This is probably the most widespread attitude when it comes to politics. Leftists, especially, have some grandiose ideas about themselves and what they demand of others. They love to think of themselves as chess masters or grand strategists, and they're convinced that if people would just listen to their strategies about success-- well, then they'd be successful. And that, in and of itself, is what matters. Their grand imperative for success is always the monotone utterance: "Unity now! Onward into battle now! Send it!"
This is deadly. It's no secret that communist organizations aren't exactly thriving mass organizations, nor is it true that "the masses" or even just the workers are basically already revolutionary and just need a spark to guide them to complete their "historical mission", and yet leftists think it's wise to jump to their slaughter rather than take stock of where they actually stand and what tasks make the most sense.
It's odd. Why should impatient action take precedence over theory or reflective deliberation? They are both important, no doubt. But theorizing and talking, analyzing and criticizing, takes precedence over immediate actions, over doing anything at all, since all sensible action proceeds from deliberation, and talking theory is the engine of this deliberation. How is one supposed to do something without first having an idea, a theory of what it is one is to do, let alone having a conception of what it is they are up against? We don't just want abstract success or action for action's sake, but we want a particular critique to succeed.
That's why, to us, the demand for "unified action now" is nothing but a bad joke repeated ad nauseum. It's merely a demand that the leftists who are fighting with each other not take their own explanations of the world, the enemy, etc. seriously, but as a kind of non-binding opinion that one can agree to or not. And that is not only an unreasonable demand, but one that is in fact impossible to fulfill. That is why such a call for unity is usually nothing but a cheap way of demanding that others get behind THEIR definition of what unites "us," and that they merely regard their understanding of the world as a kind of dissenting opinion from a majority opinion that they are nevertheless assumed to share.
So, then it's clear enough. If we don't share this assumption that the majority of workers are already on our side, then we have to impart and teach some political skills. We have to get across the content of our teachings. If your group, club, organization or whatever you call it consists of a small number, then, of course, you want this to grow and to go somewhere. But it is no help if you just gain sheer mass without any of the new people having any idea about anything. It doesn't help, but is actually a detriment, if new members can't explain the basic positions and criticisms of your group. Likewise, it's no good if the group is slowly dwindling as the most knowledgeable members die of old age and no one is any wiser about the results the group has achieved with their theories. If there is no youthful element to continue carrying on the activity and aims of the group, then it will die with the dinosaurs.
But the trouble is this: when leftists demand "take some action!" Or ask "so what are we supposed to do?" This isn't an honest question about any real, concrete activities. They don't mean: "how do we print off this pamphlet or flyer? What font should I use?" They don't mean, "where should we have this meeting and what time? How do I organize a talk or a workshop?" They don't mean, "what topic are we going to research, discuss and write an article about?" They don't mean, "how do I learn to shoot a gun or defend myself?" They don't even mean something as simple as, "what could I read to learn about this?" They don't mean, "how can I get these books distributed so people will read them? Or: how can I make a YouTube video explaining this?"
What they are expressing is their own rhetorical doubt about their own idea of what they think revolution is supposed to be. It is this doubt that a messianic event happening all at once could happen. It is their doubt that it will play out like a movie-- and they're not wrong about that, but they are wrong that THIS is what we think a revolution is: a world massacre, then utopia. No doubt: we're not naive, bloodshed is inevitable, but the question of violence is something I won't take up here.
So, what then is the substance of the unity that the left demands everyone keeps in mind in their fights among themselves? In the end, it consists of nothing but a certain ethos, a kind of leftist disposition and bias: We are the friends of the masses against the big capitalists and the suppressive authority of the state. But really, who DOESN'T share that ethos?
The fundamental issue isn't whether the left should or should not fight, and certainly not that they should SHOW unity, but that the left needs to agree on what IS the right explanation of the phenomena that drive them to become leftist in the first place: poverty, war, competition, the environment, etc. And to do that, there simply is no other path than that of dispute, of arguing about theory. There is no way of getting around it.
And incidentally, how is such a united front supposed to help? Will the arguments of the left seem more convincing to the masses because those on the left can get along with each other despite the fact that they don't even agree on what it is they are fighting against? I am not for justice, I'm not for making sure that the capitalists pay their fair share of taxes so the state can fund welfare programs; I'm neither for freedom, nor democracy, so how can I accept, almost self-evidently as these leftists imply one should, that democratic principles need to be shown more respect among the left in their discussions with one another? If anything, this demand shows what democratic principles are there for: to garner the consent of those who disagree on the premise that they are free to express their views as utterly non-binding opinions.
Comments
Post a Comment