Tip on how to save USA: A united-front composed of small leftist parties !!

[TrueLeninist]

Hello all: I have a tip on how to save USA from sinking like the Titanic, and that is a formation of a large United-Front composed of small alternative leftist parties of USA. I would like to know why are the socialist and leftist parties and movements in USA so sectarian? and do you think its possible to form a big United Socialist Front in USA perhaps for 2012 or 2016 elections?

TrueLeninist

[Holger Meins]

Why is the american left still too patriotic/nationalist? Many things I hear from them, like "save America" or "restore the values of our 'founding fathers'" (who, by the way, were no more than brutal, fascist slave-owners, with the exception of jefferson). You still seems to think that america is somehow "the best country in the world", that naive image that noone outside of america takes seriously, when the rest of the worlds leftist movement sees USA as the core center of oppression, capitalism and imperialism.

[mel]

Hello all: I have a tip on how to save USA from sinking like the Titanic, and that is a formation of a large United-Front composed of small alternative leftist parties of USA. I would like to know why are the socialist and leftist parties and movements in USA so sectarian? and do you think its possible to form a big United Socialist Front in USA perhaps for 2012 or 2016 elections?

TrueLeninist

Participation in the Bourgeois electoral game is not the way of emancipating the proletariat. It just gives credence to the false idea that there is actually a real choice being made. Because of that, there is no real benefit to form anything "for the 2012 or 2016 elections".

As far as the leftist parties of the USA being sectarian, there are a lot of reasons for that. All groups, not leftist groups in particular, are subject to major disagreements in policy and practice that lead to divisions that are "irreconcilable" and cause party and faction splits. Ultimately, this is part of why there is no strong worker's movement in the US.

[Dimentio]

Why is the american left still too patriotic/nationalist? Many things I hear from them, like "save America" or "restore the values of our 'founding fathers'" (who, by the way, were no more than brutal, fascist slave-owners, with the exception of jefferson). You still seems to think that america is somehow "the best country in the world", that naive image that noone outside of america takes seriously, when the rest of the worlds leftist movement sees USA as the core center of oppression, capitalism and imperialism.

If you want to win support, you could not say "DOWN WITH OUR COUNTRY!"

:cool:

And there is a point in partaking in the charade. The movement will get exposure, and therefore more people will be interested.

[mel]

And there is a point in partaking in the charade. The movement will get exposure, and therefore more people will be interested.

I think we can make our presence known by being openly critical of the charade, but as far as putting up candidates, and trying to get people to vote for us? I could see doing it if there was guaranteed airtime for candidates from third parties, or spots in the debates for other parties. But as long as exposure for a candidate depends on the media's open cooperation, I see no good reason to put a candidate up if the same amount of exposure could be had by using the money for running a campaign to criticize the charade instead.

It is possible to agitate during election times, and use the opportunity of increased political interest to make our presence and ideas known, but I think giving credence to the charade by putting up a candidate is the wrong way to go about it.

[el_chavista]

Perhaps the CPUSA can do entryism in the Democrat Party :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

Perhaps the CPUSA can do entryism in the Democrat Party :rolleyes:

The Democrat Party consist of entryist organisations like lobby groups, corporations and simply spinners. They know all about such things. It will be like the Mongols invading China. Instead of turning the Chinese Mongol, the Mongols turned Chinese.

[mikelepore]

Hello all: I have a tip on how to save USA from sinking like the Titanic, and that is a formation of a large United-Front composed of small alternative leftist parties of USA. I would like to know why are the socialist and leftist parties and movements in USA so sectarian? and do you think its possible to form a big United Socialist Front in USA perhaps for 2012 or 2016 elections?

The problem is that the left is largely defined by what we're AGAINST. We're against war and poverty and racism and pollution all kinds of stuff.

As soon as some people on the left try to explain what they're FOR, no one gets twenty words out without a bunch of others immediately disagreeing.

Try it and see if I'm right or wrong. Try to define in some detail what kind of new social system you want, and the means of transition that you think will implement this change. See how much agreement you get. Most of the responses will consist of people on the left denouncing other people on the left in such terms as "by your presence you do more harm than good", "you're part of the problem".

You see, it's easy for conservatives to unite, because they want to preserve the present, and, conveniently for the purpose of uniting, there is exactly one present moment. But there are an infinite number of possible futures. To suggest moving beyond the present and into the future, you might hear as many proposals as there are people participating in the conversation.

To tell people "just knock it off, snap out of it, and unite" won't do the trick.

By all means, let's try again and again. We have to keep trying. I'm just not holding my breath.

Signed:

An old disenchanted sourpuss who has been a leftist since 1967.

[Kassad]

United left thread, take 6,427. And... action.

[Red October]

Kassad, would the Party For Socialism and liberation like to form a united front with the Raleigh Anarchist Solidarity Collective? :lol:

[Kassad]

Kassad, would the Party For Socialism and liberation like to form a united front with the Raleigh Anarchist Solidarity Collective?

I'm not a representative of the central and political committees of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, thus my comments aren't official or dogmatic. For obvious reasons, the ideological contrasts between our organizations would likely be too significant to consider any type of 'united' collaboration. However, your group is more than welcome at our events, conferences and in our struggles for socialism.

Why do you ask?

Edit: You edited in the laughing icon after I quoted it. I thought you were serious for a while. :laugh:

[Red October]

I've never met any of you folks. I know Brian Becker's niece though. He's your chairman/commissar/el presidente, right?

I know lots of people from PSL's grandpa, WWP, though. And no one will tell me what the beef is with you all, has anyone ever just hugged and made up?

[Kassad]

I've never met any of you folks. I know Brian Becker's niece though. He's your chairman/commissar/el presidente, right?

I know lots of people from PSL's grandpa, WWP, though. And no one will tell me what the beef is with you all, has anyone ever just hugged and made up?

Um, no? Brian Becker is one of the founders of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. He's the National Coordinator for the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and he's on the editorial board for Socialism and Liberation magazine. I don't know where you're getting these other titles.

The split with Workers World is kept between Workers World and Socialism and Liberation members to prevent sectarian disputes. We split peacefully and we respect Workers World's leadership, despite the fact that we find them unfit to guide a Marxist party in the current political climate. We also believe they are treading on the side of reformism through their endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, a capitalist candidate, as well as their praise of Obama after his election. Workers World hasn't run any candidates for a while, so honestly, I'm wondering if they aren't collapsing.

[Red October]

I don't know where you're getting these other titles.

Joking. And my mistake about his role.



Workers World hasn't run any candidates for a while, so honestly, I'm wondering if they aren't collapsing.

It looks kind of like that...but that must be kept within the party, hush hush. ;)

[TrueLeninist]

El Chavista: Cool, but you know how elitists are the high cupula leaders of The Democratic Party, they didn't even give any relevant job to Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and the social-democrat side of the Democrat Party. Most top democrat leaders working in the US government are neoliberals. The same happened in the Republican Party where libertarians like Ron Paul were alienated. You know how most traditional parties are, they are literally owned by a top cupula.

TrueLeninist



Perhaps the CPUSA can do entryism in the Democrat Party :rolleyes:

[Revy]

Why is the american left still too patriotic/nationalist? Many things I hear from them, like "save America" or "restore the values of our 'founding fathers'" (who, by the way, were no more than brutal, fascist slave-owners, with the exception of jefferson). You still seems to think that america is somehow "the best country in the world", that naive image that noone outside of america takes seriously, when the rest of the worlds leftist movement sees USA as the core center of oppression, capitalism and imperialism.

You're thinking of the left too broadly. The socialist left is unlikely to say those things.

[TrueLeninist]

Hey my friend, what do you think about The Socialist Equality Party of USA http://www.wsws.org about http://www.marxist.com and about http://www.socialistaction.org and about http://www.socialistworker.org and http://www.rwor.org

There is another party but too perfectionist and anti-Leninist which is the World Socialism movement their site is http://www.worldsocialism.org They are fans of Marx and Engels, but they don't like Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution neither the Latin American left-leaning governments. So i think that they are too perfectionist and sectarians.

TrueLeninist



Um, no? Brian Becker is one of the founders of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. He's the National Coordinator for the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and he's on the editorial board for Socialism and Liberation magazine. I don't know where you're getting these other titles.

The split with Workers World is kept between Workers World and Socialism and Liberation members to prevent sectarian disputes. We split peacefully and we respect Workers World's leadership, despite the fact that we find them unfit to guide a Marxist party in the current political climate. We also believe they are treading on the side of reformism through their endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, a capitalist candidate, as well as their praise of Obama after his election. Workers World hasn't run any candidates for a while, so honestly, I'm wondering if they aren't collapsing.

[mel]

Hey my friend, what do you think about The Socialist Equality Party of USA http://www.wsws.org about http://www.marxist.com and about http://www.socialistaction.org and about http://www.socialistworker.org and http://www.rwor.org

There is another party but too perfectionist and anti-Leninist which is the World Socialism movement their site is http://www.worldsocialism.org They are fans of Marx and Engels, but they don't like Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution neither the Latin American left-leaning governments. So i think that they are too perfectionist and sectarians.

TrueLeninist

Being critical of Trotsky, Lenin, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Latin American governments doesn't make you sectarian.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Being critical of Trotsky, Lenin, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Latin American governments doesn't make you sectarian.
No, but calling yourself revolutionary and all other faction bourgeois does make you sectarian.

[TrueLeninist]

Hey are you a member of The Socialist Party of USA? Is that one of the best socialist parties in USA? Because i would like to join one, but i don't know which socialist party has the best chance to win popular support. I am realist and impatient, and i don't want to wait for an utopian left communist party like the International Communist Current, or the World Socialist Movement http://www.worldsocialism.org to reach to power in 2500, I will be dead by then.

I read the platform of the Socialist Party of USA and it's pretty good, i used to be a fan of Bob Avakian's party but he is too sectarian and too perfectionist.

TrueLeninist




You're thinking of the left too broadly. The socialist left is unlikely to say those things.

[Glenn Beck]

Being critical of Trotsky, Lenin, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Latin American governments doesn't make you sectarian.

Correct, it makes you ultra-leftist.

Lets get our political slurs straight ;)

[Revy]

Hey are you a member of The Socialist Party of USA? Is that one of the best socialist parties in USA? Because i would like to join one, but i don't know which socialist party has the best chance to win popular support. I am realist and impatient, and i don't want to wait for an utopian left communist party like the International Communist Current, or the World Socialist Movement http://www.worldsocialism.org to reach to power in 2500, I will be dead by then.

I read the platform of the Socialist Party of USA and it's pretty good, i used to be a fan of Bob Avakian's party but he is too sectarian and too perfectionist.

TrueLeninist

The socialist left is pretty much a tiny fraction of society as a whole right now. I can't tell you which party is going to have better success. If you want to know if the SPUSA is revolutionary, socialist and democratic, it is, and if you like that, you can join.

Now if you are most interested in whether a party is officially Leninist, maybe the Party for Socialism and Liberation is right for you. The SPUSA does have many Leninists in it - but I don't think we are going to adopt Leninism as an ideology, we just want a broad socialist/anti-capitalist approach.

As for what you shouldn't join, well, don't join the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Socialist Equality Party, or the Socialist Workers Party. These parties are essentially defined by their newspapers/publications and are less interested in building a party, also, they are pretty top-down, and authoritarian in structure, and seem to worship their leaders.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Many people feel that the Left should just simply unite into one big party/organization to defeat capitalism, and should put aside all differences until that goal is accomplished. My understanding of the whole "left refoundation/regroupment" outlook is that it basically says, "Look, the reason 'the Left' hasn't been able to accomplish various things, the reason we've suffered different kinds of defeats is because we're too divided, we're too busy fighting among ourselves - so let's put our differences aside, unite, and stand together in the fight. This division is our main stumbling block, and if we could stand together, we'd have greater success."

This approach, in my experience and in researching it, seems to ignore crucial ideological and political differences between different groups. Such as:

* Who is the enemy? Is it "the Right?" The imperialist bourgeoisie? Middle-class people who buy into the consumer culture?

* How does fundamental change come about? Voting? Demonstrations to pressure the government? Revolution?

* What should our goal be? What should our strategy and tactics be to achieve this goal?

To organize some kind of broad-left party that doesn't agree on these questions seems counter-productive. With major differences like these, on what basis would you even decide what to do day-to-day?

Of course, in broader struggles, like the Anti-War movement, the struggle against police brutality, the fight against the roundups of immigrants, the struggle for abortion rights, etc., we should unite as broadly as possible - not only with various "left" groups and parties but with churches (& synagogoues & mosques), student groups, unions, and other individuals and organizations that want to take on the enemy in this field of battle.

Also it seems the idea of "Left Refoundation/regroupment" is a strategy for uniting the left - not for uniting the masses.

It assumes that certain people are down for the struggle, and we have to create a broader grouping of those people before we can go forward. But in reality, there are literally millions (and tens of millions) of people here in the US who hate a lot of the shit that's going on (the war, round-ups of immigrants, etc.) who aren't hooked up with any left groups or organizations. There are many more who have a basis to be won to this position. Our focus should be on reaching out to them.

In reality, the "left" in this country (at least as how it's usually viewed by groups pushing this "refoundation/regroupment" strategy) is relatively small. Only a TINY minority of people in this country (the U.S.) have even heard of most of the various left parties. The point is not to be pessimistic or to view this as an unchangeable reality, but right now, the main problem isn't that millions of people are lined up behind the banners of these different left parties and if only they could get together, things would really roll.

And even if that was the case, there'd still be a need for political and ideological struggle. I mean sure, we all hate globalization, we all want to stop the war and the detentions, maybe we all even have some generally anti-capitalist viewpoint.

But if the group I'm down with has a strategy of "create public opinion - seize power - prepare minds and organize forces", while the group you're down with sees a massive voter registration campaign as what we need now, we can't just throw that all in together and work as some indivisible, unified whole. Maybe we can both build for an anti-war demo, but we have some major differences that means we won't be doing the same things a lot of the time, and we need to have some serious ideological struggle.

Example: a revolutionary communist group should try to lead and organize the masses to take on all the outrages that the system brings down on us today and does this as part of building for revolution when the conditions are right. They'll work with all kinds of people on a principled basis if doing this is in the interests of the people. They'll do this even with people they have serious political and ideological differences with. But they won't try to obscure or "liquidate" these differences.

The "Left refoundation/regroupment" people don't seem to see it this way. They want to liquidate these differences so that the Left can be one big happy family. However, this mindset doesn't deal with important life-and-death questions - it just avoids them.

In conclusion, I think we need to keep in mind that the process of building unity amongst Communists around a correct political line is not so easy... Communists cannot just ignore significant line differences amongst each other, and it takes a great deal of struggle over correct ideology before unity is usually achieved. Simply uniting on common goals and forgetting our differences almost always leads to quick disintegration and even WORSE disunity than before.

[mel]

I am realist and impatient, and i don't want to wait for an utopian left communist party like the International Communist Current, or the World Socialist Movement http://www.worldsocialism.org to reach to power in 2500, I will be dead by then.

On this point, I'd just like to say that there are many of us who believe that the actions of some groups in the name of communists and socialism have actually harmed the chances of a worldwide revolution. For socialists, there are now huge barriers to overcome in the struggle for class consciousness because of the "defeat" of "communism" after the fall of the USSR.

The discourse regarding communism and socialism as realistic ideologies has so far degraded that for any realistic discussion about communism, you must not only overcome massive amounts of anti-communist propaganda, but also explain how a communist could overcome the shortcomings of failed experiments like the USSR.

Would you rather be a part of raising class consciousness, laying the groundwork for a true and lasting proletariat revolution which would take place in 2500 or 3200 or whenever, or would you rather create yet another instance of a self-proclaimed "socialist" state, which out of necessity for survival amongst capitalism, and a class-unconscious proletariat class degrades itself into an isolated, exploitative "worker's state" which protects the interest of the state above that of the worker, further setting back the cause of communism for perhaps even longer?

I understand your impatience, but you can't start a happy, lasting revolution without a class-conscious worker, that path can only lead to trouble.


This approach, in my experience and in researching it, seems to ignore crucial ideological and political differences between different groups. Such as:

* Who is the enemy? Is it "the Right?" The imperialist bourgeoisie? Middle-class people who buy into the consumer culture?

* How does fundamental change come about? Voting? Demonstrations to pressure the government? Revolution?

* What should our goal be? What should our strategy and tactics be to achieve this goal?

To organize some kind of broad-left party that doesn't agree on these questions seems counter-productive. With major differences like these, on what basis would you even decide what to do day-to-day?

Of course, in broader struggles, like the Anti-War movement, the struggle against police brutality, the fight against the roundups of immigrants, the struggle for abortion rights, etc., we should unite as broadly as possible - not only with various "left" groups and parties but with churches (& synagogoues & mosques), student groups, unions, and other individuals and organizations that want to take on the enemy in this field of battle.

Also it seems the idea of "Left Refoundation/regroupment" is a strategy for uniting the left - not for uniting the masses.

Along the same vein, while I agree that we cannot ignore some of those differences, most groups seem to agree that raising class consciousness seems to be the most important foundational step for the movement, especially in areas with no strong left movement. Towards this end, it may be possible for members of the left to work with one another to attempt to raise the level of discourse surrounding socialism and communism to lay the groundwork for revolution in the years to come. Each individual party can attempt its own methods for organizing and changing the material conditions for workers as they do now, but the left as a whole needs to realize that its primary, foundational goal ought to be the self-awareness of the worker as a class, without which no reform or revolution is possible.

[TrueLeninist]

USA citizens are digging their own grave, and hate themselves, vote against their self-interests and are too conformists. America is f*cked up mentally really, Bush and neocons sacked USA, destroyed the USA in 8 years, and yet there are millions of americans who are still a member of the Republican Party (What's wrong with this picture?). So what USA needs is not a socialist party, but a party of psychiatrists haha

TrueLeninist




On this point, I'd just like to say that there are many of us who believe that the actions of some groups in the name of communists and socialism have actually harmed the chances of a worldwide revolution. For socialists, there are now huge barriers to overcome in the struggle for class consciousness because of the "defeat" of "communism" after the fall of the USSR.

The discourse regarding communism and socialism as realistic ideologies has so far degraded that for any realistic discussion about communism, you must not only overcome massive amounts of anti-communist propaganda, but also explain how a communist could overcome the shortcomings of failed experiments like the USSR.

Would you rather be a part of raising class consciousness, laying the groundwork for a true and lasting proletariat revolution which would take place in 2500 or 3200 or whenever, or would you rather create yet another instance of a self-proclaimed "socialist" state, which out of necessity for survival amongst capitalism, and a class-unconscious proletariat class degrades itself into an isolated, exploitative "worker's state" which protects the interest of the state above that of the worker, further setting back the cause of communism for perhaps even longer?

I understand your impatience, but you can't start a happy, lasting revolution without a class-conscious worker, that path can only lead to trouble.



Along the same vein, while I agree that we cannot ignore some of those differences, most groups seem to agree that raising class consciousness seems to be the most important foundational step for the movement, especially in areas with no strong left movement. Towards this end, it may be possible for members of the left to work with one another to attempt to raise the level of discourse surrounding socialism and communism to lay the groundwork for revolution in the years to come. Each individual party can attempt its own methods for organizing and changing the material conditions for workers as they do now, but the left as a whole needs to realize that its primary, foundational goal ought to be the self-awareness of the worker as a class, without which no reform or revolution is possible.

[mel]

USA citizens are digging their own grave, and hate themselves, vote against their self-interests and are too conformists. America is f*cked up mentally really, Bush and neocons sacked USA, destroyed the USA in 8 years, and yet there are millions of americans who are still a member of the Republican Party (What's wrong with this picture?). So what USA needs is not a socialist party, but a party of psychiatrists haha

The USA has been messed up for far longer than eight years and it is impossible for US Americans to vote for their self-interest. Partially because there is no party which represents them, and partially because workers are not class-conscious. The people of the US need to understand their relationship to the means of production and capitalist exploitation, not psychiatrists. Most people I know that are republicans are so because they feel they deserve to keep the fruits of their labor and the republicans claim to be for lower taxation. As a leftist, I completely understand this desire. All workers should want to receive the full value of their labor. People need to remember that most people want the same things, they just disagree on the best way of getting them, and bourgeois propaganda clouds the best of those methods.

[Agrippa]

"The Left" is among the principal enemies of communism and humanity. All who seek to assume state power are our enemies. These sorts of "broad coalitions" do not give those who wish to attack capitalism any foreseeable tactical or strategic advantage. "The Left" has given plenty of opportunities to rule over the capitalist system, and at every opportunity they are given, they are shown to be as brutal and totalitarian as "the Right" and "the Center", for all of these positions exist on the spectrum of bourgeois politics.

TrueLeninist, your heart is in the right place, but clouded with confusion. What was so especially vile about the past eight years of "neo-con" rule, exactly, in comparison to the Leftist regime you desire?

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Along the same vein, while I agree that we cannot ignore some of those differences, most groups seem to agree that raising class consciousness seems to be the most important foundational step for the movement, especially in areas with no strong left movement. Towards this end, it may be possible for members of the left to work with one another to attempt to raise the level of discourse surrounding socialism and communism to lay the groundwork for revolution in the years to come. Each individual party can attempt its own methods for organizing and changing the material conditions for workers as they do now, but the left as a whole needs to realize that its primary, foundational goal ought to be the self-awareness of the worker as a class, without which no reform or revolution is possible. I agree that there needs to be more substantial engagement within the Left and a more holistic method of learning from one another, but I don't that lumping ourselves into a gigantic amorphous mass of a "left" party will do that; in fact, I think it might just gloss over the power of serious debate and dialogue. The collective/group I work with, the Kasama Project (http://www.kasamaproject.org/), has been deeply engaging with all sorts of left parties, including the FRSO, ISO, SP-USA, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, and even some of our Anarchist sisters and brothers. We have some good stuff articles and exchanges about this is y'all wanna check'em out... (I swear, I'm not trying to make this a shameless plug, just feel these can add to discussion):

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/elliot-liu-everybody-wants-a-new-old-left/
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/on-radical-leftist-strategy-propositions-for-discussion/
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/the-historical-failure-of-anarchism/



"The Left" is among the principal enemies of communism and humanity. All who seek to assume state power are our enemies. These sorts of "broad coalitions" do not give those who wish to attack capitalism any foreseeable tactical or strategic advantage. "The Left" has given plenty of opportunities to rule over the capitalist system, and at every opportunity they are given, they are shown to be as brutal and totalitarian as "the Right" and "the Center", for all of these positions exist on the spectrum of bourgeois politics.In a sense, I actually agree with you... At the end of the day, even as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (but more importantly, as a REVOLUTIONARY!), I believe that the "Left" really isn't where I'm mainly concerned about. Like I said in my last post I'm more about the WORKERS and the PEOPLE, not the Left.

At the same time, I don't think you should discard us Leninists as bloodthirsty murderers just waiting to jump on you... As a Maoist who is a former Anarcho-Communist with legions of Anarchist friends (Hell I have more Anarchist friends than Communist friends!) and who is in a casual relationship with an Anarchist woman, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that I want to do my damnedest to never see another Spain or Krondstadt ever happen again.

That however, is another debate for another day.

[NoMore]

Hello all: I have a tip on how to save USA from sinking like the Titanic, and that is a formation of a large United-Front composed of small alternative leftist parties of USA. I would like to know why are the socialist and leftist parties and movements in USA so sectarian? and do you think its possible to form a big United Socialist Front in USA perhaps for 2012 or 2016 elections?

TrueLeninist

Fuck the U.S.A!!!

We need to tear it all down and start over.

[Agrippa]

I'm not the sort of anarchist who couldn't have Leninists, certainly either as friends or lovers, even as political allies in certain appropriate contexts. Many Leninist movements/organizations, such as the RAF, the POUM, and the BLA, have been truer to anarchist values than certain sects of anarchism such as anarcho-syndicalists, Tolstoy-ites, market anarchists/an-caps, and "revolutionary defensists" such as Kropotkin.

But, at the same time, some of the most vibrant and creative and genuinely liberatory Leninist movements have fallen totally apart, not just because of external threats, but because of Leninist strategies. (Obvious examples are the Black Panther Party in the US and La Gauche Proletarienne in France)

That you admit that there were severe problems with how Krodstadt and Spain turned out, and imply that the Leninists bore some degree of the responsibility for that fact, puts you leagues above any other Leninist in terms of intellectual honesty. Given how those two moments in history played out, isn't it safe to say there are profound theoretical and practical differences between M-Ls and anarchists, and that the latter may in many ways not stand to benefit from the success of the former, regardless of how united we are in our mutual disgust for Social Democrats, reformists, and the establishment "left"?

[Blackscare]

"The Left" is among the principal enemies of communism and humanity. All who seek to assume state power are our enemies. These sorts of "broad coalitions" do not give those who wish to attack capitalism any foreseeable tactical or strategic advantage. "The Left" has given plenty of opportunities to rule over the capitalist system, and at every opportunity they are given, they are shown to be as brutal and totalitarian as "the Right" and "the Center", for all of these positions exist on the spectrum of bourgeois politics.

TrueLeninist, your heart is in the right place, but clouded with confusion. What was so especially vile about the past eight years of "neo-con" rule, exactly, in comparison to the Leftist regime you desire?


So what exactly do you want to happen then? Do you not know anarchist-communism is left wing? You seem to argue from an anti-state and pro-communism (but who knows what you mean by that) perspective. So what the fuck are you talking about when you say you're against the "left" when you're a member of the left yourself?

Also, as I've said to you before many times, "communism" is the extreme end of the "left" side of the spectrum. It is the logical extent of leftist thinking. Somehow calling the left an enemy of communism when communism itself is a part of the left shows a lack of understanding of basic terms here.

There are better methods of arguing for anarchism than constantly inventing and re-inventing terms to suit the particular point you're trying to make.


Do you make these posts where you constantly twist and misuse terms just to aggravate me?

[Agrippa]

So what exactly do you want to happen then? Do you not know anarchist-communism is left wing?

The terms "Left" and "Right" orginally refers to the architecture of the French Legislative Assembly, in which the Feuillant royalists sat on the right and the Jacobians on the left. Thus, "Leftists" are capitalist politicians that are more willing to restructure and adjust capitalism (by imposing reforms, making appeasements, and so on) to improve stability and manage crisis. The "rightists" are the ones who want to run capitalism into the ground, hence their incompetence makes them the lesser of two evils by default.

I think the term only has relevance to communism as far as describing individual members of the historical Communist International and other established revolutionary parties. ("Right-wing" communists being more supportive of the revolutionary "status quo" and "left-wing" communists being more dismissive or hostile towards it) However, the term has little relevance today except bickering and in-fighting among small groups of Marxist intellectuals.

Anarchist-communism as a political faction has always spanned from the libertarian extremist of the socialist left to other philosophical trends that could even be considered "right-wing" by some, such as egoism and romanticism.


Also, as I've said to you before many times, "communism" is the extreme end of the "left" side of the spectrum.

I take it from this statement that you yourself, used to be a "less extreme Leftist" such as a moderate Marxist or Social Democrat and than naturally drifted further to the supposed "Left". (which, in this context, would make "Left" a concept synonymous with anarchism) Keep in mind that this is your personal experience and others have had very different experiences. For example, many drifted over to anarchism from the radical right, or from a purely apolitical stance. Defining anarchism as "more left" that Marxism-Leninism and Social Democracy is only useful in explaining anarchism's relationship to Marxism-Leninism and Social Democracy, and thus should not be overly-emphasized, if it's needed at all. I think genuine anarchism isn't just "to the left" of M-L and Social Democracy, it completely departs from and rebels against the Leftist tradition alltogether.


calling the left an enemy of communism when communism itself is a part of the left shows a lack of understanding of basic terms here.

Communism is not a political position, it is a mode of existence. See, I can be a semantic troll too....


There are better methods of arguing for anarchism than constantly inventing and re-inventing terms to suit the particular point you're trying to make.

Yes, but at the same time, rejecting the term "Leftism" has obvious benefits, besides the obvious visceral emotional benefit, it has strategic and tactical benefits especially in appealing to groups of people who have been screwed over and oppressed by Leftist parties. (Or even just groups that have been brainwashed to have a knee-jerk reaction to "the Left", such as poor white Americans) Why should we pretend like we have more in common with latte liberals and Leninist commisars than redneck survivalists and apathetic "moderates", if in truth all of our dealings with any of these groups are equally a nessecity of pragmatism?


Do you make these posts where you constantly twist and misuse terms just to aggravate me?

Last time you harped on me about "misusing terms" because I made the facetous "nothing says communism like North Korean labor camps", obviously using sarcasm to imply that nothing could be further from communism than North Korean labor camps. Thus I think your complaints about "misusing terms" have more to do with the overly-serious manner in which you may choose to opproach linguistic communication than any foul-doing on my part. If you are truly being "aggrevate[d]" by messasge board posts, especially over semantic rather than philosophical points, maybe you should turn off your computer and spend some time in the wildnerness.

[Blackscare]

Last time you harped on me about "misusing terms" because I made the facetous "nothing says communism like North Korean labor camps", obviously using sarcasm to imply that nothing could be further from communism than North Korean labor camps. Thus I think your complaints about "misusing terms" have more to do with the overly-serious manner in which you may choose to opproach linguistic communication than any foul-doing on my part. If you are truly being "aggrevate[d]" by messasge board posts, especially over semantic rather than philosophical points, maybe you should turn off your computer and spend some time in the wildnerness.

Semantic points? That's all? In many threads I've noticed you doing this. Your definition of communism, left, right, etc change from post to post! It's not a simple semantic fetish, how are we supposed to have a coherent debate when you just make up the definition of important terms whenever you like? The meaning of words DOES matter. When you equate communism, or socialism, or whatever, with something that it is NOT, you're confusing the discussion and talking out of your ass.

[Agrippa]

Your definition of communism, left, right, etc change from post to post!

Can you provide an example? I admit I have very idiosyncratic definitions of the terms "communism" and "left", but I feel they are consistant. I don't think they "change from post to post" because the basic idea that exists in my head of what a communist society looks like, and the nature of "left-wing" parties, hasn't changed since I first registered an account on this message board.


It's not a simple semantic fetish, how are we supposed to have a coherent debate when you just make up the definition of important terms whenever you like?

I haven't "made up" anything. Others have used the words "communism" and "left" in the same way I have, (I'm certainly not clever enough to be their originator) and I feel my definitions are consistent with the etymologies and histories of the terms.


The meaning of words DOES matter. When you equate communism, or socialism, or whatever, with something that it is NOT, you're confusing the discussion and talking out of your ass.

But when you insist that anyone who uses a word in a way that's different than your bigoted preconception of how it should be use, than you're being a procrustian language-totalitarian, no better than people who conforming to standardized spelling is a sign of intelligence, or German state bureaucrats who feel they have the right to make grammatical formations "more efficient" and purge letters from the German alphabet

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Given how those two moments in history played out, isn't it safe to say there are profound theoretical and practical differences between M-Ls and anarchists, and that the latter may in many ways not stand to benefit from the success of the former, regardless of how united we are in our mutual disgust for Social Democrats, reformists, and the establishment "left"?

For one, I think that the story of Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat is still "being written", and that we still have a lot to learn from our excesses and sum up our past transgressions.

That being said, I see no reason why Anarchists cannot organize under socialism as long as they do not resort to violence. In fact, I am currently planning to write a series of novellas that take place some 50 years in the future in which a Maoist party has seized power in America, and there are various Anarchist collectives (such as the NAFAC- the North AMERICAN Federation of Anarcho-Communists, as well as the Neo-IWW) spread across the country. There is quite a bit of tension, but organizing and collectivizing is allowed and negotiations with Anarchist communes are still under way.

I can't predict the future, I am no fortune teller, but I think it's something to fight for on our side.

[Sarah Palin]

Hello all: I have a tip on how to save USA from sinking like the Titanic, and that is a formation of a large United-Front composed of small alternative leftist parties of USA. I would like to know why are the socialist and leftist parties and movements in USA so sectarian? and do you think its possible to form a big United Socialist Front in USA perhaps for 2012 or 2016 elections?

TrueLeninist

I don't know if you've heard of Hunter S. Thompson's "Freak power uprising." He ran for sheriff in Aspen on leftist positions.
I thought that no leftist could ever become president, and that mayoral campaigns would fare better and that we'd have more direct power over towns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Aspen

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I would like to do that.

I would include the campaign promise to not use mescaline while on duty.