The Story of Bill
The Story of Bill
There's a person in my life named Bill. Bill is a person whose always been around, but we never really 'connected'. Which is a shame because I always wanted to get closer with Bill. However it never really manifested, mostly because of different outlooks, and different interests.
I started working as a teenager full time, working back breaking demeaning minimum wage jobs for years. Having zero support, I had to drop out of college to survive. Bill was unemployed and a full time student, getting full support from his parents. Bill would always look down on me for this, thinking I was too much of a stupid degenerate to actually succeed, that I somehow 'deserved' this depraved existence. Then something happened, he struggled in school, and out of necessity Bill became employed for the first time in his life in his mid twenties. Working the same crap jobs he once looked down on. It was the first time I had actually been able to level with Bill, he finally understood the struggles I had. Even better: he started diving into Marxist theory. I was overjoyed, finally I can have something to relate with Bill about! We spent a lot of time going over this with each other. Bouncing ideas, bonding over political theory, sharing all of our recent books/discoveries. He knew I spent my whole life studying history and politics, so he would ask me a lot in regards to this. Wow, I was just overjoyed, almost too good to be true!
Then one day Bill quits his job after a short time, with full financial support, and heads back to school. All was fine at first, then during our political discussions he starts to suggest 'The Conquest of Bread' and was pretty adamant about me reading it. Uh oh, I started to smell trouble. (Now for full disclosure: I absolutely loathe anarchism. I've got nothing but disdain for anarchism and any libertarian adjacent ideologies. In my view they're politically and historically illiterate.) I wanted to maintain a good relationship with Bill, so I let him down easy. Told him I'm not really interested, that maybe one day I'll get around to it, I've got a lot more to learn about ML theory and history first. As time goes on he starts bringing up anarchism more and more. He visited local anarchist communes, began dating an anarchist, and even became a member of the local punk rock scene. I knew being coy about this wasn't going to last forever, eventually it was all going to come to a head.
Finally, after he suggested anarchism to me once again, I flat out ask him politely. "What would you define yourself as?" He responds in a round about way with "an anarcho-communist". I've got respect for Bill, I think he's a smart guy, so out of genuine curiosity and putting aside my own biases I ask him. "What do you like about anarchism, why do you define yourself as an anarchist?" He responded by saying, "History has proven that power is immoral and corrupt. Stalin purposefully created the famine, he ate all of the grain. Mao killed all of the sparrows. Yadayadayada. This is why there should be no hierarchies and the state is an evil institution that must be abolished." This response flusters me, I'm taken back by it. I try to respond by picking apart the historical illiteracy of his argument, particularly on Stalin. Trying to explain how there's no credible research, even by openly anti-communist researchers, to prove that the 1932 famine was 'man made'. How history matters, it's more nuanced than what you were taught in grade school, how we need to actually research things before openly spreading ignorance. No research no right to speak, ect. I tried to explain the history of anarchist projects, how they don't work in practice, how they resort to 'authoritarianist' methods as well. This all fell on deaf ears. Big brained Bill just knows it all I guess! Undeterred Bill plants a firm seat on his high horse, stating how he's a 'moralist' at the end of the day. How "ML's haven't accomplished anything in history, the USSR failed, how there's no local ML groups here in Whitey-ville suburbia, it's the anarchists doing all of the work!!" I try to explain why we're the most relevant leftist political force in history, and how that framing is silly, to no avail. He proceeds to talk about how the "authoritarian Stalin personally purged the greatest revolutionaries in history, Trotsky and Makhno!" I briefly explained why that framing around Trotsky was wrong, and having no idea who Makhno was at the time, asked about him. Bill explains how Makhno was 'his hero' he was this "great revolutionary spreading freedom across the land, the only true communist who ever existed, adored by all, and was struck down by the authoritarian Stalin!"
Hoo boy. 'What is happening? What in the world happened to Bill?' I thought to myself. Like a masochist I wanted to finish my questioning, "What about communism do you like?", I foolishly ask. Bill perks up and says "I love the Communist Manifesto, especially the part where Marx advocates for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Truly at the end of the day Marx had anarchist values." "Siiiiiiiiigh, no Marx was not an anarchist, he also wrote a lot more than just that", I said. Bill proceeded to then mock my intelligence, claim I didn't know anything about marx, politics, or history, apparently I'm nothing more than an arm chair pseudo-intellectual. While at the same time mocking Marx saying, "Marx is too intellectual in his writing, also him advocating for socialism is wrong and bad. At the end of the day I'm a Marxist though. Actually I'm above defining myself to one ideology. I also support Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, and Fred Hampton because they too advocate for anarchism." Using all my willpower and every fiber of my being to not slap Bill across the face for the blatent disrespect, or truly dunk on Bill for all of the wrong things that were said, I decided to end the conversation. Swallowing my pride, I told Bill that we don't see eye to eye. Nonetheless I support pragmatism, that I would be happy to help out locally at the end of the day despite our differences. Something tells me he's not going to take me up on that offer though lol.
So lemmygrad, how should I proceed? Do I just not bring up politics around Bill anymore? Do I keep trying to educate? Do I give into the immortal transcendent ideology of Bill-ism? Where in the world would Bill be possibly be getting this 'information' from? Any advice would be helpful. Also any information regarding Makhno, anarchism, Trotsky, and Stalin would be great as well. I've read a lot of dessaline's links, Marx/Engels/Stalin/Hampton's critiques on Anarchism, Grover Furrs work. Any additional information would be appreciated.
TLDR: My buddy Bill went down the old Marxist to marxist-anarcho-makhno-trot-CIA-jibberish pipeline. Please help.
Edit: Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions, that falls on me, and I apologize for that.
-
I'm fine with Bill despite all of the crap that was said. It's fine, me and Bill will continue to interact despite this. I have no intentions of cutting him off. If that were the case I wouldn't even bother making this post, I would just do it.
-
This isn't about 'converting' or convincing Bill of ML ideology. I could care less whether Bill is a ML at the end of the day or not. It was just kind of cool having something to bond over for a brief time, and was disappointing the way it turned out. The point of the post was to vent, to share a weird experience I had with fellow ML's, and to maybe seek advice on how to handle it. You all gave me excellent responses and good advice. I'm very appreciative of that.
-
Reading it back I think what I said in the post did come off as rather hostile. It’s mostly a venting post that I typed up in an hour and expected maybe two people to read. My behavior in the conversation was a lot more patient and respectful than what can be summarized accurately over the internet. It’s hard to give that kind of nuance over text, but I assure you all I wasn’t being a jerk irl.
-
Here’s a little background on me, I take history and politics very seriously. This isn’t a game to me. I’ve studied it constantly my whole life. From school, to spending personal time reading/watching new info, ect. Even if it’s from a perspective I don’t agree on (including anarchists). I listen, I absorb it, I don’t just dismiss people because they aren’t ML. I’ve also practiced what I preach. It hasn’t been purely theoretical, I’ve put in work on the ground, done a ton of community work for a variety of organizations. That being said, I don’t pretend to be an authority on anything, I’ll be the first to admit when I’m wrong. I’m wrong all the damn time, and that’s okay! I have a lot more to learn, I’ll be learning and adjusting my positions until the day I die.
If anyone has any more questions I'd be happy to clarify.
Anarchism is just liberalism with vague leftist looking optics. Treat him like any other liberal friend, be kind, patient, and don't worry about whether or not you can "convert" him. It isn't worth expending a ton of energy to get nowhere. We try to side with the position that history and reality points to. If someone rejects that in favour of fantasy and "good vibes" you can't really reach them. You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Like most anarchists, he's probably there because it makes him feel good about himself, it's another commodified identity bought and sold under capitalism. When you try to convince him he is wrong, he doesn't hear "There is more to learn" he hears "You're a bad person, how dare you be so awful."
Basically, don't stress about it. He'll wear the dreadlocks and go to the farmer's market and talk about how evil China is ruining the planet with climate change and authoritarianism. Just accept that this will happen and try not to worry about it. Libs perform their little rituals to feel good about themselves, but they lack any actual analytical ability. Things will never truly make sense with their framework, you don't need to be insecure about a friend (especially one from a position of privilege) having bad political takes. Just remember that talking "politics" with him will be as enlightening as talking to the average liberal about it. The important thing is to remain principled and patient. If you understand historical and current political events properly and his anarchist friends can't. He'll hopefully realise your philosophy explains things in a way his can't. As another comment said, this is all entirely theoretical disagreements. There isn't an active revolution going on where this actually matters. Just treat it like the empty middle class "sports team" political ideology that it is and let him have fun being a dumbass "fighting the system" with his $49.99 punk jacket he bought from hot topic.
Geez it's not like he's a fascist or something. A lot of people have to reckon with friends becoming fascists. If you don't see eye to eye that's another thing and maybe just let yourself fall out, you clearly have different upbringings and maybe this is part of why you're not on the same page. Otherwise personally I can't really see why a friendship should fall out over a different brand of leftism. From the way you write I'm guessing you're in a Western country which means it's purely a theoretical disagreement. It's not like there's an active revolution underway.
Politics aside, this dude just sounds obnoxious to be around. What kind of silver-spoon dweeb makes fun of someone for having a job and then feigns sympathy after fucking up at school and being humbled then immediately abandons any further thought after having things handed to him? Lecturing you and getting Marx's entire theoretical framework wrong after reading a snippet of the Manifesto is bonkers.
I wouldn't try to 'convert' a friend tbh. That doesn't mean I don't explain Marxism to people around me (not always as 'Marxism'). I would keep talking politics and learn together. You will become a better Marxist out of it and he might change his views. If not, don't fall out. Unless you don't really like him, in which case still don't fall out, just stop speaking—people change and you might reconnect well in future, but not if you left it on bad terms.
If the fascists become open about fascism, you're both getting thrown in jail, anyway. Try not to let theoretical disputes divide you. If there's no Marxist organising in your area, it wouldn't be the worst thing to join the anarchists if they're doing good community building. If they're theoretically wrong, this will be clear in the contradictions that appear. There will be no real space for praxis as the theory and practice won't ever line up properly. You and Bill might go through this together and both be (a) closer and (b) stronger Marxists for it.
When I suggest to keep talking politics, I mean just that. Not debating. Investigating and interrogating. You can joke about things. If he says X, point out a contradiction and ask how it could be resolved. Invite him to do the same. Be humble. 'I read this or that, what do you think, Bill?'
If he points out a flaw in your reasoning, talk it through. You might sharpen your critical analytical skills. Be respectful and don't dismiss it just because he professes to be an anarchist. People with incorrect theory can still be right about lots of things. Anarchist theory can't explain the world, so the process of trying to explain the world (if you give him the chance to do so) will let him reveal those cracks for himself. He might even wonder whether what you've been saying can fill in the gaps.
The evidence always leads to Marxism-Leninism, so it's only a matter of time before anyone who looks at the evidence becomes a Marxist. It's not a straight line, though, and people will take their own path.
Marxist theory and history is good but it can be a bit of a niche subject. I tend to not bring up the big historic beefs as most people don't know wtf I'd be talking about. Debunking the Holodomor? Shit, the Ukraine was barely a recognised entity for many people in the west until about a year ago. I'm not going to debate all this with people who can't point to the place on a map. Maybe I'm snobbish?
Still, I'm happy for them to just be wrong. The important question is how we're going to change the world today. So I let them be wrong and ask them for solutions. Then I do the ol' ruthless criticism of all that exists—politely, by highlighting the contradictions and asking how these will then be tackled. Ad infinitum.
You can talk about current events, too. Let them express their view. You express yours. Together you come to a more rigorous understanding.
So as I've said before when introducing myself here, I'm not super familiar with theory and I do want to learn more. But, this does seem to come off condescending to me. It sounds like he really respected you and absorbed a lot of what you shared with him. Have you ever read any anarchist theory? If not, it seems really disrespectful for you to completely dismiss his point of view without paying him any respect to even try to read any anarchist literature. Even from a strategic standpoint, you could do some reading simply so you could come from a place where you could counter some of his beliefs. If I were your friend I would feel completely dismissed and talked down to.
Imo, if he is active in his community trying to change living conditions for people instead of simply larping as an accelerationist, it doesn't matter that he's an anarchist or communist. And trying to understand his point of view instead of dismissing him will go a long way to get him to come back around to your own politics.
Not sure why you're getting downvotes, this is a reasonable stance to take. Being a jerk never helps anyone. I think people might've interpreted this as "You should meet him halfway" or "Don't knock anarchism until you've tried it." something, which doesn't seem to be what you've been saying.
It is a good idea to read anarchist theory, if only to get a better understanding of idealistic rather than materialistic theory and how it can sound superficially convincing to people, but ultimately lacks predictive and explanatory power.
Bill explains how Makhno was ‘his hero’ he was this “great revolutionary spreading freedom across the land, the only true communist who ever existed, adored by all, and was struck down by the authoritarian Stalin!”
No disrespect (actually yes), but Bill is an idiot and, as 98% of all anarchists out there, he has zero idea of what and who is he talking about.
The second fault of Makhno and of many of his intimates — both commanders and others — was their behaviour towards women. Especially when drunk, these men let themselves indulge in shameful and even odious activities, going as far as orgies in which certain women were forced to participate. It goes without saying that these acts of debauchery produced a demoralising effect on those who knew about them, and Makhno’s good name suffered from this.
- Voline, The Unknown Revolution, 1917–1921.
If you choose to do this with Bill or not for the sake of your friendship (although by Mao's advice I would recommend you not to skip it) it is your choice, but I think anarchists must be confronted with the history of their own movement, especially its dark moments, in order for them to break away from the romanticization of anarchist history and push them to read and actually inform themselves about what they are supporting.
I agree, bills an idiot, but cutting them off is probably not the best thing if he’s like the only “leftist” you know. OP should keep trying.
I agree. OP should not cut Bill off, but he must confront him. As I was referring to:
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
Mao Zedong, Combat Liberalism.
If you don’t feel like actually reading Krapotkin’s bread book I can suggest the Red Menace podcast on it. In summary, the book’s decent, but there are some errors with things like technological regression. You could also listen to an audiobook at twice speed. If you read his theory maybe he’ll be more open to reading about Lenin, Mao, and Huey’s criticisms of anarchism (as Bill still seems to have some respect for them).