My distaste with the Western Left

Post Reply New Topic

I am a Yugoslav communist whose nation was ruled according on the principles of Marxism-Leninism with some Tito additions such as self-management, a less harsh legal system (no major purges since 1950s, no massive killings of certain groups over ethnicity, religion, gender, and race, and a more competent law enforcement), and most importantly, no corrupt bureaucracy that I am living with today.

My main issue with the leftists on the West is that they're pessimistic. Though this New Left emerged in the Cold War period, one of their biggest icks is that they're way too liberal and defeatist. First off, they reject an authoritarian approach to establishing a socialist state and moving towards a communist society. Engels in 1872 said that the revolution is the "most authoritarian thing there is".

In 1792, the Jacobins (a.k.a the proto-Bolsheviks) abolished the monarchy and established the First Republic. In 1793, they executed the corrupt King Louis XVI for his indecisiveness and alignment with the corrupt French nobles who rejected the Enlightenment. This was followed by mass executions of the upper-class people who were loyal to the Ancien Regime. Same can be said for the Bolsheviks in Russia who were under the leadership of Lenin from 1903 to 1924, when they too rebelled against the incompetent Romanov family which refused to industrialize Russia and upgrade the military. The Romanovs too had the same fate as the Bourbons did in 1793.

The atrocities of the Bolsheviks and Jacobins shouldn't really be appreciated as both of them were involved in mass purges under the motivation of anger and rage that was building within them for quite some time. Some of those deaths were even innocent lives (especially when the Stalin era rolled and s**t went absolutely f*****g crazy with Stalin's paranoia and his not wanting to provide good harvests).

But still, I feel that the teachings of the New Left about reality are rather pessimistic and yet many appreciate them because they're "democratic". But how can I, a tankie, appreciate the people's democracy of the New Left compared to the workplace democracy in socialist Yugoslavia under the benevolent autocracy led by Tito? Have these men and women lost their ways of revolution and embraced capitalist and liberal thinking? But then when looking into the Old Left, it's comprised of mainly a bunch of Russophiles.

What my Marxist-Leninist thinking is that I favor equality among the working class regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and religion, and that I also want to preserve that benevolent autocracy that truly cares for the working class. That is how I tend to also identify myself sometimes as a "Neo-Titoist", as I tend to preserve the Titoist policies such as self-management but also rely on a more authoritarian stance such as lesser autonomy for the socialist republics in Yugoslavia but also making Kosovo a socialist republic just to piss off the Serbians and balance the equilibrium between the Yugoslavs and Albanians.

In the end, I think that the teachings of leftists from the Eastern European countries and also Yugoslavia, made more sense than what the New Left propagates.

The stories my father brought from communist Yugoslavia were that the party members lived aristocratic lives at the expense of the rest of the society... I guess all the violence that happened later made problems from that time easier to forget.

The old style pure authoritarian Marxist-Leninism of yours...came crashing down in 1989.

It was a global failure . Thats why even far left radicals no longer adhere to it.

The fault is not with the "western left" its with your creed. Its a proven failure.

Wake up already.

The only pure remaining "dictatorship of the proletariate" is North Korea.

If you wanna knock yourself trying to sell North Korea as perfect society (even to Marxist leaning followers of Noam Chomsky)be my guest.

He was right about that. The only luxury that existed was within the political circle of the communist party. Tito was kinda lavish but at the same time, he still had the nerves of titanium to balance Yugoslavia and keep the nation to himself and not give it to the West or the East.

Pretty much the vanguard of socialism in Yugoslavia had the say in the political matters.

I mean, if not condoning the vast human rights violations that underpinned Leninist dictatorships is distasteful I suppose we'll have to accept that our tastes differ because I find authoritarianism pretty distasteful, even when it's served with some red sauce on top.

I refuse to acknowledge the North Korean government as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". You have many critics describing it as a deviation of Marxism-Leninism and judging by the lifestyle, it looks more like a monarchy disguised as communism. Didn't those guys break away from Marxism-Leninism when Kim Jong Il took the position as the head of state?

That is why I prefer the restoration of Marxism-Leninism with a Market Socialist economy that was famously known to have been used by Yugoslavia. As David Lane wrote in 2013, "market socialism retains the market mechanism while socializing the ownership of capital.". Think about it as public ownership where you have workplaces owned by the working class or workers' councils while some areas still remain owned by the government (infrastructure, schools, hospitals, universities, etc.). The workers' and the state can be involved with the planning of what to produce, how to distribute it, and what to do with the infrastructure, healthcare, education, and population growth.

Personally, I am the pro-welfare state type. I believe that there can be a more efficient socialist state ruled by the iron fist with a mixed economy that embraces mostly Market Socialism as a viable alternative to neoliberal capitalism. Prices are guided by the market but there will also be self-management of the nation itself with some level of planned economy to avoid unequal distribution of the goods among the working class.

Yunker "emphasizes the ways in which ‘pragmatic market socialism’ reduces inequality while concurrently preserving the current consumer culture. He recognizes that some capitalists, providing entrepreneurship roles in the present or the past, have a legitimate right to a profit as a reward for their effort. However, really large capital fortunes are a consequence of inheritance, as well as illegitimate rewards for speculation in financial capital markets. Such income is neither economically necessary nor is its receipt morally equitable."

So yeah, my proposal is that a socialist state should have an authoritarian regime with an economic mix of Market Socialism and a Planned Economy by the state.

Yes, the royals and the poor people.
Yugoslavia had similar socioeconomic structure.
Unlike Poland, where simply everyone was poor.

Good luck with that.  Not many people seem to be buying into it.

Planned Economy is a recipe for gargantuan inefficiency and shortages of everything.
While I don't advocate for full wild neoliberalism disguising greed for a virtue, planned economy is just as wise as planned and micromanaged jungle.

Because communists don't like private property and don't want a mixed economy for sure.

If you're talking about the pure planned economy then that makes sense.

More likely because sensible people do not like being crushed under the jack-booted heel of an authoritarian state.

Last edited by Fnord on 14 Feb 2024, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm talking about experiences form Poland.
Including both the communist time and the big national projects in mixed economy today.
Governments are inefficient. Sometimes this inefficiency is worth it to prevent other problems (i.e. let's not privatize the army) but in general, we need to understand it brings additional costs.

Oh yeah. That as well but that is what they learn from the liberal teachings. Under authoritarian teachings, there would be theoretically smaller numbers of dissatisfied liberals.

Because they would all be sent to the Gulag or made to otherwise 'disappear', and likely forever.