Should Leftists unite to overthrow capitalism?

[proudhon10]

Many leftists don't want to ally with groups they dont consider to represent the proletariat. Do you think sectarian lines should be eliminated or not?

[Rebel_Serigan]

I believe that dispite the thoeries we hold we need to put aside our differences in order to destroy a common enemy. I am always sick of people saying one sect is better than another or that someone is wrong. The only thing that is wrong with Leftists is that some of them are ignorant. The only sects that are to be eliminated or exculed are those who think they are the absolute true, as we all know nothing is absolute. Not only should we unite but we MUST. We can not win agaist such a terrible foe unless we are united as one. Fighting amoungst eachother is foolish, it will be our downfall if we can not work through our slight differences. WE MUST UNITE! THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE SELFISH FOOLS!

[Bright Banana Beard]

The problem lied is how they practice, that is why we are not unified. Asking this will ultimately make your time being wasted.

[commyrebel]

The problem is the ignorant people who don't no shit about left theories and practice they say that they are one but also say that no money societies or anarchy societies won't work but they do over time if you don't believe this look at most communist writers they all have a goal to archiving this. Once you get all of those people on the right track then you unite to a massive force and demand a change if they decline you over through them.

[Rebel_Serigan]

Long before we rise up we all need to meet with those who are willing to compromise and make a system that works first. we can not break the system and then try to come up with something that will fix it. it will just create in-fighting. Long before the revelution comes we will need a plan of repair, this seems to be something that overzealous revelutionaries overlook.

[Unclebananahead]

Clearly we can all agree that overthrowing capitalism and the governments that form its apparatuses of rule is undoubtedly, unambiguously, a good thing. None of us are not 'on board' when it comes to that question. The disagreement, as far as my understanding goes, is how best to build socialism and preserve the victory of the proletariat and the gains of the revolution.

I feel--and I don't exactly think I'm alone on this--that the best way to do this is through the formation of a revolutionary socialist government, one that employs the usual security maintenance features of a state. This would of course mean that there would be a military, police, courts, jails, etc. All of which would be invariably necessary countermeasures to thwart the inevitable capitalist backlash following a successful revolution. And I don't see anarchists going along with this.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

See the united front thread.

No anarchists and statists are opposed over the state they are opposed to each other.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Groups that believe in establishing the class rule of the proletariat should unite.


No anarchists and statists are opposed over the state they are opposed to each other.

Not really, you just don't understand the Marxist conception of the state, so you're probably just going to keep perpetuating this sectarian crap.

[Hegemonicretribution]

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. The 'left' is a broad label and as such it is comprised of different groups depending on who you ask.

I have no interest whatsoever in uniting with those who downplay the role of women, or claim that homosexuality is a result of bourgeois excess.

Nor am I interested in uniting with authoritarians who consider themselves elevated individuals who must establish themselves as a power so that they can 're-educate' the proletariat. Likewise, I don't care for 'anarcho-capitalists' who (rare as they might be) want to overthrow the state, but only so that it does not interfere with a free market.

My position is not the only correct position, and I would be sceptical of anyone who agreed with almost everything I said.

Where I seek unity is not with the left, but the proletariat. The left, especially the intellectual position, is not sufficient to overthrow capitalism without failing soon afterwards, otherwise it would have done so by now.

Like it or not, it is those essential to the means of production, that is the workers, whom we must seek unity with. This includes large portions of the population who would consider themselves pro-capitalist, or even nationalist. If this group united then the revolution would already be won. The primary goal is seeking unity with those who currently consider themselves outside of the left, but who are nevertheless workers. Unity between sectarian groups is an issue of concern, but it is not the most pressing given that the true target of radical left wing politics does for the most part consider itself differently alligned.

It is no good simply preaching to these people and getting annoyed when they do not agree, because they are operating from within a different paradigm. They are in no way compelled to listen to those who consider themselves a learned elite who have taken it upon themselves to talk to lesser beings. Yes social reality plays a major role in constututing what the assumptions that the left has to address are, but whatevever these are, pushing a convincing and acceptable position is far more important than pushing any single agenda.

One bad trot or anarchist or whatever can turn a person off radical politics for life. Education is necessary, but it is important to bear in mind that unity with workers is what the aim is, and whilst this is achieved through education, it is not simply re-education. I think this is something that people overlook when they talk to 'cappies' all to often. If you find yourself getting frustrated, then you really should ask yourself how convincing you are being, and how you would respond to a similar situation from someone with views which differ from your own.

I don't suggest that we should be soft, but I do suggest that ought to be realists who first climb down from our high horses before addressing the people who we really need to seek unity with. Not Trots, Leninists, anarchists or whatever...but real autonomous people with a radically different view to our own. Once we have done that, then perhaps we can focus on better means of communication between the sectarian groups that exist. I hope disagreement in the left never fully goes away, because if it did it would spell the end of progress. But as I have stated many times in this post, those on the left who are broadly thinking along similar lines would have no problem in joining in a genuine proletarian revolution. The concern that I have is that if all the groups on the left did agree to set aside their differences and start shit, that they may have neglected to get the proletariat on their side.

[proudhon10]

As an anarchist i would work definently work with marxists and socialists to combat socialists.:closedeyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Not really, you just don't understand the Marxist conception of the state, so you're probably just going to keep perpetuating this sectarian crap.

Anarchists and Leninists are opposed no matter what you say. One wants a state the other dosent - the two groups are opposed and dont trust each other.

[Hiero]

Social classes overthrow systems, not united activists.

[Decolonize The Left]

Working classes overthrow systems, not social classes, nor united activists.

- August

[Nils T.]

Wah... Working classes don't overthrow systems magically : they do because they want it and know how to do it. Ideologies slow them down and the revolutionnary theory is their activity.

[Hiero]

Working classes overthrow systems, not social classes, nor united activists.

- August
No. The working classes will overthrow capitalism. Other social classes overthrew other social systems.

[AnthArmo]

Working classes overthrow systems, not social classes, nor united activists.

- August


Absolutely right, which is why a united left needs to work together to create propaganda in order to spur the masses into revolution

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Absolutely right, which is why a united left needs to work together to create propaganda in order to spur the masses into revolution

No because on a practicle leaval it wont work. We have enough trouble agreeing amongst our own sects. We would never agree on anything if it was united.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think that Anarchists will ever be united with Marxists (I know the ultimate goal of Marxism is Anarchism, but I don't agree with a 'workers' state). Depends what you mean by united left what have we got to agree on? Destroying Capitalism? So do the Anarchists have to compromise and agree with Marxist theory?

The fact of the matter is we can't agree because we disagree on a fundamental issue: the state. As an Anarchist the bigger issue is eliminating this theory of state communism and replacing it with the theory of Anarchism.

[AnthArmo]

No because on a practicle leaval it wont work. We have enough trouble agreeing amongst our own sects. We would never agree on anything if it was united.

Oh please, what we mainly disagree on is the end product. We all agree that what we have now sucks and needs to be overthrown. we can at the very least spurt out propaganda/organize collective bookstores and newspapers together that show how annoyingly terrible Capitalism and the current state is. it's like what AugustWest said. Political theorists don't overthrow systems, people do. We only need to spur them into action.

The French revolution wasn't done with one ideology, it was a general agreement that everything about feudalism and the monarchy sucked and that it had to be overthrown. things were decided later

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Oh please, what we mainly disagree on is the end product. We all agree that what we have now sucks and needs to be overthrown. we can at the very least spurt out propaganda/organize collective bookstores and newspapers together that show how annoyingly terrible Capitalism and the current state is. it's like what AugustWest said. Political theorists don't overthrow systems, people do. We only need to spur them into action.

The French revolution wasn't done with one ideology, it was a general agreement that everything about feudalism and the monarchy sucked and that it had to be overthrown. things were decided later

Ever tried spreading propaganda as part of a group? Imagine that with people you disagree with even more so.

[robbo203]

I don't think that Anarchists will ever be united with Marxists (I know the ultimate goal of Marxism is Anarchism, but I don't agree with a 'workers' state). Depends what you mean by united left what have we got to agree on? Destroying Capitalism? So do the Anarchists have to compromise and agree with Marxist theory?

The fact of the matter is we can't agree because we disagree on a fundamental issue: the state. As an Anarchist the bigger issue is eliminating this theory of state communism and replacing it with the theory of Anarchism.


There is an intermediate postion which I think is best summed up by the WSM approach - that you capture the state in order to eliminate it along with capitalism. This entails a rejection of the need for any kind of transitional society or so called dictatorship of the proletariat (an incoherent concept anyway since it implies the existence of a capitalist class still exploiting the workers who rule over them neverthless)

The basic point on which many anarchoists and marxists can agree is that the revolution has to be from the bottom up and involve mass understanding on the part of workers. There can be no place for leaders in this revolution. Once you accept that premiss then you are into a whole different ball game....

In principle, democratically capturing the state with a view to getting rid of it is a useful approach for all sorts of reasons - to express the social will of the majority unambiguously and to smoothly coordinate the changeover to communism/socialism. Also it does not preclude other approaches such as building pre-figurative communistic type communities within the shell of capitalism prior to the establish of communism proper

[AnthArmo]

Ever tried spreading propaganda as part of a group? Imagine that with people you disagree with even more so.


That's an incredibly defeatist way of looking at things. Your always going to get disagreements in groups. That's because your working with other people, it's inevitable. But this is a little different, we all hold the exact same views on Capitalism and on the Capitalist state. I see no reason why we can't work together

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

That's an incredibly defeatist way of looking at things. Your always going to get disagreements in groups. That's because your working with other people, it's inevitable. But this is a little different, we all hold the exact same views on Capitalism and on the Capitalist state. I see no reason why we can't work together


Because we will disagree to the point we wont get anything done.

[AnthArmo]

Because we will disagree to the point we wont get anything done.

but we don't disagree on Capitalism. That's the whole point.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Oh please, what we mainly disagree on is the end product. We all agree that what we have now sucks and needs to be overthrown. we can at the very least spurt out propaganda/organize collective bookstores and newspapers together that show how annoyingly terrible Capitalism and the current state is. it's like what AugustWest said. Political theorists don't overthrow systems, people do. We only need to spur them into action.

The French revolution wasn't done with one ideology, it was a general agreement that everything about feudalism and the monarchy sucked and that it had to be overthrown. things were decided later

But I would not want to associate with a group who after the revolution wanted to form a new government. I would not support a group with this aim because I would fear the consequences. I want the Marxists and State communists to become Anarchists. Only then can we truly be united and fighting towards the end of capitalism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

but we don't disagree on Capitalism. That's the whole point.

If we made an alliance with anyone who said they didnt like capitalism we would be in an alliance with fuedilists and third positionists.

[Killfacer]

Because we will disagree to the point we wont get anything done.

He's right. I could never work with a stalinist on anything or a maoist or an anti revisionist or one of them weird bobkindles.

Face it, there is a reason we're divided and it isn't just petty sectarianism. There are critical differences in opinion which will not be overcome. It's not defeatism, it's just being honest.

[Jack]

De Leonists, Council Communists, Luxembourgists-Yes

Trots, Stalinists, any other kind of authoritarian "Marxists"-No

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Well I believe in certain cooperation amongst anti-capitalists and Communists, but I think the differences between Communists and anarchists are just too big.
Same is also appicable to the massive differences between Stalinists and trotskyites.

While I believe some cooperation with trotskyites is still possible, I do reject every form of "cooperation" with social democrat and reformist traitors.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Anarchists and Leninists are opposed no matter what you say. One wants a state the other dosent - the two groups are opposed and dont trust each other.


I don't think that Anarchists will ever be united with Marxists (I know the ultimate goal of Marxism is Anarchism, but I don't agree with a 'workers' state). Depends what you mean by united left what have we got to agree on? Destroying Capitalism? So do the Anarchists have to compromise and agree with Marxist theory?

The fact of the matter is we can't agree because we disagree on a fundamental issue: the state. As an Anarchist the bigger issue is eliminating this theory of state communism and replacing it with the theory of Anarchism.

It would help if people actually understood that Marxists use the word state in a different way than anarchists. Unless anarchists don't plan on putting the workers in power and organizing them for the suppression of the capitalists, then yes, you want a workers state.

[Cumannach]

I'll work with anyone to overthrow capitalism. But afterwards I will purge them.

[Jack]

I'll work with anyone to overthrow capitalism. But afterwards I will to purge them.

Leninism sure is fun.

[Red_Asian]

Even though we might unite, imagine what will we do to each other after we united and overthrew the oppressors?

[Tjis]

It would help if people actually understood that Marxists use the word state in a different way than Marxists. Unless anarchists don't plan on putting the workers in power and organizing them for the suppression of the capitalists, then yes, you want a workers state.
I'm going to assume that you meant that Marx used the word state in a different way than marxists.
While you might be right about that (I haven't read much Marx so I wouldn't know), that doesn't suddenly mean anarchists should work together with people that want to create a centralized authoritarian state, just because they call themselves marxists, and you could explain anarchism in a marxist way.

[Glorious Union]

This an old story of Mongolia and Genghis Khan used it to unite Mongolia under his rule, it goes as follows:

Five brothers were fighting, and none could get any of the others onto his side. They were at eachother's throats when their mother stepped in. She handed each brother an arrow and said "Break this". Each of the brother's easily broke their arrows. "Now," She said, handing the eldest a bundle of five arrows, "break all these at once". He could not, and neither could any of the others. Their mother said "Alone each of you are weak, but united together you are invincible."

So you see the morale of the story is that by working together and taking equal shared in the task we can together topple what we would have been individually defeated by.

[Jack]

Cool, but Leninists will just stab us in the back with their arrows.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm going to assume that you meant that Marx used the word state in a different way than marxists.
While you might be right about that (I haven't read much Marx so I wouldn't know), that doesn't suddenly mean anarchists should work together with people that want to create a centralized authoritarian state, just because they call themselves marxists, and you could explain anarchism in a marxist way.

Marx used the word state in a different way than Anarchists. Sorry, that was a typo.

[Tatarin]

I think the biggest problem with the "unite vs. one group" argument is not that the groups are splintered and can't unite, I think the whole argument is based on what will happen after the revolution itself.

Socialists want a state that will clean up and pave the new way, anarchists believe that once the state and economy is gone, people will create whatever society they want. The fear with socialism is that we will have a corrupt state, the fear with anarchism is that capitalism will start all over again. [To sum it up quickly.]

The revolution - uprising, arming people, looks exactly the same in both situations. Well, not that I know, but I can't really imagine much difference in an anarchist group storming a police station, or a socialist group doing the same thing.

I'm not having anything against uniting or working side by side, but I believe that in order for us to do that we must agree on what will happen afterwards.

[mikelepore]

Oh please, what we mainly disagree on is the end product. We all agree that what we have now sucks and needs to be overthrown. we can at the very least spurt out propaganda/organize collective bookstores and newspapers together that show how annoyingly terrible Capitalism and the current state is.

I agree with that, and I suggest that a variety of working class sects try to collaborate more. But I think it would need including the coverage of the disagreements about goals and strategies in the form of objective comparisons. In particular I would like to see a jointly published book or pamphlet that says:

"Here are some of our debates about the best goal ... centralized administration: list of reasons commonly cited for it and against it ... decentralized administration: list of reasons commonly cited for it and against it ... and here are some of our debates about strategy and tactics ... industrial unions... craft unions ... the ballot ... gradual reforms ... reasons commonly cited for each and against each ... you, the reader, please decide for yourself, and please continue to study by investigating the following resources ..."

I don't know of anyone who has tried to see if they could do it. Not to merge in a way that requires anyone to abandon their beliefs, but just to see if they can agree of how to describe and classify their various positions objectively. It would educate a lot of people. Why don't we at least try?

[Unclebananahead]

I would like to know how anarchists propose to defend a successful revolution after working people liberate themselves from the yoke of capitalism. History shows us that there will be a vicious reactionary backlash. Whether it be homespun domestic reactionaries, or imperialist invasion, that it will come is inevitable. So what do anarchists propose to do in order to defend what the working masses have achieved? We Leninists are subjected to much criticism, but it was our ideology that created a worker's state that lasted for decades, however imperfect or deformed that state may have been. When workers overthrow capitalist property relations, and expropriate the wealth that they produce from the bourgeoisie, you can be assured that the opulent few will attempt to drown the nascent workers' success in a sea of blood.

[Dr.Claw]

It all depends on how things collapse, but I hope we can put our differences aside and fight the common enemy and sort our differences peacefully after.

[Bitter Ashes]

One thing I think everyone's neglecting to recognise is that after a revolution it will not be the small group of anarchists, or communists on Revleft who have the monoply on decieding how things are run. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the intention was to give the whole liberated populance a vote on what happens.
Whatever descion is made by the majority at the polls on that day we should respect and I do believe we should be working together to give the public that choice.
Sure, campaign away at getting those future voters to recognise the pros and cons of each stance, but we cannot force a majority into either and nor should we.

[mikelepore]

One thing I think everyone's neglecting to recognise is that after a revolution it will not be the small group of anarchists, or communists on Revleft who have the monoply on decieding how things are run.

What comments did you see that you interpret as signs that someone has failed to recognize that?

[Charles Xavier]

Unite with who and to what degree and on what struggle?

[el_chavista]

"This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race"

[revolution inaction]

I would like to know how anarchists propose to defend a successful revolution after working people liberate themselves from the yoke of capitalism. History shows us that there will be a vicious reactionary backlash. Whether it be homespun domestic reactionaries, or imperialist invasion, that it will come is inevitable. So what do anarchists propose to do in order to defend what the working masses have achieved?


With guns and bombs and tanks and war planes and warships and artillery and rockets, and proper-gander to encourage the workers and solders in the remaining capitalist area to join the revolution etc. Why what would you use?



We Leninists are subjected to much criticism, but it was our ideology that created a worker's state that lasted for decades, however imperfect or deformed that state may have been.

They were capitalist, we don't need a revolution for that.

[piet11111]

only some groups are acceptable to work with.

if you have leftist groups that are just too different in their ideology they simply can not work together without facing massive contradictions in their methods or goals and that would be creating an impossible situation.

and then there are all those "revolutionary" party's that got watered down through compromises because they wanted to cooperate with others until they ended up becoming a very important part of the state serving to absorb any dissent from the population.

cooperation is better when possible but not when the cost is giving up on your ideology.

[Unclebananahead]

With guns and bombs and tanks and war planes and warships and artillery and rockets, and proper-gander to encourage the workers and solders in the remaining capitalist area to join the revolution etc. Why what would you use?

And how would this be coordinated?



They were capitalist, we don't need a revolution for that.

Capitalist? How was it capitalist? Please explain.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How would this be co-ordinated? Through workers militias, through communication and co-operation with each militia.

[ComradeOm]

How would this be co-ordinated? Through workers militias, through communication and co-operation with each militia.How did that work out in Spain?

[Killfacer]

How did that work out in Spain?

You mean that war which lasted pretty long and wasn't a walk over? Must of worked a bit then.

[Unclebananahead]

Franco and the Spanish fascists were fortunate they faced revolutionaries unwilling to seize state power and act against them in concert. A divided enemy is much easier to defeat than a united one. Had they acted so as to seize state power and resist the fascists in a more coordinated manner, history might have known a 'People's Republic of Spain' (which regrettably would have faced Nazi invasion, but that's another story).

[ComradeOm]

You mean that war which lasted pretty long and wasn't a walk over? Must of worked a bit then.I like how you conveniently omit that the Republic lost the war

Regardless though, that was not my point. For most of the war (IIRC the beginning of '37 onwards) the Republican cause was defended by the Popular Army. This was a professional fighting force built along traditional lines. The reason for its creation was the frankly abject performance of the militias that had 'defended' the Republic during the war's initial months. When faced with professional units from the former Spanish Army (notably the Foreign Legion and Army of Africa) these militias proved to be completely incapable of presenting coherent opposition and often simply abandoned their positions and fled. Hence the impressively quick advance of Franco during August and September, one that could safely be described as a "walk over"

[Sasha]

Should Leftists unite to overthrow capitalism?

no thanx, the leninists/troskysts/stalinists/hoxaists will in all likelihood shoot me/us (again) when the "overtrowing" is done, and will form an authoritarian state yet again baised on class witch will undoubtly degrade again in (state) capitalism....
i see no point in getting killed for trading in the old bastards for new one's

so:
Should Leftists unite to overthrow capitalism and authoritarism?

fixed & yes...

[Killfacer]

I like how you conveniently omit that the Republic lost the war

Regardless though, that was not my point. For most of the war (IIRC the beginning of '37 onwards) the Republican cause was defended by the Popular Army. This was a professional fighting force built along traditional lines. The reason for its creation was the frankly abject performance of the militias that had 'defended' the Republic during the war's initial months. When faced with professional units from the former Spanish Army (notably the Foreign Legion and Army of Africa) these militias proved to be completely incapable of presenting coherent opposition and often simply abandoned their positions and fled. Hence the impressively quick advance of Franco during August and September, one that could safely be described as a "walk over"

The Nazi's lost the war, but that doesn't make their war effort inneffective. Who eventually won is completely irrelevant. I didn't omit it, in fact i attempted to show that although they lost the war, they did brook a resistance.

[ComradeOm]

The Nazi's lost the war, but that doesn't make their war effort inneffective. Who eventually won is completely irrelevant. I didn't omit it, in fact i attempted to show that although they lost the war, they did brook a resistance.And now you're deliberately omitting my mention of the Popular Army...? Tell me, what bearing does the militia structure (abandoned after mere months when its glaring failures became obvious) have on judging the overall Republican war effort?

Incidentally, and somewhat off-topic, the Nazi war effort was replete with inefficiencies that did seriously impact the performance of their armies

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Franco and the Spanish fascists were fortunate they faced revolutionaries unwilling to seize state power and act against them in concert. A divided enemy is much easier to defeat than a united one. Had they acted so as to seize state power and resist the fascists in a more coordinated manner, history might have known a 'People's Republic of Spain' (which regrettably would have faced Nazi invasion, but that's another story).

Yes but we could say the same. If you had united with us to crush the state.....

[Jazzratt]

You're asking the wrong question.

Can leftists unite to overthrow capitalism. Can things as fundamentally different as anarchism and authoritarianism be reconciled in any kind of practical way? At the risk of sounding "ultra leftist" I'll say that it's impossible and any attempts will be at best temporary and ultimately result in disastrous failure. Also, of course, people who differ fundamentally in their opinion on strategy for overthrowing capitalism are not ideal bedfellows in a revolutionary situation.

The 'leninists would probably feel better allying themselves with nationalist gangsters at any rate.

[Bitter Ashes]

no thanx, the leninists/troskysts/stalinists/hoxaists will in all likelihood shoot me/us (again) when the "overtrowing" is done.
And that's something that really needs addressing, Psycho.
I'm sure you're not suggesting anyone on these forums would do such a thing, but the Stalins of the world do show up when they see the oportunity.
Preventing future "purgingings" really should be high up on the to-do list as, not only is totaly unjustified, but also degrades support for the revolutionary cause if people are concerned that they will get stabbed in the back once the hard work is done.
Finding new ways of co-operation is really important and I hope everyone else agrees.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I feel that although we should unite, that isn't possible with every group. There are several left-wing groups that are reformist that would be pretty difficult to work with. Also, i'm not sure how well Trots and Stalinists would work together. Anarchists and other such groups would probably be fine.