IME, people on the grad do in fact tend to try to do a material analysis of events and not take what sources say uncritically, both of which are important. It doesn’t always play out that way, but there is a culture here of encouraging it. It would be better if this kind of culture was more common in western “discourse”, but it doesn’t come from magic on the grad. As far as I can tell, it comes primarily from a combination of clarity in ideological line and a decent working understanding of dialectical and historical materialism overall (some are more clear on it than others). In order to practice this more generally, people need to be taught. Without the tools, they can’t analyze clearly (they will easily fall prey to things like idealism without any consciousness of an alternative, simply seeing it as “the way the world works”).
What is not important or worth the time is stepping into every land mine laid by western narratives and sources, acting like it’s a perfectly neutral and harmless framing (people are prone to doing this in part because of believing the narrative that mainstream sources are “neutral”). What is not important is westerners feeling they need to have a take on everything (nobody needs to have a take on everything, no matter the culture - sometimes we can plain learn from others who have done the work). And some westerners are especially prone to thinking they need to individually weigh in because they’re from the west (western superiority mindset).
People unthinkingly listening to X media personality or network can be a problem, but so can trying to be an island of skepticism who lurks outside reality and makes all the proper judgments by analyzing life like a chess board or something. It’s just more complicated than “have higher standards.”
In order to practice this more generally, people need to be taught.
Bingo, also my biggest weakness. It’s my fault for making my studies a tiny group chat-based internet egg hunt for too long to shut it out, I didn’t give explaining stuff enough deep thought & my poor skills make me turn to withering remarks, because I’m used to people I’ve talked to for years. I am awful at teaching people thinking skills. Reasonable at teaching them language skills, though. I can completely sympathize with people who believe they need to balance left unity online in order to ensure reform orgs can get traction, I was there a few years ago for heavens’ sake, but it’s actively shutting down substantive conversations. Not that I started one here, I just disagree with the “takes are harmful” principle. Skill issue.
people who believe they need to balance left unity online in order to ensure reform orgs can get traction, I was there a few years ago for heavens’ sake, but it’s actively shutting down substantive conversations. Not that I started one here, I just disagree with the “takes are harmful” principle. Skill issue.
When you put it that way, it seems more clear to me where you’re coming from. Luckily, the grad at least does not seem to go for the “left unity at the cost of principles” thing that baby leftists in the west have a tendency to latch onto. I even recall a thread by an admin heavily criticizing ossification of “left” parties in the west, how little many of them have accomplished throughout their existence, and how much and often they have become watered down to co-exist alongside the system.
I did not interpret it that way in this specific thread up until this point, but in retrospect, I can see how you could have seen that in the other person’s post and then seen it like I was affirming it as something people should be doing. Vague calls for left unity is a point I was once at (when I was far from ML in politics yet and new to “leftism”), but is not something I’m consciously for these days. I don’t believe a vanguard will be formed from voter “big tent” coalitions (though certain of reform coalitions may be able to help pipeline people to ML some of the time, such as how some in the US were drawn further left by Bernie’s campaign and then helped further along than that by actual communists). For revolutionary level change, there has to be a principled, disciplined, and organized party foundation that understands revolution isn’t “getting more votes than the dominant state project”; otherwise, we may as well be talking about the democratic party in the US for all the difference it makes.
IME, people on the grad do in fact tend to try to do a material analysis of events and not take what sources say uncritically, both of which are important. It doesn’t always play out that way, but there is a culture here of encouraging it. It would be better if this kind of culture was more common in western “discourse”, but it doesn’t come from magic on the grad. As far as I can tell, it comes primarily from a combination of clarity in ideological line and a decent working understanding of dialectical and historical materialism overall (some are more clear on it than others). In order to practice this more generally, people need to be taught. Without the tools, they can’t analyze clearly (they will easily fall prey to things like idealism without any consciousness of an alternative, simply seeing it as “the way the world works”).
What is not important or worth the time is stepping into every land mine laid by western narratives and sources, acting like it’s a perfectly neutral and harmless framing (people are prone to doing this in part because of believing the narrative that mainstream sources are “neutral”). What is not important is westerners feeling they need to have a take on everything (nobody needs to have a take on everything, no matter the culture - sometimes we can plain learn from others who have done the work). And some westerners are especially prone to thinking they need to individually weigh in because they’re from the west (western superiority mindset).
People unthinkingly listening to X media personality or network can be a problem, but so can trying to be an island of skepticism who lurks outside reality and makes all the proper judgments by analyzing life like a chess board or something. It’s just more complicated than “have higher standards.”
Bingo, also my biggest weakness. It’s my fault for making my studies a tiny group chat-based internet egg hunt for too long to shut it out, I didn’t give explaining stuff enough deep thought & my poor skills make me turn to withering remarks, because I’m used to people I’ve talked to for years. I am awful at teaching people thinking skills. Reasonable at teaching them language skills, though. I can completely sympathize with people who believe they need to balance left unity online in order to ensure reform orgs can get traction, I was there a few years ago for heavens’ sake, but it’s actively shutting down substantive conversations. Not that I started one here, I just disagree with the “takes are harmful” principle. Skill issue.
When you put it that way, it seems more clear to me where you’re coming from. Luckily, the grad at least does not seem to go for the “left unity at the cost of principles” thing that baby leftists in the west have a tendency to latch onto. I even recall a thread by an admin heavily criticizing ossification of “left” parties in the west, how little many of them have accomplished throughout their existence, and how much and often they have become watered down to co-exist alongside the system.
I did not interpret it that way in this specific thread up until this point, but in retrospect, I can see how you could have seen that in the other person’s post and then seen it like I was affirming it as something people should be doing. Vague calls for left unity is a point I was once at (when I was far from ML in politics yet and new to “leftism”), but is not something I’m consciously for these days. I don’t believe a vanguard will be formed from voter “big tent” coalitions (though certain of reform coalitions may be able to help pipeline people to ML some of the time, such as how some in the US were drawn further left by Bernie’s campaign and then helped further along than that by actual communists). For revolutionary level change, there has to be a principled, disciplined, and organized party foundation that understands revolution isn’t “getting more votes than the dominant state project”; otherwise, we may as well be talking about the democratic party in the US for all the difference it makes.