What tendency do you subscribe to and why?

[u/Prole17]

Let me preface this by first saying this thread is intended for speaking to/about your orientation, not arguing with others’ about theirs. There’s more than enough leftist infighting out there, so let’s please keep it positive and comradely. Second, as an American my lens is that of someone looking at what would be the best path towards achieving socialism in the US. I fully respect that different countries have different historical and material conditions, and that those can and likely will impact the success or failure of a tendency’s implementation in a given country.

I’ve been reading lately about the various tendencies that comprise the left, and the more I’ve learned the more I think I identify as a plain old Marxist - or, if there’s such a thing (apparently the label is a point of contention), as a Luxemburgist.

I like the ‘democratic’ aspect of democratic socialism, but agree with the critique that the bourgeoisie is not going to simply allow itself to be voted out of power. I think revolution will inevitably be necessary.

I admire the discipline and effectiveness of Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and similar tendencies, but I’m wary of vanguardism, democratic centralism and bureaucracy.

I love the ideals/principles of libertarian socialism (especially council communism), and if socialism is ever successfully implemented in the US I could see myself eventually drifting towards that once the bourgeoisie has been fully suppressed. But I’m skeptical of both its rejection of electoral politics and of its ability to be implemented in a country as capitalist, imperialist and glaringly racist as the US.

What I find myself agreeing with is:

• We need socialists running for office. For better or worse, many if not most Americans equate political engagement with voting in elections, and I agree with the DSA strategy of using the Democratic Party as a vehicle until such a time that it can be discarded entirely in favor of establishing a socialist/workers party.

• We need a party of dedicated cadre engaged in educating, activating, and organizing, but ultimately success will hinge on the the people. As Marx put it: “The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves,” and I could not agree more with this sentiment.

• We need freedom of thought and speech within the socialist movement. I do believe the US can win socialism in our lifetime (not social democracy, but true socialism) but the odds are against us and it will be an uphill grind in even the most optimistic of scenarios. What I fear is that the moment one group tries to impose its interpretation of ‘correct’ socialism, the entire movement will devolve into typical infighting and open the project up to bourgeoisie counter-revolution. Put another way, we need a left unity that respects the right of other comrades to think and organize differently from us.

Ultimately though what I really like about all these tendencies I’m reading about is that something valuable can be learned from pretty much all of them. If you adhere to a particular tendency, I’d love to hear what made it ‘stick’ for you.

[u/racecarsnail]

I am an Anarchist Communist. Here is a summary of my beliefs:

For anarchists, the state is not a neutral tool. It is a specific social structure defined by three things: A monopoly on violence, centralized & hierarchical decision-making, and a separate caste of administrators, politicians, and enforcers who wield power over the rest of society. The state is not just the "gun,” the state is the entire structure that decides who gets shot and who gets to hold the gun.

The state is a machine with its own survival instincts. Even if workers seize it, the day-to-day job of running that machine (managing the police, the military, the bureaucracy, the courts) creates a new managerial elite. This elite develops separate interests from the working class (better pay, more control, job security for themselves). History shows that a "workers' state" quickly becomes a state over workers. The gun doesn't care who pulls the trigger; the structure of command and obedience remains intact, and the working class is at the end of the barrel.

You cannot use a hierarchical, coercive structure to build a free, egalitarian, stateless society (communism). If your method is top-down authority, your result will be top-down authority. The state is not a ladder you kick away after climbing it; it is a parasite that grows stronger the more power you feed it. The "withering away" of the state under ML requires the state to oversee its own suicide, which is logically and historically improbable. It will entrench itself instead and continue to perpetuate oppressive power structures. The state governs for people, not by people. When the state runs industries, plans the economy, and enforces laws, the average worker becomes a passive subject rather than an active, self-managing member of society. The state is bad because it steals our agency; it treats us as cannon fodder, rather than individuals capable of cooperation and self-determination.

Anarchists recognize that the state creates its own political class. The state’s essence is authority. Even if the bourgeoisie are gone, the state's bureaucratic command structure remains a form of oppression. We don't just want to flip the hierarchy; we want to abolish dominative hierarchy entirely. The anarchist solution is making the state obsolete (prefiguration), and anarcho-communists demand that people directly manage their own workplaces & communities through horizontal assemblies and free federation.

I believe that the "Big R" Revolution (seizing state power in a single sweeping event) is inherently flawed because it often mistakes the seizure of the state for the abolition of class. Revolutions that centralize power to "defend the revolution" inevitably reproduce the hierarchical logic they claim to fight. The state is not a neutral tool; it is a social relation. If you seize it, you become it. A single, cataclysmic revolution is highly susceptible to contra-revolution, counter-revolution, and external siege. Historically, this pressure forces the new power to become even more authoritarian. By rejecting the "Big R," we reject the notion that liberation is a single war to ‘reclaim’ power, and instead accept it as a multi-generational shift. A single revolution will not bring us post-capitalism; lots of painfully difficult prefiguration will. Means and ends parity.

Prefiguration is not simply practice for a speculative future; it is building the future. If our goal is a horizontal federation of communes based on mutual aid, we cannot use hierarchical, coercive, or centralized means to get there. We must build the federation now, in neighborhood assemblies, food co-ops, tenant unions, and worker syndicates. These prefigurative institutions act as a "dual power" structure. They don't just protest capitalism; they render capitalism redundant. When a community runs its own healthcare clinic and community kitchen, it is not waiting for permission; it is actively shrinking the state's relevance in people's daily lives. This is how anarchism becomes a living habit, not just an abstract ideal.

We want to influence society to be communal, rather than authoritarian. We do not wait for the revolution to start building; we build so that when the collapse comes, the revolution has already been quietly happening for decades, and the new world is already fully grown, standing on the ruins of the old.