For dissent & diversity in our movements- A critique of the call for "leftist unity"
Do we need to be united to be free?
A collaborative piece by Ayesha & B (@recycle_the_rich on IG)
You may have seen memes & posts on social media calling for “leftist unity”. In movement spaces or in the internet ether, there has been an increasing wave of people calling for “the left” to set differences aside & unite over shared enemies or common goals.
“We should be fighting the rich (or the right) & not each other!”
“We shouldn’t be wasting our time bickering on the left!”
On the surface & in theory, all these sentiments sound benevolent or endearing even. The idealistic notion that we should unite behind the common enemy that is capitalism/ colonialism… sounds nice. & sure, we should be spending more time, energy, love and care into building relationships and mutual aid networks in our communities rather than tearing people down or bickering in comments sections. One of us wrote extensively last week about how “leftist” politics can often be a barrier to relationship building & connection:
Today, we’ll get into the specifics of what “leftist unity” means. Community building is a messy endeavor that in reality differs drastically from the generalizations often glamorized on social media. We want to pushback on the idea that a mass, centralized, “unified”, homogenized movement is what our communities need. Instead, we (& many others) think that our diversity & heterogeneity is what makes us stronger.
What people condescendingly refer to as “leftist infighting” is often critical and essential conflict between people who have drastically different values and addressing these issues can strengthen our communities. The blanket generalization that we should just “let things slide” is a slippery slope because when does a healthy, necessary level of empathy become a harmful lack of communal accountability?
Creating a culture where people are shamed for speaking up, dissenting & disagreeing is a culture that enables interpersonal violence & suppresses people’s autonomy. Accountability can be a beautiful part of being in community. We teach each other, care for each other & pushback on each other when needed— all of these intricate, complex dynamics enable growth.
Over the years, we’ve often observed the rhetoric of “leftist unity” deployed on social media or in movement spaces by people asserting moral high ground as they mock or condescendingly look down on dissenters- i.e. the people who supposedly stand in the way of such unity from being actualized. Some questions we’ve been left with— What does “leftist unity” actually mean? What does unity mean on the ground & in practice beyond the glamorized hypothetical concept? How would it shape our actions & tangible relationships? Who is “THE LEFT”? What exactly should we be uniting around & who gets to decide or enforce such unity? Beyond social media’s echo chambers, how does this call for unity play out on the ground in our movements or communities? & ultimately— is it helpful at all for our collective liberation?
For dissent, diversity, heterogeneity, praxis & boundaries— the recipe for a healthy community
Setting intentions: Firstly, we write this out of sincere love and care for our communities. As people who focus on praxis— the tangible application values of liberation to our daily lives and relationships today (beyond theory), we’ve seen the harm that has come from such disingenuous calls for unity. We’ve seen the time, energy & efforts wasted on these glamorized notions which also means that energy was misdirected away from doing things that are most helpful to caring for & meeting the material needs of our communities.
Here are the molecules or atoms that we think make up strong & resilient communities or collectives (summarized into 10 succinct points):
1. Diversity is good & differences can be a strength
As anarchists, we think the strongest communities are the MOST diverse. We think the strongest movements are not mass, centralized, “unified” movements but local, decentralized movements that take a diversity of divergent, different, distinct approaches to caring for communities & the land. We think our innate heterogeneity makes us stronger, not weaker. This can mean diverse collectives of people, diverse relationships or just diverse people co-existing but NOT necessarily working together or being in intimate relationships. If people don’t feel like a collaboration with someone different than them is fruitful or harmful, then not forcing such a collaboration or shaming them for being unwilling to engage is also how we can honor diversity.
Any effort to mass mobilize very different communities under an umbrella of unity will inevitably fail to address the intricate, specific, different, distinct needs of each of those communities. ONE banner, ONE flag, ONE political party, ONE hypothetical “united left” cannot possibly represent millions, if not billions, of very different people with different cultural, historical, ecological contexts. Any attempt to “manage” or herd such diverse communities or reduce them to a set of priorities that we can all “agree on” will inevitably dismiss, neglect or deprioritize the needs of some for the sake of performative unity.
It also brings up an important logistical hurdle– how will the voices of such large groups of different people be justly represented in a mass movement? They cannot. It will inevitably lead to generalizations, reductions & the creation of hierarchies where political figureheads or “representatives” hoard power, claiming to speak for many people. Anarchists & anarchist-adjacent folks are fundamentally opposed to such centralization of power. Who will be the people deciding what points leftists should “unite around”? How will they enforce such mass compliance with said points of unity? What happens when people refuse to participate, dissent, pushback or disagree with these points of unity? Are they then abandoned & the needs of their communities erased or not included within the umbrella of the “cause”? We don’t need a few coordinating the masses. We don’t need a select, elite group of “chosen” revolutionaries “leading” & making decisions for the majority— this is by design an oppressive structure that doesn’t allow for accountability. On a local scale, our communities are more than capable of organizing horizontally because we know each other intimately.
2. Conflicts are important & extremely valuable when they emerge in the right context
Conflicts are not only inevitable but necessary for our collective wellbeing and growth. Relationships, communities or collectives cannot survive sustainably by avoiding conflicts. It is an idealized non-existent fantasy. Conflicts within equitable, reciprocal relationships are opportunities for collective growth, spaces to address serious problems & proactively prevent further exacerbation of harm or distress.
Conflicts can be incredible teaching moments for us to tangibly practice addressing disagreements or moving through discord without carceral "me vs you” values. They don’t always require the parties involved to “compromise” on their autonomy. Often, collaborative navigation through a conflict gives birth to new “out of the box” ideas that would have never emerged otherwise and inspires new ways of thinking & being. Conflicts within grassroots collectives or movement spaces can be catalysts for much needed change to a harmful status quo. Conflicts can emerge when people push-back against authority, assert their autonomy, take direct action in instances where they are being neglected/ suppressed/ repressed which is a beautiful process that allows us to explore what accountability looks like in real time.
Conflict resolution is a collaborative process that gives us the opportunity to implement values of liberation in our sacred relationships. Shaming people for raising their voice or catalyzing conflict is a form of suppression & interpersonal oppression. It fosters an environment that discourages people from being authentic & honest in the name of “unity”. It secures superficial, fake harmony by scaring people into “not rocking the boat”. Except, “rocking the boat” is often the necessary catalyst for much needed change.
Building resilience through conflict resolution not avoidance
We’re socialized under capitalism/ colonialism to approach conflicts through a combative lens where we may seek to dominate, exercise control over others, seek to win or be right rather than do the hard work of examining our role in the conflict to determine how we can move forward by embodying values of equity and justice. We see conflicts as “bad” things that must be avoided.
We’re socialized to approach every disagreement as an individualistic “win/loss” battle for power. So it is only natural that conflict avoidance or toxic ego-driven “fights” are normalized— neither of these extremes are conducive to collective liberation. We’re terrified to enter disagreements and that is why it takes practice to be able to approach them with more curiosity, hope & compassion rather than with fear, narcissism & combativeness. The foundation of reciprocity, mutual respect and some centering values determines the extent to which conflicts can be regenerative or harmful— and this is why such foundations need to be laid with the utility of conflicts in mind rather than a desire to suppress dissent or erase disagreements.
When we push for collective liberation, we’re not aiming to build a hypothetical utopia devoid of harm or conflict — rather we’re fortifying our relationships such that we can address the root causes of harm in transformative rather than carceral ways. Fearful avoidance of conflicts is a recipe for disaster and inadvertently produces power dynamics. When we see conflicts as important to our collective liberation— we build resiliency by practicing ways of navigating them with empathy, mutual respect and dignity. We practice complex, communal problem solving in real-time and build the relational fortitude to weather storms rather than keep running from them. Open-minded, empathetic engagement with conflicts is a pathway for intergenerational & interpersonal healing.
3. The enemy of my enemy is not (by default) my friend
Our mutual hatred of oppressive systems is not enough to bring us together. The most sustainable way for people to come together is around the very precise details of what we are actually FOR rather than what we are against. Online leftist education often hyper-focuses on criticizing capitalism or the systems we are against but do little to talk about the practicality of what we’re going to do TODAY in our daily lives to care for each other without relying on oppressive systems. Sure, capitalism sucks. We can agree on that but then what? How will we feed each other? How will we provide medicine to our communities?
Collectivist communities are not held together by mutual hatred or resentment, we survive sustainably because our shared traditions, cultural rituals, values & daily relational commitments bring us together. Our agreements on what we can do everyday together to care FOR each other bring us together. We cannot be truly, sustainably united over what we are against.
4. Nature shows that not everyone HAS TO “get along”
We’re a part of nature & not above it. Certain species of flora, fauna & microbes co-exist in the same ecological niche while others simply cannot be directly tied to each other & existing in close proximity wouldn’t make sense for their mutual survival. Sometimes, when living beings that aren’t meant to exist in the same ecosystem happen to be forced together due to forces of capitalist exploitation— it wrecks havoc. Entire ecosystems have collapsed with destructive ripple effects that were felt long after. COVID-19 emerged as a result of certain wildlife being forced to be in close proximity to humans due to capitalist & state habitat destruction, industrialization and endless exploitation of the land. So sometimes, certain things cannot be forced to mesh together without serious consequences. Yet, we share this planet.
The most effective way we can co-exist on this planet we all call home is with an intentional exploration, honoring & gratitude for these ecological and cultural boundaries. Though we can have meaningful exchanges, sharing, collaboration, cooperation between communities, ecosystems or cultures— we should not be forcing any distinct collectives to homogenize their differences simply so they can be some superficial similarities or a label of “unity”. Why? For what?
5. Dissent can be an act of love
We don’t believe dissenters should be punished or thrown into gulags. In fact, dissent is actively encouraged in the healthiest of communities. When we love each other, we create the conditions of safety and security necessary to foster dissent. We don’t create hierarchies that give a select few people the power to squash anyone perceived to be the “opposition”. We embody our political values when we act in ways that encourage people we’re in intimate relationships with to feel comfortable dissenting. When our chosen family members feel like they can no longer speak against us, stand up to us, assert themselves in times where their opinions do not align with us, then we are no longer equitable partners in said relationships.
When we shame people into being “united” with us (i.e. suppress their problems in the name of unity), we’re hurting people and such leveraging of power is never going to bring us happiness & contentment either. When we’re dictating abstract ideas of what it does or doesn’t mean to be united, we’re inevitably manipulating people into feeling like their only option is to say “yes” to whatever we want them to unite around. Conditioning people gradually to withhold their voice by instilling a deep fear of conflict is a classic abuse tactic. It is also how authoritarian states coerce, manipulate & violently suppress people to maintain their power. Labeling dissenters or people who fall out of the unity umbrella as “bad” or “counterrevolutionaries” is inevitably creating “us vs them” dynamics. We shouldn’t be replicating these colonial power dynamics in our relationships.
6. Dignity— even for the people we don’t like
Everyone deserves basic access to food, water, shelter and care, even people who are different than us and even people who have harmed us. In fact, the lack of care and access to resources is the precise social condition that leads to harm & violence so we refuse to perpetuate it this cycle. As collectivists, we don’t believe in discarding people who are different from us. As abolitionists, just as we are against prisons & police, we are against incarcerating, policing & exiling people to the fringes of our communities, including those who have committed harm. Of course, this requires us to practice transformative justice and various community defense methods & we won’t go into those details here.
Abolition of oppressive systems requires us to gradually abolish the cop/ capitalist/ colonizer in our heads & how it shows up in our relationships. This includes the binary lens with which we’ve been taught to perceive the world. When we put the idea of “unity” on a pedestal, we paint conflict, disagreements, or valid pushback of any kind as “bad” & in doing so, we prevent our own growth which often comes from us receiving pushback as we are guided into new ways of perceiving the world.
Most importantly, we don’t have to turn to these same oppressive systems to “punish” people we disagree with or are misaligned with. We shouldn’t be calling the cops on others or snitching on others to feds… period. That isn’t something we want to do to other humans. We will not turn to the violent tools of the state to seek revenge under the guise of “justice”. This IS what unity looks like in practice— not just asking for people to “set aside differences”. We learn how to co-exist despite our differences. However, this isn’t what many authoritarian leftists/ statists believe. And that matters. Many statists believe in using tools of the state like police, prisons, & the military to enforce their will onto the people. Many of them would have us thrown into gulags for merely dissenting & in doing so, they wouldn’t give us the same dignity that we believe in giving them (outlined above). This is perpetuating the carceral fantasy that the success of the revolution is contingent on the oppression of some– people who point out any faults in the dominant system.
7. The means is everything, there is no “greater” end
Anarchists or anarchist-adjacent folks focus on the process to address community needs as opposed to fixating on the “end goal” like an idealized future utopia. The call for unity is usually about coming together for the sake of a deferred, future, hypothetical moment of success without focusing on what tangibly brings us together TODAY in practice.
People who spend the bulk of their time interfacing with political ideas & discourse on social media platforms or podcasts but have little experience organizing on the ground or applying these ideas in their day-to-day life tend to make blanket generalizations like “we should all be united!”. Why do we need to be “united”? Around what exactly? What differences should we “set aside” versus what should we consider “important enough” to address and who gets to decide what is a priority? How is this different from the democratic party’s rhetoric to mobilize people within the futile two-party system to get people to participate in useless political theater? It isn’t.
When we focus on the means & not the end, we see that many leftists fundamentally disagree on how to go about dismantling these systems & building community care. Anarchists & anarchist-adjacent folks don’t aim to seize the tools of the state & oppose the building of hierarchical power structures— so why exactly would we be “united” around in practice with authoritarian leftists who primarily focus on such means? How can people who don’t intimately know each other in their day-to-day lives be “united”? “Leftist unity” is almost a symbol for toxic positivity & prevalent fragility on the western left.
Online leftists who call for us to perform “unity” are distracting us from focusing on the work on the ground & in our relationships that matter. Pretending we are the same based on vague political jargon, performing harmony & chastising people for betraying the guidelines of “leftist unity” isn’t justice. There isn’t one “right way” to oppose capitalism. Guilting people into complying with a singular, skewed version of what “resistance” looks like is a form of policing & gatekeeping that inadvertently erases multiplicities.
8. The personal is political
We’ve dedicated much of our lives thinking deeply about how we can care for & be in solidarity with each other despite our differences— i.e. REAL unity if that’s what you want to call it. But there are limits to who we engage with & precisely how we engage with them because without such boundaries, our lives would not be sustainable. We would be unable to show up for our communities effectively. We have to be aware of & honor our capacities. At some point, we have to walk away from futile, draining, unhelpful or harmful interactions & avoid them for the sake of showing up for the people who DO show up for us.
Whether you’re aware of it or not, your political principles shape how you show up in your relationships. They shape every aspect of your life & guide your actions. Our political beliefs aren’t merely theoretical— they shape our personal relationships. When we disagree on fundamental values, that disagreement doesn’t remain confined to the theoretical realm of discourse.
For example- there are authoritarian leftists or statists who firmly believe in hierarchical systems and political parties made up of a small minority tasked with making decisions for the majority of people. These leftists support dictators, rulers, politicians and their nation states on the basis that they oppose the United States while denying, overlooking or making excuses for the atrocities they commit against people within their own borders. Many of these people deny the genocide of marginalized communities in states like China, Russia or Syria… & wholly erase their suffering because it doesn’t fit their unfettered, unquestioning, uncritical, blanket support of these states & their leaders.
We have extensive experience with relational and movement-related harm that has come from authoritarian leftists asserting their superiority & exercising power over others— many times this manifests as overt abuse. It’s not hard to imagine how people who believe they are the chosen vanguard meant to decide what is best for the “masses” can sometimes be power hungry narcissists, driven by their desire to accumulate clout & exercise control over others.
9. The historical track record of “leftist unity” is not great
When anarchists have worked in parallel with authoritarians to fight fascism, monarchy and conservative dictators, they have eventually become victims of betrayal, persecution and institutional violence. This is including and not limited to the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, the fight against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, the Korean Anarchist Federation in Manchuria who fought to defend themselves from Japanese colonialism, Soviet forces, Marxist-Leninists and the Chinese warlord Zhang Zuolin.
In every moment where anarchists, rural peasants, marginalized people and anyone who dissents or disrupts (including left of ruling party socialists and communists) they are methodically persecuted, jailed, killed and massacred in the name of “unity” even if they are challenging the discrepancy between Marxist doctrine and the in real-life methodology utilized on the ground in the name of Marxism. For example: Anti-Bolshevik uprisings including the Tambov Rebellion, the Kronstadt Rebellion, and in Voronezh, Penza, Saratov and in the districts of Kostroma, Moscow, Novgorod, Petrograd, Pskov and Smolensk.
The historical precedence set by “pro-unity” authoritarian leftists is violent. We shouldn’t have to put ourselves again in such harmful situations out of fear of being shamed by internet leftists who peddle the idea of “unity” without ever speaking to the very real violent consequences of such calls for unity. There’s differences that allow us to be stronger together & then there’s differences that will lead to exponential harm if they go unaddressed. When people are unwilling to let go of such authoritarian beliefs & are firm in their desire to dominate over people, such differences cannot be swept aside for the sake of unity. They will come up repeatedly & eventually, many people will eventually get hurt.
Collaboration, NOT cultist recruitment
When we’re truly united in relationships as equals, we are collaborating & growing together. When authoritarian leftists or party politicians call for “unity”, they are often only calling for unquestioning, uncritical participation in their political project but are not willing to make compromises or collaborate. They want people to abandon their values/ methodologies, which are inseparable as in the perspective of anarchists, to serve under a managerial political party project that replicates hierarchies and is antithetical to an anarchist analysis of power.
Some leftists hold dogmatic worldviews & aren’t open to true collaboration with people who have fundamentally different perspectives informed by their respective lived realities. For example, the ideology of dialectical historical materialism is framed as an immortal, unquestionable science. Colonialism used similar obtuse scientific jargon to legitimize their ideas & make it seem as though they are unchangeable laws of nature. This misuse of scientific language is an attempt to use elitist wording to position their ideas as infallible; when repeated failure is quite clear through any honest look at history.
10. Boundaries create healthy, sustainable relationships
A key principle of relationship anarchy is that our communities are free when we engage in relationships intentionally. We feel free in our relationships when we explicitly communicate with openness and mutually agree on the terms, specific commitments or expectations rather than going along with unsaid, implicit norms that lead to disappointment and harm. We shouldn’t be forcing anything including forcing ourselves to be in relationships with people in ways that do not foster mutual respect, autonomy & safety. We also can allow for the terms of the relationship to evolve without forcing constructs like longevity or exclusivity- it all depends. This creates infinite possibilities for the multifaceted, complex ways that we can love each other & share this planet we collectively call home.
Being in close relationships with people who are very different than us is complicated. Sometimes, it’s wonderful & complimentary. Other times, it’s difficult and you try to put aside differences & focus on shared values. Other times, there is a serious, deep misalignment in core values (like between anarchists & authoritarian leftists). The most respectful way to then proceed is with boundaries that create more distance between us. The best way we can co-exist while focusing on the work we believe is most important (mutual aid, community care, etc) is to live & let live when possible or pushback when it encroaches on our autonomy & safety. We will push back on all forms of authoritarianism that threaten our collective safety— in our movement spaces, communities, workplaces, relationships, etc. If some internet leftist decides to call that “leftist infighting” then so be it. These are necessary conflicts that emerge due to key differences in our approaches to liberation— addressing them can strengthen our communities or it allows us to function in different spaces without working together, which is ultimately best for everyone.
Last words…
We’re aware that our politics evolve over time. If at some point in the future, someone is more aligned with us & we can practically do meaningful work together by building a genuine, authentic relationship over time, then we’ll do that. But right now, we don’t believe select communities, from the Syrian people decimated by the Assad regime & the violent suppression of the peasant uprisings by the Soviet state to the Uyghur people targeted by China’s oppressive state policies, are disposable such that we “set them aside” to “unite” with people who deny their suffering. This is our way of practicing love & community care.
If other leftists who think they are wiser than us or more pious is their “leftism” want to build bridges with authoritarian leftists then we will not stop you from doing so. In the meantime, we will continue sowing seeds of care in our communities in ways we feel are most nourishing. We will continuing fortifying our connections with people that we know intimately in our daily lives as we unite over our shared commitment to care for each other. Most importantly, we will try to create & sustain communal safety nets that encourage people to speak up, dissent, voice their needs & practice conflict navigation. We want to nurture differences when they can be nurtured & other times, we’ll honor these differences with boundaries. This is our way of practicing love & community care.
With Care,
A & B.
 | A guest post by
|
I really appreciate your writing. It’s both comprehensive and compassionate; a winning combination. I spend a lot of time thinking about beloved community, and you’ve articulated some points about difference/boundaries/conflict that I’ve similarly felt but struggled to say clearly.
I esp like the insistence at the end that, even tho we have strong convictions about these things and firmly believe them to be true, we aren’t telling people what to do. We’re stating clearly what *we* are doing, and giving others the option to be part of that or not.
And we’re stating clearly that we will oppose any encroachment on our freedom/autonomy/safety to do as we’ve said, which is not the same as actively opposing what others are doing.
This delicate balance is I think the dance of anarchy. And maybe it only seems delicate to me because I’m still unsure of my feet as I move through the steps.
I’m curious about how anarchy can operate at scale. Can you elaborate or point me to some writings on this? From this article it seems like you are saying that “it cannot.” So the scale of human endeavours would be no larger that that enabled by horizontal community-based organising on the order of 1000 people or so. Large-scale things like space programs, trans-continental railway systems, environmental protection agencies etc. simply would not exist, because it is impossible to organise human effort at larger scales without violating anarchist principles around concentration of power and hierarchies of some sort?