Purity fetishism: why much of the left has attacked Rage Against the War Machine & Cornel West’s campaign
Purity fetishism: why much of the left has attacked Rage Against the War Machine & Cornel West’s campaign
Amid the escalations in our class conflict the Ukraine war has brought, the question that the communist movement has increasingly come to be battling over is: can we advance all the parts of our cause, while working with ideological elements that don’t share each of these ideas? Can we remain princi...
Ahh yes we are Liberals for not wanting to work with white supremacists and homophobes.
Nobody has yet to explain how we can oppose Imperialism through peaceful protests.
Rainer spends 50% of his time tailing "paycheck to paycheck" petty bougies and the other 50% making adventure time fanfiction.
The Lenin quote given at the start is taken entirely out of context. It looks like he just searched for a Lenin quote that would fit his flawed analysis.
Here are a few more quotes from the very chapter Rainer takes his quote from. Note that these are quotes from '"Left-wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder' which was written after the revolution in 1920.
About the necessity of the struggle against the reactionary leadership of trade unions:
The Mensheviks of the West have acquired a much firmer footing in the trade unions; there the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, case-hardened, covetous, and petty-bourgeois “labour aristocracy”, imperialist-minded, and imperialist-corrupted, has developed into a much stronger section than in our country. That is incontestable. The struggle against the Gomperses, and against the Jouhaux, Hendersons, Merrheims, Legiens and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks, who are an absolutely homogeneous social and political type. This struggle must be waged ruthlessly, and it must unfailingly be brought—as we brought it—to a point when all the incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism are completely discredited and driven out of the trade unions. Political power cannot be captured (and the attempt to capture it should not be made) until the struggle has reached a certain stage. This “certain stage” will be different in different countries and in different circumstances; it can be correctly gauged only by thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable political leaders of the proletariat in each particular country.
About working where the masses are:
If you want to help the “masses” and win the sympathy and support of the “masses”, you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the “leaders” (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.
Rainer's idea of allying with the movements he proposes is flawed in two parts. First, he doesn't call for the struggle against the incorrect and harmful ideas of those movements. He points out some flaws in some of the socialist parties in the US which do exist but his analysis here seems to favor the reactionary parties over said socialist parties. To me it sounds like he's just trying to send "the masses" to these reactionary movements without considering the level of organization, class consciousness and political involvement of "the masses". The situation is not the same as at the start of the 20th century or at the end of World War 1. The working class then was a lot more organized and various communist and reformist parties existed with actual mass support. Today, especially in the West, this is not really the case.Second, he doesn't really talk about reaching the masses. He talks of allying and supporting these reactionary movements which he just assumes have some mass support already and he assumes that the support they have is from working class people. Neither of these can be taken for granted.
The movements he wants to support are not actual reformist movements, they don't propose any significant reforms to the system, they barely even propose particular policies that they want to adopt. Reformist movements, while flawed, have historically had genuine mass support. The support of the working class that had at least some consciousness and wanted to systematically improve it's conditions. These types of movement can be useful for communists but again, a proper strategy needs to be made. Blind support doesn't lead anywhere.
Movements like RAWM also aren't working class movements. They fall into a group of astroturfed movements that are supported by various right-wing elements. I don't know much about Cornel West specifically, but from what I saw since he announced his campaign, he isn't really supported by the working classes of the US and I don't think he's really connected with them either. He's a (relatively) privileged life-long academic and is now attempting to approach "the masses" from above. "The masses" didn't choose him so they won't be radicalized when his attempts at "reform" fail. As far as I can tell, he also doesn't really have any reforms in mind, just calls to empty phrases like "truth", "justice", and some calls for policies like "a living wage" which aren't elaborated on at all.
Two very timely short threads by Roderic Day on this "purity fetish" phenomenon:
Thread 1
Thread 2Oof...
I gotta say I'm glad this community exists and people can be critical of these takes because my day to day life is absolutely saturated with this kind of stuff.
Yeah I'm not reading an article from someone who is defending Cornel West and the fucking People's Party.
This is Shea anyways, comrades like @absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml can tell you of the many, many flaws in his analysis
I've never seen Rainer defend Cornel West. I saw the opposite.
I can't defend Rainer anymore.
Acknowledging the futile reality of electoral tactics (especially for the US President) isn't a "purity test." And if anything, West, like any other left voice that continues to be allowed a platform by the corporate media arm of the state, deserves extra criticism and scrutiny.
I agree that electoral tactics are futile, and i personally have some major issues with Cornel West and some of the things he has said about communists and communism, but the fact remains that the Democratic party is the biggest obstacle to revolutionary organizing and revolutionary consciousness in the US. I can see an argument for supporting a spoiler candidate that draws away votes from them, especially when that candidate comes with a platform that has at least some semblance of anti-war messaging because that is something woefully absent from public discourse in the US and any voice on this issue with a platform such as that provided by participation in electoral politics is invaluable for shifting the public consciousness no matter what other faults those who popularize anti-war and anti-imperialist sentiments may have.
As Lenin said, the point of participating in bourgeois electoralism is not the delusional belief that you will be able to actually change anything substantial through the mechanisms of liberal democracy but the platform that this gives you to agitate and to spread your messaging.
From my point of view as an outsider looking at the situation in US politics my primary hope is that someone, regardless from which political direction, will make US interventionism unpopular enough for the US to stop meddling around the world. Ideally NATO would be allowed to collapse, funding for programs like the NED to be cut and US military bases and military aid to allied government across the world to be deemed unaffordable and be rolled back.
Of course I am realistic and I know that this is a long shot, US interventionism and empire is very much in the interests of its capitalist elite, so this will only happen if there is sufficient decline and turmoil in the US itself that its ruling class is forced to focus its attention inward.
There are some obvious positives if West's campaign is publicized enough to pull more people and the general conversation here to the left. I'm not convinced that Lenin quote fully applies to him though. Lenin was talking about the Bolsheviks gaining more visibility through participating in electoral campaigns. Neither the People's Party or Green Party are revolutionary parties. They are vaguely reformist and the danger is that they take disillusioned progressives and funnel all of their energy into doomed electoral/fundraising efforts rather than actual revolutionary work. It also has the chance of pulling people to the left but also leaving them more cynical when it eventually doesn't work out. And if West by some snowball's miracle in hell does win, he will either betray his promises or be so hamstrung by the state that he will ultimately be ineffective at executing any significant change. Whether people become more radicalized or reactionary from there is a question. Anything could happen.
There are revolutionary socialist parties in the US that are becoming more and more popular every year. They run electoral campaigns while also introducing their members and volunteers to the mass line work that is actually required for building real political power. I think Lenin's quote on electoralism applies to them moreso. I'd much rather throw my vote towards the PSL nominee for that same end.
My issue is with the tired liberal tactic of framing left critique of electoral candidates as some "purity test." It's disappointing that a self-described communist would even use that term to corral us into allying with bonafide reactionaries and neo-confederates.
I love how he takes critique as "more points to try to discredit this project". Something to be "thrown out", rather than actually leveled. This... Is exactly what I'm talking about when I drag settlers for filth. He performs no self-criticism, and his analysis is RIDDLED with WILLFUL blind spots that he paternalistically cudgels his reader into accepting. There will be no grand "project" like he thinks there'll be.
The Mises Caucus will use this "opportunity" to launder reputations they've tarnished online, leap into the electoral landscape, and continue rotting Amerika out like a bad tooth-- and as soon as Shea and the cracker barrel brigade are no longer useful to the Mises libertarians, they'll be cut loose with no pretense of loyalty or gentility, because the behavior of an animal's all those dictator-aspirants know.
"Leftier than thou", that's all his shit reads as anymore. And now that I'm thinking about it? Three guesses; who else do we know who starts screeching about "purity fetishism" around this time every four years?