Leftist Denominationalism

How the Western Left repeats the religious dogmatism and sectarianism of Modernity (and Post-Modernity)

What is often considered the “left,” a broad term encompassing many ideologies in the US and EU, has a dogmatism problem.

I know, what a profound thought! Someone living in the imperial core saying that the western left likes to segment it’s already small self into many microscopic pieces to the point of international uselessness? What a new thought!

Sarcasm aside, along with the above point being known for a long time, the nominal left in the west has always had difficulty with dogmatic views — something that it has heavily borrowed from secularist Modernity that held its lofty goal of ridding Europe of religious thinking in favor of scientific truths. One can look at the epitome of Modernity, the French Revolution, and all of its supposed horrors and can still see the religious underpinnings; churches reverted into places to worship Liberal concepts rather than a god, people abandoning religion in favor of bowing down before rediscovered concepts of philosophy. One has to wonder if this was truly any different from the Catholic Church’s function in society at the time.

But this article is not about the French Revolution, nor is it to say that Modernity (and it’s always present, but never really there, child, Post-Modernity) in of itself was something the west should be ashamed of; I lost all enjoyment in such arguments after leaving university. Instead, this article is pointing out a common mistake, a mistake made in the French Revolution and is now being made once again in the western left — the mistake of religious adherents to ideology at a moment where no one gives a shit.

Now, I admit that I have my own ideology (somewhere Jordan Peterson just gasped) that I adhere to, and I believe to be correct. And at the same time, that ideology has taught me that, if we are to make revolution, then we must understand the many stages of said revolution concretely. We must understand where we were, where we are now, and where we would like to go. In other words, what did we do in the past (both successfully and unsuccessfully), what are we doing now, and what are our future goals?

It often feels that many self-proclaimed leftists very rarely ask themselves these questions, opting in favor of wearing their (often new-found) radicalism as a new band t-shirt to say “look at my ideology! It makes me cool!” Such actors make me regularly question whether their ‘radicalism’ is authentic, or if it is just an aesthetic they metaphorically wear. They tie themselves to this ideology (and the states/communities they are/were tied to) so heavily, typically through conversations, posts, retweets from their favorite Twitter accounts, to the point that anyone who is of an adjacent, but not exactly like them, group, those people are immediately viewed as an enemy — sometimes a bigger enemy than the state or capitalism.

What is the point of such thinking? What is the point of such adherents to your ideology? Outside the many niche leftists circles, no one gives a shit! Now, a matter of if they should is a different question; but the truth remains, no one cares about your take on this or that situation from the 1950s, whether you supported this or that intervention/uprising/rebellion/insurrection. Getting stuck on whether you view this or that long-dead politician as a revolutionary or a bourgeois collaborator/fascist, while can be important in your study groups, has little importance to the organizing and actions needed in the stage we are in.

When examining a group, an organization, or a party that claims they are for revolution, our question must be something like “what is our main goal?” What are we planning for the future?

If the plan is simply reform, then we must look back into history to see where such ideals have gone wrong — shamless plug for my most recent piece on this topic and Comrade Drew’s article on liberalism below this paragraph — and how we can course correct ourselves; whether that be leaving the organization or changing it from within. If the plan is revolution, then we must ask what is the organization doing now to implement said revolution.

What Can We Learn from "What Is to be Done?"

How Liberalism Enables The Rise Of Fascism

Ultimately, an organization’s end goal is of importance and can tell those of us who favor revolution whether an organization is for the masses. But we must investigate what the organization is like — what are their resources, financially and labour wise, and how do they utilize them. What type of actions do they take when faced with opposition? Do they uphold certain values that revolutionary organizations hold? Do they agitate, propagandize, and educate the masses to upend the whole of this system?

Throughout the United States and Europe there are organizations, big and small, that fit the descriptions of revolutionary. Are they perfect? Of course not. Are there areas that are in dire need of improvement? Absolutely. And it is up to the revolutionaries amidst these organizations to bring about those changes. Does it matter if an organization is Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, or a specific brand of Communist if they are taking direct action against the imperialist machine within the imperialist core right now? Does it matter what they call themselves if they stand up for the masses against the capitalist class? Does it matter that they are your specific brand of radical if they are doing what this particular stage of the struggle we are in calls for?

Ultimately, it should not matter, because we are not in the stage of revolution where we are getting to decide which organization is the one to lead. We are especially not in the stage where pure ideology matters, since no one outside the niche leftist spheres gives a shit if you are a communist or an anarchist. Or if you think what happened in — insert vague historical situation here — was a brave rebellion or a petit-bourgeois insurrection. One day, those questions may very well matter.

But that day is not today.

Revolutionaries have to have ‘skin in the game’ first. They have to be within and leading the masses towards revolution. This calls for further educating the masses on the topic of revolution (look out for a near-future article on this Substack about this very topic!), utilizing our already narrow resources for direct actions, and pushing people away from the notion that bourgeois democracy is a democracy that will work for everyone.

The truth remains that our numbers, while rising, are still miniscule. The number of organizations in the west that truly have the material support to commit to revolution is zero. If we are to make it to the stage of revolution, let alone the stage where we can finally figure out which of these organizations will be the ideological leading force of the masses, then we have to get out of this stage.

This stage is wrought with leftist denominationalism. It looks more akin to protestants bickering about predestination, and the Catholics and Orthodox arguing about iconography. We have to, now stay with me, work together in a united front to end fascism’s rise in the west once more. And for that, we have to utilize every function, every resource, every tool, and every revolutionary organization — no matter how big or small — at our disposal.

And, no, the united front does not include liberal politicians like Sanders or AOC. Sorry!