Worker’s Deputies” is not an organ of proletarian self-organization.  This would be the case in an egalitarian Socialist framework where the worker’s actually owned the means of production.  Instead, they were only sheep of the State in the USSR, which Lenin made sure was so when he did not allow the worker’s to organically organize and both use the fullness of their potential as well as grow their potential by in-effect forcing them to use not only their muscles but their brains in organizing their communities in a Materialist way.  It is funny that Lenin criticizes the Anarchists for being bourgeois when in being a politician, and creating yet another Representative Democracy, what has Lenin created if not a Socialist Bourgeois nation of laws, politicians and organization being centralized on-high rather than being the freeing source of responsibility of the working class?
Lenin seems so ignorant, to the extent that combined with confidence seems to be sheer stupidity, when he states the Anarchism is bourgeois society turned inside-out.  It is almost as if he believes all Anarchism is in the vein of Benjamin Tucker and Stirner and – I told myself I wouldn’t repeat myself, but it’s so blaring that there really is little else that much be said[2].  If Lenin is going to be so daft and ignorant, then I personally feel I can be ignorant of any potential points of someone so intellectually ingenuous or incompetent. 
Though I wanted this essay to show the type of nonsensical bicker that is made by the Sectarian Socialist, I will end this paper by being partly sectarian myself, and remind the reader that Socialists are Utilitarian (that is, we by-in-large do not believe in fundamental human rights outside of the utility of the human populous, and if we do, we do not extend it to scum like the Koch Brothers that anyone except Bourgeois Socialists and Anarcho-Pacifists – who are typically Individualists or Primitivists like Thoreau, Dorothy Day and Gandhi – agrees should be murdered ethically, though some may perhaps rightfully claim it could be the wrong move tactically; though I would contend for them it would, but for an attempt on all Capitalists or Congress it wouldn’t) and therefore those who decry they would do anything[3] even murder fellow comrades (as the Bolsheviks did once they took power) or innocents to maintain the society of ”Materialist Socialism” does not understand human nature or what it is to be a Materialist Socialist, namely comprehending human nature and the causality of things, and once innocents are murdered for dissent, then whether or not you maintain your Empire for the Worker’s is irrelevant – for all is for naught.



[1] . If we were to regard the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies as a workers’ parliament or as an organ of proletarian self-government, then of course it would have been wrong to reject the application of the anarchists.
[2] The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer.
[3] And we shall therefore resort to every means of ideological struggle to keep the influence of the anarchists over the Russian workers just as negligible as it has been so far.

No comments:

Post a Comment