Comradeship // Freechat

Probably something like: Good faith evaluation: He believes that he can do more with the power he does have than with no power at all, so he retreats if he has to, in order to cling to any semblance of power within the system at all.

It's more like: He correctly understands that working within the system and upholding imperialism at the expense of the Global South is a viable path for meeting the needs and interests of the American proletariat, overwhelmingly more so than opposing the system and building a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement. This is what I mean by material interests - the American proletariat as a class with Bernie as their representative, not Bernie's own personal prosperity as an individual. The tendency of socialist politicians within the US to Bernify over and over again is the consequence of these basic realities of imperialism.

I mean, I was a lib for a while. Some of it was self interest that I moved left, but some of it was a sincere interest in working out the most effective way to create a better world. There’s a lot more to it than that, of course, the voices I encountered along the way who helped change my views and so on. But I think it is maybe misguided to overly reduce it to formulas of who will or won’t be moved.

Weren't we all? It's not about reducing it to formulas of who will or won't be moved but about understanding the logic behind the positions people take and how it informs political strategy. And generally I find that you do not move people, instead people move themselves out of their previously entrenched positions when those can no longer be reconciled with their needs, wants, self image, etc. and what you can do is spot these people and offer them something that covers what they were lacking previously. It's less going wololo Lenin wololo at people until their shirt changes from blue to red like a priest in Age of Empires and more like identifying political strays who would benefit from your movement (the actual potential leftists) and addressing their pain points. I know people who back in 2022 were generic liberals ranting about Putler and how communism means no freedom and no toothbrush but after worsening economic conditions and the genocide in Palestine are willing to listen to me explain Marxist concepts and even actively ask questions themselves. But the first step away from the liberal civil religion was taken on their own.

Class traitors, however uncommon, do exist. Dialectical materialism is a science of change, not a science of describing and then going to bed. Be careful of fatalistic evaluations that assume a certain outcome must happen because of the dynamics of what is likely to happen, especially when so many complex variables are in play.

Class traitors absolutely exist, otherwise we wouldn't be on this website. However, as you note yourself we are uncommon and we need to understand why. Why do conditions within the imperial core produce such low numbers of principled anti-imperialists? When the masses overwhelmingly choose to break solidarity with the Global South, what is the wisdom behind their actions and what does that mean for Marxists inside the core? Can you change those conditions in order to produce more anti-imperialists? If you can't change them, what can? Dialectical Materialism is indeed the science of change but understanding how change occurs is not equivalent to being able to enact any change you want at any time and any hour, and having a sober analysis of what is currently possible and what is not does not mean you are giving up and going to bed.

Consider again the Russian Revolution. Why did it happen in 1917 and not earlier? Why not in 1907? How did conditions change to enable it? We know the devastation of World War 1 created those favorable conditions. The Bolsheviks themselves did not start World War 1 - that was the result of imperialist competition between the great powers of Europe. And even more, the Bolsheviks would not have been able to start World War 1. But this does not mean they just sat in bed waiting for the Revolution to happen by itself either. They were out there studying and writing and agitating and arguing, and doing all of that without compromising for the sake of getting liberals or social-democrats on board when it seemed hopeless. Consider Lenin - he was famously sectarian, splitting groups and writing huge pamphlets denouncing all sorts of characters instead of considering them potential Bolsheviks. And even more, he was at a time convinced that he would never get to see the Revolution happen in his lifetime and kept dedicating his life to it nonetheless. When I say there is little revolutionary potential in the West right now, I do not mean it fatalistically, that's it you can't do shit, go to bed. You should keep fighting regardless, without compromising solidarity with the Global South, and if that means a longer and harder and lonelier road that you might not live to see the end of, accept it like Lenin was willing to.

For example, in the US, there are plenty of people who are going to be (and probably already are) going down a rung in stability and comfort as the contradictions sharpen and conditions worsen. Things can (seem to) change fast, at times, because of how a cross over from quantitative to qualitative can be so dramatic.

So though I get the point about evaluating things strategically and not expending a ton of energy on people who are mired in wrong paths, I would also emphasize that investigating a person’s beliefs and conditions takes precedence over abstract evaluations of their likely circumstances.

Change is absolutely happening and as I have stated before the last 10-15 years have been absolutely amazing. Consider the example of a person who wishes for healthcare and education and is pondering joining the military for those benefits. Back in 2006, when US military power was uncontested, this was a no-brainer. Now the world is full of strong and determined adversaries who support each other and lob hypersonics when threatened and there's a horrifying land war in Europe that makes it clear that war with those adversaries would be hellish and dangerous instead of a human safari against poor goat herders, all the while tensions are escalating. The empire demands more sacrifice for the same benefits. The calculus is slowly changing. The Global South pushes back and reclaims sovereignty over its resources. Less wealth is flowing in to the core. Contradictions sharpen as the brunt of the effects falls on the proletariat. There is a smaller pie to split and it's getting harder and harder for people to claim their share or expand it. This is what creates actual potential leftists that you need to find and pour your energy into to educate and agitate.

I think this is a bit like saying “medicine does not concern itself with morals.” No offense meant. But though we may be able to technically say that marxism as a science is not a religion or a science of morality, marxism-leninism is something that, historically, is practiced toward deeply compassionate and humane goals. To divorce it from empathy takes away its storied history of dramatic increases in quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. It risks putting it in a position of academic purity, rather than compassion-driven praxis. Granted, you can be self-interested and still benefit from taking on a marxist view and goals. But this doesn’t change the character of its impact on human lives on a large scale.

I agree with you here. This thread started from empathy and morals and I simply meant to clarify that I don't consider Marxism to be primarily an ethical philosophy. Of course we can derive ethical conclusions from it and personally, becoming a Marxist has made me a much better, more compassionate person.