If the concept of “Pan-Leftism” isn’t in some way COINTELPRO, I would be very strongly surprised.
Everywhere it’s enforced becomes nothing more than a liberal echo chamber, wherein discussions that inconvenience liberal ideology or biases get shut down. Thus continually drifting the talking point of the group towards the comfort zone of left-liberals.
Who are these left-liberals who benefit so strongly from Pan-Leftism? To put it bluntly, Anarchists, Social-Democrats, Trotskyists, and all other counter-revolutionary lifestylists. These are the groups that dominate discussions in these spheres, these are the people who get the final say on important issues. When Marxists get established in these communities, they get pushed out by the left-liberals. Often on illegitimate grounds, with strawman arguments and vast misunderstandings on Marxist stances.
Supposed “comrades” are, currently, fully backing the western propaganda out of Poland about Russia “”“targetting”“” Poland with a missile. These same supposed “comrades” refuse to acknowledge that backing Ukraine demands the defence of Nazism. They further believe defending Russia, China, the DPRK, or any other enemy of western imperialism means you’re “anti-freedom”, or otherwise against democracy.
When people of differing viewpoints assemble together, the ones with the most to lose from revolutionary speech are the ones who have the loudest voices. This is inherent, aside from having a revolutionary vanguard to purge counter-revolutionaries there is no way around it. When anti-capitalists gather, the ones who benefit the most from the discussion are those who are the most disenfranchised by the capitalist system. Such as minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, and so-on. “Pan-Leftism” inherently silences these voices, simply because allowing them to speak threatens the privileged straight whites who do not truly want a fair world, but would rather have a world that treats specifically them better. It should be no surprise that when Cuba abolished the nuclear family, these communities hardly even talked about it. And those who did controlled the narrative to either delegitimize the great victory for minority rights, or to delegitimize Cuba as being a communist state. (I.E. saying Cuba is liberalizing). Nor should it be a surprise that these communities often celebrate Rojava, but rarely mentioned the Donbas until the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Further, it shouldn’t be a surprise that talk of the Donbas is mostly oriented towards calling it a “Russian satellite”, rather than a revolutionary struggle against the genocide of their people.
Pan-Leftism, if it can even be called that if they exclude Marxists so easily, is a scourge on the western left that must be opposed where found. There are many roadblocks in the west in the struggle towards revolution, this is one of them. As long as new leftists flock to pan-leftist communities while they’re learning the ropes of revolution, they will be tainted by counter-revolutionary talking points with no means of understanding why these talking points should be avoided.
You’re thinking of things in individual terms. You as a single person will never accomplish anything significant. May sound harsh, but it’s true. So the question really is what should the direction of a vanguard be? In that case, the party will have limited resources that need to be used as efficiently as possible. The party should not be wasting resources on fellow travelers.
That’s reasonable… Even if I can bring 3 new members, there’s no guarantee other people will do the same, so that’s still just 3 members. Do you think we marxists should focus on mass media, informative pamphlets, etc.?
Mass media is everything in the 21st century. If marxists aren’t using mass media, you can be certain that the enemies of marxism are making great use of it. But even in this case, the party is important, otherwise there is just a diaspora of different messages being put out there that contradict and nullify each other.
You are right, being united for a common good requires organization. But idk, I see there are usually multiple socialist parties/organizations in most areas here. I feel like a lot of effort is wasted fighting against each other rather than actually working together. Have you experienced something similar?
“Socialist” is a broad term. Friedrich Engels identified socialisms such as “bourgeois socialism” and “reactionary socialism.” You could take the Great Reset plan to redistribute wealth as a kind of bourgeois socialism. I think it is worth fighting these ideologies first to draw a distinction between them and a real worker’s socialism, and then to frustrate their agenda if possible.
Lenin says “Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.”
Thank you. This was really helpful.