My Political Journey has brought me to the broad label of being a leftist. Leftism encompasses many ideologies, each with unique visions for an egalitarian society and strategies to achieve it. These pages are my tool to test my understanding by articulating these ideas in my own terms. I don't care to label myself any further than leftist, as in my mind I'm still a student of leftist ideologies and have personally been finding insight across the spectrum of leftist ideologies. As a reminder, this digital garden is a perpetual work in progress and only reflects my understanding of a topic at time of writing.
Leftism refers to a wide range of political ideologies that share a general opposition to hierarchical structures, particularly class hierarchies. Leftists seek an egalitarian society, though their vision of what this entails and how to achieve it vary significantly. They aim to replace systems based on profit and exploitation with ones prioritizing collective well-being. This typically places them against capitalism, however some leftists seek to retain the role of markets and sometimes even private property.
Marxist-Leninists believe the way towards communism - a classless, stateless, moneyless society - requires a transitionary phase called the "dictatorship of the proletariat". This involves a revolutionary vanguard party seizing control of the state to protect against counter-revolutionary forces and reorganize society along socialist lines. The vanguard party will typically do so by taking advantage of a crisis brought on by the contradictions of capitalism. As material abundance is achieved and exploitation becomes structurally impossible, the state will "wither away," giving rise to communism.
Examples of MLism include the Soviet Union and other 20th century communist movements.
Critiques of MLism focus on the authoritarian nature of the transitionary phase and whether the state will truly willingly "wither away" as described.
Maoism and Dengism are adaptations of MLism that apply it to the specific context of China following its Communist Revolution.
Anarchists reject the state entirely, viewing it as an inherently oppressive institution that cannot be reformed or repurposed for liberation. Anarchism envisions the immediate transition to a classless, stateless, moneyless society organized through voluntary associations, mutual aid, and decentralized decision-making. Unlike Marxist-Leninists, anarchists argue against any transitionary state, believing it will perpetuate hierarchy rather than dismantle it.
Historical examples include the anarchist collectives in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, which experimented with decentralized governance and worker control.
Critics of anarchism often point to decentralized systems being harder to "scale up" without introducing oppressive hierarchies, and their vulnerability to coordinated external threats.
The page dedicated to anarchism will philosophically explore what a stateless society looks like, but does not really cover the process of transitioning from capitalism to anarchism, as I have little confidence such a process is truly possible without a state to protect it, so long as capitalists and other reactionary powers exist.
In contrast to anarchism and communism, these ideologies see markets as a tool for innovation and resource allocation, and argue for transitioning an existing state towards socialism without a vanguard party or revolution.
Syndicalism advocates for decentralized worker control through labor unions that would, through strikes and occupations, control the economy.
Social democracy and democratic socialism focus on reforming capitalist from the existing democratic processes, with the goal of reducing inequality and expanding social welfare. Bernie Sanders is a famous democratic socialist politician in America.
Anarchism and communism are interesting in that they both describe a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. A society free from class antagonisms and the coercive apparatus of the state. They're both materialist schools of thought that both aim for the collective liberation of all and the abolition of hierarchical power structures. Yet famously these two groups have been at odds throughout history, such as after the Russian Revolution. They have a fundamental disagreement on how to arrive at their ideal society, and those differences are very interesting to explore. These differences not only feed into conflicts between the two groups, but undoubtedly yet subtly shape the society they're ostensibly both striving for.
Communists argue for a transitionary state - the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - as necessary for defending the revolution from both internal and external counter-revolutionary forces, as well as reorganizing the economy along socialist and eventually communism lines. This is a very long process, as they ultimately believe they need to abolish the material basis for class society, perhaps on a global scale due to Imperialism , before the process is complete. Nevertheless, the state is still seen as a temporary mechanism that will eventually become obsolete and naturally "wither away", as described by Lenin in State and Revolution:
And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.
In the same document, Lenin describes a talk by Engels to anarchists where he exasperatedly points out they share a common vision for ideal society, and they just disagree on the justifications for a transitionary state. Engels believed not installing the transitionary state would mean not being able to "crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie". That the immediate abolition of the state is impractical in the face of the immense power of capitalist and other reactionary forces.
Anarchists, on the other hand, refute the concept of a transitionary state as a necessary construct; they see installing a state of any kind as a reactionary obstacle to achieving their ideal society. Anarchists see the state as an inherently oppressive institution that cannot be reformed nor repurposed for liberation. As put by Kropotkin in The State: Its Historic Role:
There are those, on the one hand, who hope to achieve the social revolution through the State by preserving and even extending most of its powers to be used for the revolution. And there are those like ourselves who see the State, both in its present form, in its very essence, and in whatever guise it might appear, an obstacle to the social revolution, the greatest hindrance to the birth of a society based on equality and liberty, as well as the historic means designed to prevent this blossoming. The latter work to abolish the State and not to reform it.
They argue that regardless of intent, states are structurally designed to centralize power and perpetuate hierarchy. They believe a state will intrinsically lead to a new ruling class and undermining the revolutionary aims of equality and freedom. And most importantly, they do not accept that a state could "wither away of its own accord", but rather would forever justify its continued existence. As Bakunin put in Statism and Anarchy:
The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.
It should be noted that Marx responded to this text, reaffirming that the state would go away due to resource distribution becoming apolitical once abundance is achieved.
Naturally, anarchists also do not believe the economic role of the transitionary state is necessary either, but that a society, even pre-revolution, can work towards meeting the needs of everyone at the local community level through mutual aid and a focus on sustainable living.
Due to the different paths to get there, the society each group strives for will be distinct in important ways, despite sharing the common characteristics of being classless, stateless, and moneyless. Communists arrived here almost incidentally after eradicating the material conditions for exploitation. They'll have reached an economic state of abundance, post-scarcity. Although Lenin makes it clear he still believes individuals can consume in excess and must be stopped, although he does not see the state as necessary for that effort:
We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away".
The take away here is that the communist vision may happen to be stateless and even follow some anarchist principles, but it was not designed to rigorously uphold all anarchist values. Of particular note, the advanced productive powers developed by the transitionary state would likely be a fairly centralized construct, even without a formal state, which anarchists would see as a coercive force that goes against the principle of free association. Anarchists, instead, would keep the economy decentralized, managing production on the local level guided by the principles of mutual aid and sustainability.
Leftist infighting has long been a meme. While their disagreements are inevitable and valid, their intensity is often exacerbated by external forces seeking to dismantle leftist movements. The lack of a unifying framework is what makes leftism in particular susceptible to infighting.
The status quo creates an aligning force for similar ideologies, and makes any ideologies far away from the status quo feel comparatively dissimilar.
Marxist-Leninists advocate for a concept called democratic centralism to combat infighting. It mandates unity of action while allowing for internal debate and discussion. It's particularly useful and relevant for a vanguard party to ensure it is clear who has taken power following a revolution, rather than creating a power vacuum that can be exploited by imperialist powers. However, critics argue democratic centralism can stifle dissent and foster authoritarianism.
As I describe in A Plea to Organize, despite differences between the different ideologies, my advice is still the same: Organize! Join local communities, regardless of affiliation, and support leftism and the community. Mutual aid efforts are particularly helpful and can be found on Mutual Aid Hub.
Additionally: Study! Read theory and better understand leftist ideologies of all stripes. It helps you better understand the philosophies underpinning these ideologies and in turn become a better leftist.
',44),b=JSON.parse('{"title":"Leftism","description":"","frontmatter":{"alias":"Leftist","public":"true","slug":"leftism","title":"Leftism","prev":false,"next":false},"headers":[],"relativePath":"garden/leftism/index.md","filePath":"garden/leftism/index.md"}'),m={name:"garden/leftism/index.md"},v=Object.assign(m,{setup(u){const a=o();return(p,f)=>(l(),s("div",null,[h,e("p",null,[r("1794 words, ~10 minute read. "),e("span",{innerHTML:t(i)[`site/${t(a).page.value.relativePath}`]},null,8,c)]),d]))}});export{b as __pageData,v as default};