Correct, if those differences are irreconcilable. I can ally with lefties that want slightly different things, but “America is evil therefore Stalin wasn’t that bad” is not someone grounded in reality.
Don’t take this as Stalin defending, but if you are trying to accomplish movements to the Left and both Person A and Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism, is Person B being a Stalin defender worth creating a 3 way battle when people who identify with C far outnumber A and B combined currently? That seems to go against what is strategically necessary in the US, at least.
I think it’s more important to build a cohesive worker movement that’s as large as possible before we move on to discussing Marxism vs Anarchism vs some other flavor of Leftism, at least in the US.
Sure. But if you have to pick between a 3 way fight and a 2 way fight, it is easier to convince someone with 94% shared views while allying with them than it is to win a 3 way fight.
A united front is the only way to get Socialism in the US.
Yeah because it’s historically been REALLY easy to get rid of authoritarian allies once a semblance of victory is achieved 🙄
Also, for a left libertarian (aka an anti-authoritarian leftist), the authoritarianism itself is a huge part of the problem.
Personally, I’m not a fan of people being murdered for trying to unionize like fascists would, but I’m also not a fan of people being murdered for NOT unionizing like stalinists would.
On the nose! Capitalism always devolves to authoritarian or fascistic systems when left to it’s own devices. Broken by anticompetitive behavior. And Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism start there. Going from one to the other is a lateral move. Their benefits and faults are oddly similar. Despite how vehemently they despise each other. The authoritarian nature is the fault. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism
Person B being a Stalin defender
They’re the same picture /s
But seriously, the only reason Stalin’s USSR wasn’t “fascist” is because fascism is explicitly a right aligned ideology, but it was essentially fascist in practice. His whole thing was totalitarian rule and blaming enemies of the state for any shortcomings, which is just fascism with a coat of paint.
I’m not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that’s not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Let’s say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
Correct, if those differences are irreconcilable. I can ally with lefties that want slightly different things, but “America is evil therefore Stalin wasn’t that bad” is not someone grounded in reality.
Don’t take this as Stalin defending, but if you are trying to accomplish movements to the Left and both Person A and Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism, is Person B being a Stalin defender worth creating a 3 way battle when people who identify with C far outnumber A and B combined currently? That seems to go against what is strategically necessary in the US, at least.
I think it’s more important to build a cohesive worker movement that’s as large as possible before we move on to discussing Marxism vs Anarchism vs some other flavor of Leftism, at least in the US.
History shows that allying with authoritarians rarely works out for those who don’t want authoritarianism.
Sure. But if you have to pick between a 3 way fight and a 2 way fight, it is easier to convince someone with 94% shared views while allying with them than it is to win a 3 way fight.
A united front is the only way to get Socialism in the US.
Yeah because it’s historically been REALLY easy to get rid of authoritarian allies once a semblance of victory is achieved 🙄
Also, for a left libertarian (aka an anti-authoritarian leftist), the authoritarianism itself is a huge part of the problem.
Personally, I’m not a fan of people being murdered for trying to unionize like fascists would, but I’m also not a fan of people being murdered for NOT unionizing like stalinists would.
On the nose! Capitalism always devolves to authoritarian or fascistic systems when left to it’s own devices. Broken by anticompetitive behavior. And Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism start there. Going from one to the other is a lateral move. Their benefits and faults are oddly similar. Despite how vehemently they despise each other. The authoritarian nature is the fault. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don’t think you’ll find many people advocating for either of those positions outside the most fringe of fringe.
Clearly you’ve not met a lot of tankies.
Not to worry though: since you’re on Lemmy you’re bound to meet far too many of them sooner rather than later!
The authoritarian nightmare will turn on you the moment they have secured victory. It happens every time.
They’re the same picture /s
But seriously, the only reason Stalin’s USSR wasn’t “fascist” is because fascism is explicitly a right aligned ideology, but it was essentially fascist in practice. His whole thing was totalitarian rule and blaming enemies of the state for any shortcomings, which is just fascism with a coat of paint.
I’m not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that’s not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren’t talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let’s say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You’re saying if I have a good reason, you’re OK with it?