and Auth Left is even more theory than communism is
Uhhh… what??
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say that they meant “even more theoretical than communism is” which doesn’t make a ton more sense because when you’re talking about political theory then saying something is more theory/theoretical can mean that it’s more theory-heavy. I’m going to assume that they mean to say “hypothetical” though this is taking two more leaps than I would want to or need to if the commenter was a bit perspicuous in their phrasing.
The thing is, speaking as a long-term anarchist recently turned ML, it’s a bit galling to accuse the “auth” left of being hypothetical given that if anything the lib left has much less in the way of real-world examples to hang their collective hat on. And on top of that, the lib left political projects that are generally pointed at as being exemplars of lib left values fall far short of their touted values, to the point that I struggle to understand how they can be upheld as positive examples at all, or otherwise they point to examples which reject labels like “libertarian left” or ones which have virtually no historical scholarship existing in the anglophone world to speak of.
Edit: Oh no…
I’m no Marx scholar but I’m pretty sure that Marx’s critique of the Paris Commune must have centered around needing more unions, right? Right?
When you’ve definitely read and understood Kapital, which shows that Unions without a revolutionary outlook act as maintainers of capitalist exploitation at the maximum sustainable level.
They’re a Vaushite - they don’t need to read Marx to understand him. All they need to do is to make wild claims about his writings and occasionally tap the Vaushite standard issue belt buckle insignia emblazoned with the slogan GottMarx Mit Uns (but only when yet-another damn tankie dares to question their literacy 😤)
(Throwback to Keffals freaking out about how Hakim constantly references books for his audience to read if they want to do further examination on subjects he mentions. Because that’s definitely not emblematic of an attitude of antipathy towards book lernin’ from the Vaush-adjacent cohort.)
both Post and Muldoon focus on Kautsky’s post-1910 period in which his politics were, yes, increasingly reformist — but also less and less influential.
Despite his steady turn to the center after 1909, Kautsky’s entreaties were ignored by the bureaucratized officialdom of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) throughout the revolution. Germany’s radicals, on the other hand, rejected their former mentor for having abandoned his long-standing commitment to revolutionary class politics.
Up until the early 1910s, Kautsky was the leading light of the far left in Germany, Russia, and across the world. It’s hardly the case that Kautsky’s writings were to blame for the German social democracy’s slide to the right.
Jacobin columnists trying to explain how Kautsky and the SPD sliding to the right at the exact same time had no connection.
Could this theorist and prominent figure within SPD have some input in their shift further and further towards capitalism? No it was the shady unnamed bureaucrats.
Uhhh… what??
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say that they meant “even more theoretical than communism is” which doesn’t make a ton more sense because when you’re talking about political theory then saying something is more theory/theoretical can mean that it’s more theory-heavy. I’m going to assume that they mean to say “hypothetical” though this is taking two more leaps than I would want to or need to if the commenter was a bit perspicuous in their phrasing.
The thing is, speaking as a long-term anarchist recently turned ML, it’s a bit galling to accuse the “auth” left of being hypothetical given that if anything the lib left has much less in the way of real-world examples to hang their collective hat on. And on top of that, the lib left political projects that are generally pointed at as being exemplars of lib left values fall far short of their touted values, to the point that I struggle to understand how they can be upheld as positive examples at all, or otherwise they point to examples which reject labels like “libertarian left” or ones which have virtually no historical scholarship existing in the anglophone world to speak of.
Edit: Oh no…
I’m no Marx scholar but I’m pretty sure that Marx’s critique of the Paris Commune must have centered around needing more unions, right? Right?
thats so crazy i wonder if anybodys ever tried to create a political system based around some type of worker councils… like some type of soviet system
Workers councils sounds based.
Idk what “soviet” means but it sounds like foreigner-talk to me so I distrust the word straight off the bat ngl.
Some sort of federation of socialist workers council republics.
i am once again asking liberals to read this 20 page pdf https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf
How it feels to ask liberals to read 20 pages of theory
The only way you’d have a chance of getting liberal to read that is by calling it Harry Potter and the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
They’re a vaushite
Oh no… they really are. Gross.
When you’ve definitely read and understood Kapital, which shows that Unions without a revolutionary outlook act as maintainers of capitalist exploitation at the maximum sustainable level.
They’re a Vaushite - they don’t need to read Marx to understand him. All they need to do is to make wild claims about his writings and occasionally tap the Vaushite standard issue belt buckle insignia emblazoned with the slogan
GottMarx Mit Uns (but only when yet-another damn tankie dares to question their literacy 😤)(Throwback to Keffals freaking out about how Hakim constantly references books for his audience to read if they want to do further examination on subjects he mentions. Because that’s definitely not emblematic of an attitude of antipathy towards book lernin’ from the Vaush-adjacent cohort.)
Oh shit, Kautsky has returned from the grave.
And guess who summoned him back to haunt the land of the living? Our good friends at
Jacobin, of course!
With their blisteringly insightful and timely article Why Kautsky Was Right (and Why You Should Care).
Could this theorist and prominent figure within SPD have some input in their shift further and further towards capitalism? No it was the shady unnamed bureaucrats.