I made the title sound like a joke, so feel free to laugh, but it’s actually serious and very personal. The question how to deal with conservative family members comes up a lot around the holidays. My case seems like a first-world problem in comparison. I mean, we share the same opinion for almost every immediate real world political issue that comes up.
The thing is, my family dosn’t really talk about feelings or express affection verbally (like, not ever!) and it’s a whole thing. But at least connecting over shared politics used to be easy and feel safe with him. It was kind of our thing and that safe space was important for us! Now it kind of doesn’t feel as safe anymore? We both feel passionate about things and discussions tend to get dragged out and emotionally exhausting. I don’t want that this year.
I love him and I’m incredibly proud of him. He’s super smart and he’s doing a lot of great work in his org.
But he also:
-
quotes Trotzky, which makes me cringe
-
and he’s sort of a tailist about being anti-parties, pro mass movements (even though he is in a party, but he wants parties to support councils and hand over power to them after revolution, I’m not sure I understand correctly).
-
Opposition to “stalinist parties” (as if any party defined itself as stalinist) is really important to him, same with bureaucracy and I’m not even sure what that even means.
-
He’s says he’s anti-imperialist (about NATO, Palestine, etc.), but doesn’t want to hear any good word about China or the Soviet-Union. I think our duty in the West is to counter NATO propaganda about China and fight our imperialists at home.
-
And he thinks Russia is at least as much to blame for the war in Ukraine as the US, or more cause “they send troops first and have the same imperialist interests”. I disagree… (he’s still against the military buildup in the EU though).
-
He thinks China is “state-capitalist” and every bit as imperialist as the US, because they export capital (with this, he refers to Lenins definition of imperialism, though he dosn’t like the terms “finance capital” or “monopoly capital”) and do “land grabbing” in Africa. To me, it’s plain ridiculous to compare that to the US empire, but I guess he’s talking about what he thinks China might become in the future?
I’m not a perfect marxist-leninist and I don’t have perfect arguments for all of those points. Or I struggle to put them into words. Now maybe the answer is easy: just connect over something else. But what, how and do I really need to avoid talking politics? It seems silly, since, being both Marxist, we agree on a lot.
It looks similar to the whole problem about splits in marxists orgs, but on an individual scale. But it’s actually more. I definitely wouldn’t feel as deeply about it, if it were anyone else. He already randomly cut me nearly completely out of his live for a while, years ago, when he had a terrible depressive episode and completely retreated and I couldn’t get through to him at all. Thankfully, he’s back on top with medication, therapy and a better social circle (part of what helped him is to meet cool people in his org, where he became trotzkyist). But I’m kind of still traumatized from how sudden the break was and how long it took. Also, we both probably have rejection sensitivity…
So maybe, I should work on connecting over other topics than politics, learn more about theory, be honest about when I’m not sure or don’t know something and try to talk feelings more.
What do you think? Anyone ever had something similar going on? Any good tips on how to talk about those political topics or on how to bridge a years old emotional gap?
I think refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments of China is a silly idealist affectation. I think they’re a revisionist bureaucracy too, but that doesn’t change that they have achieved a tremendous amount and we should be combating state department lies about them as they continue to achieve more (also duly criticize wrongdoings).
Your main concern should not be running to your internet ML friends to get words to say to justify inherited opinions, it should be developing a good epistemology and a healthy outlook and method therewith so that even if, for example, you are convinced by the trot and it also happens to be that he is wrong, you can dig the both of you out of the hole as new information contradicts previous assumptions. He will also care a lot more about what you have to say if you approach this from a genuine, open-minded but critical standpoint rather than act like a Christian apologetics-style dogmatist.
Thanks, definitely true. Though, the way you worded it makes it seem like you jumped to conclusions there and it’s coming of as a bit insulting and presumptuous. I do not tend to simply “inherit” any opinion without question or “run to Internet friends to get words”, like a “Christian style dogmatist”. Did you mean it that way? In my question, I’m humble both about my knowledge of theory and about my level of self reflection, but I’m also not a novice in either. Sometimes some secondary or tertiary outside input can be a good addition to other things you’re already doing to face any problem though.
I like that metaphor.
Sorry for overstepping, since I did mean it that way (mostly, the Christian part was meant to be a looser analogy than it was received as) but it was wrong to put all that on you. My bad. My main thing was:
If he has better arguments than you, then doesn’t that mean you have more reason to agree with him than to hold the previous view? That won’t prevent you from investigating the matter further, just as him lending credence to your arguments should not prevent him from investigating it further, and in either case you might hypothetically double back to a stance more like your earlier opinions, but better-informed.
And hopefully you would, since he’s like 90% wrong in terms of what you relayed.
But again, my bad.
Thanks! I understand and it’s fine, I can see what you meant now. I don’t have perfect arguments, that can convince anyone immediately, but I can still back up my opinion with facts and theory.