Nice read. I like many of your points, especially the critiques of Trotsky's view of Leftism, but I also have a hard time believing that the Left / being a leftist is necessarily tied to reformism or staying within the liberal democratic system.
I thought it was more like this: In essence, the Left and Right phenomenon is an objective one that springs from the creation of the bourgeoise state. It is not an idea about (or, it is not about whether you believe in) the proletarian struggle. it is not about desiring socialism or believing in its necessity for human peace and freedom, determined/teleological or otherwise. rather, it is about whether you want [as a Leftist] something different from bourgeois state that has never been tried before, something perceivably more egalitarian or collectivist, or conversely, [as a Rightist] something different from bourgeois state has harkens back to tradition
All of the goals of Leftists presuppose the bourgeois state to implement their goals. This is the reason Leftism is necessarily social-democratic reformism because indeed, as both you yourself and Benedict Cryptofash say in this article, the Left and Right have an objective existence and exist due to bourgeois democracy. Given that the Left would not exist otherwise, how are the Left's goals "different from the bourgeois state," as you claim? When they call for "something that hasn't been tried before," they are overtly calling for a change of affairs within capitalism. (an impossible social-democratic utopia.)
The Left is best seen as existing to preside over the coming economic developments (that the WEF likewise positively redresses as an opportunity) which concern the inevitable direction of capital and the resultant immiseration, and to falsely misrepresent them. They will pass policy after electoral victories to consciously implement rentier capitalism and frame it as a gain for the working-class. The actual goal of the Left is to see capitalism exist indefinitely in their class interests.
It is precisely the point of Benedict Cryptofash, as he touches on here, that the Left obscures this through mystification of their goals. This can be demonstrated in the very framing of these goals, "something more egalitarian or collectivist" as you say. That Leftists advocate egalitarianism (the ideal of equality) and collectivism (the logic of capitalism, in this case frequently reproduced in their criticisms of it) demonstrates they are not Marxists and don't see past the bourgeois state.
"The idea of equality, both in its bourgeois and in its proletarian form, is therefore itself a historical product, the creation of which required definite historical conditions that in turn themselves presuppose a long previous history. It is therefore anything but an eternal truth." [Anti-Duhring] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch08.htm
The state is not "replaced," the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a permanent state of affairs, neither does it have anything whatsoever to do with the state-capitalist Marxist-Leninist countries of the 20th century such as the Soviet Union.
To begin with Marxism does not have "goals" as is typically understood in politics. What Marxists advocate for isn't to be implemented as a conscious political platform, Marxists explain the inevitable trajectory of things, it happens in spite of anything anyone does or does not say, due to the objective direction and nature of capital and the objective position of the working-class. A plan of action is there if one so chooses to follow it but in truth it makes little difference whether one does or does not, revolution is a product of material necessity whereby the proletariat will have no choice to make revolution or face death. It will be carried out by instinct and intuition, the proletariat can and will organize amongst themselves, all the organizations and plans of the Left, including self-identified Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. will be just as useless and if anything actively counterrevolutionary then as they are in the present, as they all envision a vanguard party comprised of people from their class background to guide the proletariat who they believe incapable of making revolution without their enlightened understanding. (which incidentally makes a mockery out of genuine Marxist theory and thought and what Marx and Engels themselves actually wrote.)
Marxists do advocate seizure of state power, precisely for the purpose of overthrowing the state and bourgeois society. To begin with, a state transitional phase is unnecessary in the developed countries such as the USA. The state would be utilized in countries in need of development for the purpose of centralizing and coordinating production internationally, a prerequisite to Communism. (this is also part of why Anarchists are counterrevolutionary, and typically just as entrenched within an understanding that can't see past capitalism as Liberals, Leftists, Leninists, Conservatives, Libertarians and Fascists alike are)
Marxists advocate the overthrowing of the state and the abolition of the proletariat as a class. (obviously necessary if class society itself is to be permanently abolished)
This is most retarded thing I've read today. How tf did you manage to invent all that extra nonsense from two phrases. Marx literally did have a goal and it was freedom from estrangement and abstract domination aka "labour" (the kind promised by the Bourgeois revolutions but which it could not fulfill).
When did I ever say the final state of Marxism was a Stalinist state? Jesus Christ dude touch grass.
Dear Benedict, I would like to host a conversation between you and Cutrone. I think this is an important discussion and he has already agreed to it. Let me know if you are interested! Email me at theorypleeb@gmail.com
Nice read. I like many of your points, especially the critiques of Trotsky's view of Leftism, but I also have a hard time believing that the Left / being a leftist is necessarily tied to reformism or staying within the liberal democratic system.
I thought it was more like this: In essence, the Left and Right phenomenon is an objective one that springs from the creation of the bourgeoise state. It is not an idea about (or, it is not about whether you believe in) the proletarian struggle. it is not about desiring socialism or believing in its necessity for human peace and freedom, determined/teleological or otherwise. rather, it is about whether you want [as a Leftist] something different from bourgeois state that has never been tried before, something perceivably more egalitarian or collectivist, or conversely, [as a Rightist] something different from bourgeois state has harkens back to tradition
Thoughts?
Thanks!!
All of the goals of Leftists presuppose the bourgeois state to implement their goals. This is the reason Leftism is necessarily social-democratic reformism because indeed, as both you yourself and Benedict Cryptofash say in this article, the Left and Right have an objective existence and exist due to bourgeois democracy. Given that the Left would not exist otherwise, how are the Left's goals "different from the bourgeois state," as you claim? When they call for "something that hasn't been tried before," they are overtly calling for a change of affairs within capitalism. (an impossible social-democratic utopia.)
The Left is best seen as existing to preside over the coming economic developments (that the WEF likewise positively redresses as an opportunity) which concern the inevitable direction of capital and the resultant immiseration, and to falsely misrepresent them. They will pass policy after electoral victories to consciously implement rentier capitalism and frame it as a gain for the working-class. The actual goal of the Left is to see capitalism exist indefinitely in their class interests.
It is precisely the point of Benedict Cryptofash, as he touches on here, that the Left obscures this through mystification of their goals. This can be demonstrated in the very framing of these goals, "something more egalitarian or collectivist" as you say. That Leftists advocate egalitarianism (the ideal of equality) and collectivism (the logic of capitalism, in this case frequently reproduced in their criticisms of it) demonstrates they are not Marxists and don't see past the bourgeois state.
"“The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression." [Engels to August Bebel, 1875] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm
"The idea of equality, both in its bourgeois and in its proletarian form, is therefore itself a historical product, the creation of which required definite historical conditions that in turn themselves presuppose a long previous history. It is therefore anything but an eternal truth." [Anti-Duhring] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch08.htm
"Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism..." [The German Ideology] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm
"All of the goals of Leftists presuppose the bourgeois state to implement their goals"
true. and all of the goals of Marxism also presuppose a bourgeois state - just that we we seize it and replace it
The state is not "replaced," the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a permanent state of affairs, neither does it have anything whatsoever to do with the state-capitalist Marxist-Leninist countries of the 20th century such as the Soviet Union.
To begin with Marxism does not have "goals" as is typically understood in politics. What Marxists advocate for isn't to be implemented as a conscious political platform, Marxists explain the inevitable trajectory of things, it happens in spite of anything anyone does or does not say, due to the objective direction and nature of capital and the objective position of the working-class. A plan of action is there if one so chooses to follow it but in truth it makes little difference whether one does or does not, revolution is a product of material necessity whereby the proletariat will have no choice to make revolution or face death. It will be carried out by instinct and intuition, the proletariat can and will organize amongst themselves, all the organizations and plans of the Left, including self-identified Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. will be just as useless and if anything actively counterrevolutionary then as they are in the present, as they all envision a vanguard party comprised of people from their class background to guide the proletariat who they believe incapable of making revolution without their enlightened understanding. (which incidentally makes a mockery out of genuine Marxist theory and thought and what Marx and Engels themselves actually wrote.)
Marxists do advocate seizure of state power, precisely for the purpose of overthrowing the state and bourgeois society. To begin with, a state transitional phase is unnecessary in the developed countries such as the USA. The state would be utilized in countries in need of development for the purpose of centralizing and coordinating production internationally, a prerequisite to Communism. (this is also part of why Anarchists are counterrevolutionary, and typically just as entrenched within an understanding that can't see past capitalism as Liberals, Leftists, Leninists, Conservatives, Libertarians and Fascists alike are)
Marxists advocate the overthrowing of the state and the abolition of the proletariat as a class. (obviously necessary if class society itself is to be permanently abolished)
https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
To clarify the most common misconceptions about Marxism:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/ll0wmi/the_original_new_to_marxism_post_hy_uehrino/
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz4mys/cmv_most_arguments_against_marxism_can_be_easily/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1978/marxism.htm
This is most retarded thing I've read today. How tf did you manage to invent all that extra nonsense from two phrases. Marx literally did have a goal and it was freedom from estrangement and abstract domination aka "labour" (the kind promised by the Bourgeois revolutions but which it could not fulfill).
When did I ever say the final state of Marxism was a Stalinist state? Jesus Christ dude touch grass.
Dear Benedict, I would like to host a conversation between you and Cutrone. I think this is an important discussion and he has already agreed to it. Let me know if you are interested! Email me at theorypleeb@gmail.com