Searching for common goals within the left

[Bitter Ashes]

There's plenty of threads about how we're all so vastly different and will never co-operate and everything, but maybe it's time to start thinking again about what we all hold in common with each other. Should we be asking ourselves questions like:

-What are the times when a Marxist-Lennist will agree with a Trotskyist?
-What does it take for anarchists to co-operate with communists?
-etc etc etc

So, looking at the things that bind us together and make us stronger despite our differences, what would those be? My first reaction is to say that we're all working class and we all believe that there should be a better world for us and other workers. We remember that our biggest enemies are the bourgeois and that they should not, at least in the long term, be collaberated with in the form of reforms and TUC style unions. We all believe in uniting by class and smashing all divisions within our class. We all believe that wages are a method of control to keep the rich's lives decadent and the poor's life miserable.

What else do we share in common and is the stuff that we agree on, more important than the stuff we disagree on?

[Rjevan]

We all belive in anti-fascism, -imperialism, -sexism, etc.
We agree that real change can only be achieved through a revolution led by the working class. We believe that everybody is equal and has the same basic rights as everybody else.
This is what spontanously comes to my mind besides of the points mentioned by Ranma.

You're totally right, it's much more important that we share much goals and basically want the same than all the differences. After the revolution there will be more than enough time to debate in-depth if Trotsky was an idiot, Stalin a mass murderer, Kropotkin a dreamer and things like that and we can all day long fiercely shout at each other that we're worshipping bloodthirsty tyrants, living in a ivory tower, are traitors to the revoultion and are unlogical and childish idiots who should be beaten to death with "Das Kapital", just imagine, it could be the the most heated tendency wars 24 hours a day! But before we can live in this paradise (:p) we have to realise that the reactionary forces are our real enemies and will always be the laughing thrid party, as long as we aren't united because we haven't finished our discussion of the advantages and disadvateges of Dialectical Materialism yet.

[robbo203]

There's plenty of threads about how we're all so vastly different and will never co-operate and everything, but maybe it's time to start thinking again about what we all hold in common with each other. Should we be asking ourselves questions like:

-What are the times when a Marxist-Lennist will agree with a Trotskyist?
-What does it take for anarchists to co-operate with communists?
-etc etc etc

So, looking at the things that bind us together and make us stronger despite our differences, what would those be? My first reaction is to say that we're all working class and we all believe that there should be a better world for us and other workers. We remember that our biggest enemies are the bourgeois and that they should not, at least in the long term, be collaberated with in the form of reforms and TUC style unions. We all believe in uniting by class and smashing all divisions within our class. We all believe that wages are a method of control to keep the rich's lives decadent and the poor's life miserable.

What else do we share in common and is the stuff that we agree on, more important than the stuff we disagree on?

I think there has to be agreement on the basics. What is capitalism? what is socialism/communism? And so on. The basic problem with the left I think, is that so many see the way ahead as being via the the high road of state capitalism and transitional demands (really, in the end,reformism). History has more than adequately demonstrated the complete futility of this approach. What is now required is a break from this whole mistaken paradigm.

I belong to a group called world in common (www.worldincommon.org (http://www.worldincommon.org)) which is actually very interested in stressing the commonalities of the broad non-market anti-statist political sector without brushing the differences under the carpet. There is agreement on the basics but differences on the secondary issues. We come from all sorts of different traditions within this sector. Some are De Leonists, some are WSMers some are anarchists or council communists etc etc

I think this is the way ahead - unity in diversity. I dont think there is some magic bullet that is going to do the job for us. Although we might all have our own individual preferences of the way ahead we need to allow for the fact that what might suit us might not suit others. The important thing is to be all moving in the same direction and with a clear understanding of what it is we want

[The Douche]

In every revolution through history where there have been various factions of the revolutionary movement they have worked together, until one turned on the other. I have no desire to work with people who have an ideology opposed to my own.

[Dylan.Weinberger]

Most of us want the eventual removal of the state, some alot sooner than others.

[Forward Union]

So, looking at the things that bind us together and make us stronger despite our differences, what would those be? My first reaction is to say that we're all working class and we all believe that there should be a better world for us and other workers. We remember that our biggest enemies are the bourgeois and that they should not, at least in the long term, be collaberated with in the form of reforms and TUC style unions. We all believe in uniting by class and smashing all divisions within our class. We all believe that wages are a method of control to keep the rich's lives decadent and the poor's life miserable.
I think you're confusing two types of organisation. Economic bodies, Unions, Residents and Tenants associations etc, and political bodies. It's very easy for us to collaborate in the former, we are normally all working class with the same day to day interests. And I would encourage this, I think it's fundamentally important.

Political unity between Anarchists and Leninists is impossible. And ridiculous. Any political organisation that brought those two tendancies together would be incapable of producing any meaningful political program, as the ferocious disagreements over such fundemental issues would mean it would resort to "lowest common denominator" policies and activities. It would either rip itself apart in a very violent manner, or simply refuse to talk about issues of incredible importance, leading people to think we had nothing to say on these issues.

I doubt it would even be able to form a mechanism for making agreements. Let alone decide what to do about Housing.

I don't see why people are so keen to talk about this impossible and rediculous notion of "unity amongst the left". Even if it were achieved it would be the most pointless waste of time ever created.

Furthermore, even in those economic bodies in which we should cooperate, we have different approaches. Leninists seek to take campaigns and unions over and direct their efforts into supporting their political party. Anarchist political organisations seek to democratise and reinforce the power of the rank and file.

[Forward Union]

I think this is the way ahead - unity in diversity.

No it's not and this statement, when you boil it down, amounts to nothing substantial, its essentially liberal rethoric.

For example, how do you propose this left alliance make's decisions.



Leninists propose electing a central committee who makes decisions on behalf of the organisation.
Anarchists propose delegate conventions, in which delegates are mandated on the local level in membership assemblies.

Which one do we pick? and how will we convince the other side? and as far as I am concerned there is no question really to be asked. The Leninist model is undemocratic and corruptible, and I don't want to participate in anything like it. Most Leninists will have a similar attitude to Anarchist bodies.

What about the state? Do we take the Leninist appraoch or participation in bourgeois democracy? or the Anarchist approach of building working class power on the ground? There are thousands of other similar issues. And you see, Political Organisations are made up of people who agree politically. They are not made of people who disagree politically but want to be in a big care bare group so forget their political disagreements and subscribe to a sort of "see no evil, hear no evil" faux-unity.

These different tendencies are not personality disagreements. They are deep rooted rifts based on fundemental questions of praxis. They disagree quite radically on what to do and how to do it. You cannot ignore these questions, or hold both positions at once.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think he was speaking in terms of the SLP and WSPUS uniting more than the SPGB and SWP.

[AnthArmo]

We all want worker control of the means of production.

[Forward Union]

We all want worker control of the means of production.

Yes. But very different approaches. To the extent I would say that the Leninist program is incapable of ever archiving worker control of the means of production.

[robbo203]

No it's not and this statement, when you boil it down, amounts to nothing substantial, its essentially liberal rethoric.

For example, how do you propose this left alliance make's decisions.



Leninists propose electing a central committee who makes decisions on behalf of the organisation.
Anarchists propose delegate conventions, in which delegates are mandated on the local level in membership assemblies.
Which one do we pick? and how will we convince the other side? and as far as I am concerned there is no question really to be asked. The Leninist model is undemocratic and corruptible, and I don't want to participate in anything like it. Most Leninists will have a similar attitude to Anarchist bodies.

What about the state? Do we take the Leninist appraoch or participation in bourgeois democracy? or the Anarchist approach of building working class power on the ground? There are thousands of other similar issues. And you see, Political Organisations are made up of people who agree politically. They are not made of people who disagree politically but want to be in a big care bare group so forget their political disagreements and subscribe to a sort of "see no evil, hear no evil" faux-unity.

These different tendencies are not personality disagreements. They are deep rooted rifts based on fundemental questions of praxis. They disagree quite radically on what to do and how to do it. You cannot ignore these questions, or hold both positions at once.


I think you have missed the point completely here. I dont regard Leninists as being part of the non-market anti-statist political sector and I certainly was not intending to include them under any kind of umbrella of revolutionary organisation. I regard Leninists - and the various derivatives of Leninism - as part of the pro-capitalist left. They tend to be state capitalists and reformists and so , by definition, fall outside of the revolutionary political sector.

It is solely in relation to this political sector that my remarks are relevant and are certainly not confined to the likes of the WSM and the SLP (the De Leonist variety that is). There are quite a few anarchist grouplets on much the same wavelength for example and left communists and others

[BIG BROTHER]

Regarding common goals, we all at least in theory seek to overthrow the capitalist regime and do away with the state.

Yet our strategies in achieving said goal are quite different and can put each other at conflict.

But we always have the United Front strategy were different tendencies agree at least on a certain Issue and organize around it.

[ZeroNowhere]

It is solely in relation to this political sector that my remarks are relevant and are certainly not confined to the likes of the WSM and the SLP (the De Leonist variety that is). There are quite a few anarchist grouplets on much the same wavelength for example and left communists and othersTo clarify, I was just giving an example there. Also, I really don't know why those two remain separate.

[Forward Union]

I think you have missed the point completely here. I dont regard Leninists as being part of the non-market anti-statist political sector and I certainly was not intending to include them under any kind of umbrella of revolutionary organisation. I regard Leninists - and the various derivatives of Leninism - as part of the pro-capitalist left. They tend to be state capitalists and reformists and so , by definition, fall outside of the revolutionary political sector.

But there are equally fundamental rifts between Syndicalists, Communists, Individualists, Platformists, Insurrectionists etc. Those that support Consensus vs those that support Democracy etc.

It's just not possible to unite these tendencies unless you were to all agree to accept a state of non-thinking in which you have absolutely no view, position or discussion on any of the dozens of issues on which these tendencies fundementally disagree. Solfed believe that only Anarchists should participate in the organisation, the CNT let anyone in, AF oppose Unions, L&S supports becoming Shop Stewards and full participation in mainstrem unions... What will our umbrella group say about this issue? (this is an example of one issue, I can give you many many more)


It is solely in relation to this political sector that my remarks are relevant and are certainly not confined to the likes of the WSM and the SLP (the De Leonist variety that is). There are quite a few anarchist grouplets on much the same wavelength for example and left communists and othersLeft Communists have nothing to do with Anarchism except in that due to a complete poverty of analysis and organisation many anarchists have (recently, in the last 40 years) adopted Left Communist ianalysis as Anarchist.

[robbo203]

But there are equally fundamental rifts between Syndicalists, Communists, Individualists, Platformists, Insurrectionists etc. Those that support Consensus vs those that support Democracy etc..

It depends what you mean by "fundamental". There is obviously a hierarchy of criteria to consider and sort out. I venture to suggest that the group that I am associated with - the world in common group (www.worldincommon.org (http://www.worldincommon.org) ) has more or less got it right. The primary characteristics of the revolutionary sector is that it is anti-statist - that is, we seek a stateless classless society - and one that is also anti-market or non market - we seek to get rid of commodity production and wage labour. This I think is what constitutes the very core of the revolutionary perspective. Beyond that, that there are other, more secondary, criteria - such as the means to achieve a stateless non-market society - where the different traditions and perspectives within the sector begin to differentiate



It's just not possible to unite these tendencies unless you were to all agree to accept a state of non-thinking in which you have absolutely no view, position or discussion on any of the dozens of issues on which these tendencies fundementally disagree. Solfed believe that only Anarchists should participate in the organisation, the CNT let anyone in, AF oppose Unions, L&S supports becoming Shop Stewards and full participation in mainstrem unions... What will our umbrella group say about this issue? (this is an example of one issue, I can give you many many more)
.

But I am not suggesting "unity" in a formal organisational sense. I agree this would be absurd. There are differences between the different traditions within the revolutionary sector which cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet.

We in world in common take a different approach entirely. We respect the differences of opinion within the sector - we ourselves all come from different traditions - but we urge that comrades in the sector seek also to emphasise our commonalities (hence "world in common"). It is the commonalities that should "unite" and strengthen us. Too much weight is attached to what divides us. We want to reverse the situation by emphasising what we have in common.

For us then "unity" consists in closer colloboration between different groups, not their dissolution as organisational entities. We also think this may be well be conducive to a more constructive dialogue over what divides us as a movement. This is related to a further idea which is to move away from the kind of simplistic notion that there is some magic bullet somewhere that will do the trick. There isnt it. The reality is that it is probably going to require a diversity of approaches to accomplish a social revolution and we need to be opening up channels of positive communication between these different approaches to our mutual benefit.

[Forward Union]

It depends what you mean by "fundamental".
Fundamental 1)
serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation


The primary characteristics of the revolutionary sector is that it is anti-statist - that is, we seek a stateless classless society - and one that is also anti-market or non market - we seek to get rid of commodity production and wage labour. This I think is what constitutes the very core of the revolutionary perspective.

These are not enough to form a basis of practical unity. They are enough to found an Anarchist club or discussion group. This could even have it's own logo and attend demonstrations. It could even have membership, but It wouldn't be able to create any class power because it wouldn't be able to form a plan.


But I am not suggesting "unity" in a formal organisational sense. I agree this would be absurd. We in world in common take a different approach entirely. We respect the differences of opinion within the sector - we ourselves all come from different traditions - but we urge that comrades in the sector seek also to emphasise our commonalities (hence "world in common").

So you do want to form a discussion club. But why? what use is that? I already have a good idea of which groups I agree with and to what extents, and know people involved in all of them.


For us then "unity" consists in closer colloboration between different groups, not their dissolution as organisational entities.Urm, well I think we should all have a pragmatic policy of working with anyone when it is useful to do so. I don't see why I need to have a hippy bonding session with other anarchists, or "emphasise" some academic grouping.


We also think this may be well be conducive to a more constructive dialogue over what divides us as a movement.We already do have open dialogue. I'm still not sure what you are actually proposing.


There isnt it. The reality is that it is probably going to require a diversity of approaches Yea sure, we'll have consensus decision making and majority decision making all at the same time, or hey let's be syndicalists and work in unions one day, and oppose them the next. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Specific organisations should have fixed strategies and short, mid and long term targets. These should of course be constantly assessed and revised in order to achieve maximum effectiveness. Beyond that I don't see what the fuss is about getting some different groups to realise they have a few similar principals.

[robbo203]

These are not enough to form a basis of practical unity. They are enough to found an Anarchist club or discussion group. This could even have it's own logo and attend demonstrations. It could even have membership, but It wouldn't be able to create any class power because it wouldn't be able to form a plan..

I am not quite sure what you mean here. What or who wouldnt be able to form a plan? The group? But groups form and implement plans all the time. If you are you intending to say that mere recognition of the non market anti statist nature of the movement by its constituent parts cannot in itsef serve as a basis for forming and implementing a plan - practical activity as you say - then yes I wouldnt dispute that. It needs more than just recognising the commonalities that exist between groups. People need to get together to decide together on a plan But intra- sectoral cooperation or collobaration (which is what I am getting at) has to be driven and infomed by those comonalities. For example, in this revolutuionary sector there is a pretty much universal rejection of nationalist ideology that stems from those very fundamnetals that define the movement itself. The opens up huge areas of potential collaboration e.g. our response to various capitalist wars that employ nationalist ideology as a means of justfication.



So you do want to form a discussion club. But why? what use is that? I already have a good idea of which groups I agree with and to what extents, and know people involved in all of them...

A discussion club or form is not a bad idea -We have one at World in Common - but this is only a small part of it. I was actually thinking in terms of something more proactive and colloborative. There are many things we can do as diffenret groups within our sector that build on what we have in common with each other - from the sharing of facilities to the joint publication of leaflets and other forms of literature. Personally I would like to see a greater degree of interaction with some of the more ideologically committed and radicalised intentional communities. There is a collective in northern spain called Enscanda (check it out on google) which is quite a good example of this ( I say this as someone who lives in Spain)



Urm, well I think we should all have a pragmatic policy of working with anyone when it is useful to do so. I don't see why I need to have a hippy bonding session with other anarchists, or "emphasise" some academic grouping....

This illustrates precisely the point I am trying to make. Its not just anarchists that we are talking about. There are many others in the sector who are on the same basic wavelength. Anarchists need to be bonding more with them and vice versa. Keeping each other away at arms length for the sake of ideological purity perpetuates the kind of sectarianism that has for so long been the bane of the movement. We need to focus on what is important enough to to bring us a little closer to each other. Unity is as the saying goes , strength. It is the absence of it that constantly emsculates the movement, enfeebles it and dispirits it members. How we do it I am not quite sure . I didnt exactly have hippy bonding sessions in mind but its an interesting thoght




Yea sure, we'll have consensus decision making and majority decision making all at the same time, or hey let's be syndicalists and work in unions one day, and oppose them the next. What you're saying doesn't make sense.....

No you misunderstand what I am saying. I recognise that different traditions within the movement might have very different approaches to the realisation of our common objevctives. Some organisations like the WSM or the SLP might want to go down the political road; others like anarchists might eshew such an approach altogether in favour of some other approach. I am not suggestimng one should take one of those approaches at one point and another at another. That would be silly and pointless. We all have our own preferred approach but it is possible to have such a preference and yet see that it might not be the only option available. I guess what I am arguing for here a more tolerant and above all, openminded way of going about things , to get way away from this simplistic black or white , either /or attitude. We should be humble enough to recgnise that we most likely do not have all the answers

[Forward Union]

I am not quite sure what you mean here. What or who wouldnt be able to form a plan? The group? But groups form and implement plans all the time. If you are you intending to say that mere recognition of the non market anti statist nature of the movement by its constituent parts cannot in itsef serve as a basis for forming and implementing a plan - practical activity as you say - then yes I wouldnt dispute that.

Ok.


It needs more than just recognising the commonalities that exist between groups. People need to get together to decide together on a plan But intra- sectoral cooperation or collobaration (which is what I am getting at) has to be driven and infomed by those comonalities. For example, in this revolutuionary sector there is a pretty much universal rejection of nationalist ideology that stems from those very fundamnetals that define the movement itself. The opens up huge areas of potential collaboration e.g. our response to various capitalist wars that employ nationalist ideology as a means of justfication.
In what way are we not currently collaborating?


I was actually thinking in terms of something more proactive and colloborative. There are many things we can do as diffenret groups within our sector that build on what we have in common with each other - from the sharing of facilities to the joint publication of leaflets and other forms of literature. Here I very much disagree. The content of the leaflet would inevitably confused. In the example of let's say, an anti-fascist leaflet, you can easily produce statements explaining the problems with fascism, and even the BNPs specific policies (which would be better than the mad trite that we currently produce) but it wouldn't be able to offer a solid alternative. Just rethoric.

The BNP didn't get to where it is now with anti-communist party leaflets. Produced after ages of debating each political sentence with a broad coalition of other nazis.


We need to focus on what is important enough to to bring us a little closer to each other. Unity is as the saying goes , strength. It is the absence of it that constantly emsculates the movement, enfeebles it and dispirits it members. I disagree again. The movement is weak because it is disorganized. To quote an old chestnut...
It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the forthrightness and integrity of anarchist positions in the facing up to the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for libertarian communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important factor.

This contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational principles and practices in the anarchist movement.

In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them.
Taken as a whole, such a state of revolutionary anarchism can only be described as 'chronic general disorganisation'.

Like yellow fever, this disease of disorganisation has infected the anarchist movement and has shaken it for dozens of years.

It is nevertheless beyond doubt that this disorganisation derives from from some defects of theory: notably from a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism: this theory being too often confused with the absence of all responsibility. The lovers of assertion of 'self', solely with a view to personal pleasure. obstinately cling to the chaotic state of the anarchist movement. and refer in its defence to the immutable principles of anarchism and its teachers

I am not suggestimng one should take one of those approaches at one point and another at another. That would be silly and pointless. We all have our own preferred approach but it is possible to have such a preference and yet see that it might not be the only option available. I guess what I am arguing for here a more tolerant and above all, openminded way of going about things , to get way away from this simplistic black or white , either /or attitude. We should be humble enough to recgnise that we most likely do not have all the answersYou're not really saying anything other than that we should be nicer and talk together. Which I don't particularly disagree with. But don't see it as a very exciting proposal.

[redguard2009]

Two halves.

On the one side, I don't think "unity" or the pursuit of it within the left will achieve any good. Face it -- we're too self-absorbed with feelings of righteousness (scientific) and the belief that we are correct in our stance that few of us will ever fold to another's ideals. And because of that, the issue of co-operation seems... destructive. Why support another who you believe is going about things incorrectly? Wouldn't that be a step backwards? We all believe we're right, and we pursue the path we feel is correct. To support others necesitates, most of the time, abandoning our path to follow theirs, even if they are similar. In more visceral terms, we are right, you are wrong; history will vindicate us and there really isn't any point in forming a relationship with you. You can follow us, or fade away when the time comes for action.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a totalitarian? A Stalinist, maybe. Time and again history has shown that the squabbles of different groups is more an impediment than an advantage. Take, for instance, a country like Nepal. There you have three groups of "progressives". The Maoists, the most hardline revolutionaries who believe that change can only come through violent, physical renewal; the Marxist-Leninists, who believe in "gentle" reformation; and the socialists, social-democrats and left-liberals who believe the only things needing to be changed are a few regressive conservative aspects of their society.

How do all these forces play together in the sandbox? The left-liberals are always terrified of "too much change". Legalizing women's rights, okay, sure. Talk about a fundamental change to the system? Holyshit! The Marxist-Leninists and the Maoists seem to be more concerned with power-play than their overriding goal (which is the same). The M-L's believe it is they who should lead the revolution in their slow, methodical tortoise ways; the Maoists believe they are the proper people's authority and must transform society faster on larger scales. Their end goal -- socialism, communism -- is the same, but they have repeatedly been at odds against each other on almost every matter, as if it weren't a matter of ideology but simply having to be right while the other is wrong.

Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Anarchists, we'll never get along. If one tendency, ideology, group or organization does manage to accomplish anything, the others will undoubtedly try and sabotage them (though in very subtle ways -- they'll never admit to sabotaging, only criticizing).

So a part of me thinks, the only real solution is the eradication of my "opponents", be they liberals, conservatives, bourgeois or communists by any other name, so that my particular group can get things done properly.

[AvanteRedGarde]

So, according to you, you and your self-professed ideology is entirely effete and cannot "get things done properly" is because there exists competing ideas and their bearers?

I thought superstructure reflected the structure. Couldn't this explain liberalism and the like without deviating from Marxism?

You also shouldn't confound yourself and your situation with that of Maoists in Nepal.

You seem really egotistical "red and expert."

As per the OP's topic. It really doesn't even make sense. What exactly is the left? Why is it so important to have common goals with it? Etc?

In terms of revolutionary strategy, "common goals" are immediate class interest of the world's exploited majority.

[mikelepore]

I venture to suggest that the group that I am associated with - the world in common group (www.worldincommon.org (http://www.worldincommon.org) ) has more or less got it right. The primary characteristics of the revolutionary sector is that it is anti-statist - that is, we seek a stateless classless society - and one that is also anti-market or non market - we seek to get rid of commodity production and wage labour. This I think is what constitutes the very core of the revolutionary perspective. Beyond that, that there are other, more secondary, criteria - such as the means to achieve a stateless non-market society - where the different traditions and perspectives within the sector begin to differentiate.

And yet, the objective known as Free Access has been part of the World in Common statement of principles from the day it was founded, and I'm convinced that Free Access is an idea that would be impossible to implement, totally disasterous if attempted, and disasterous even to suggest, because a blatantly unworkable definition of socialism prevents the working class from becoming socialists. Except for that little detail, congratulations on starting a group that invites people with different perspectives to get together and collaborate.

[Bitter Ashes]

This is exactly what I was worried would happen with this thread.
It's become yet another case of people pointing out thier divisions rather than embracing thier similarities.
Here's a scenario which I wonder if everyone could agree with.

EVeryone works together for revolution and direct democracy. As the result of a massive reffendum, it's decieded what path we take. If you disagree with the majority enough then just chalk it up to needing to work more on getting your point across. Rinse and repeat.

I mean, if everyone want to go thier seperate ways after the revolution then that's fine, in fact, I'd encourage it rather than just becoming a silent collaberator of the status quo, but until then, shouldn't we all see the benefit of bringing down capitalism and make that a common goal for us all to work for?

[Killfacer]

I have nothing in common with some of the members on this board. I don't intend on embracing my similarities with some people who hold frankly despicable veiws.

I'm sure someone thinks exactly the same of me.

Face it, there are good reasons why everyone hates each other.

[Lynx]

Direct democracy by itself would be revolutionary. Hence, I would support a direct democracy movement regardless if it had socialist or capitalist leanings.

Finding common goals depends on the purpose you wish to serve. In politics, coalition building is difficult. It is preferable to have a party whose members are united in thought and action.

On the other hand, if your goal is to learn, limiting yourself to people with whom you agree is not a good long term strategy. You end up preaching to the choir.

People have different strengths and social skills. Some are persuasive, good at getting people to change their way of thinking. Others are good at getting people to work together despite differences in opinion. Some people prefer to be advocates, while others are more comfortable being critics. I believe there is room and a need for each of these approaches.

[redguard2009]

So, according to you, you and your self-professed ideology is entirely effete and cannot "get things done properly" is because there exists competing ideas and their bearers?

No; according to me, one organization co-operating with another necessitates one of those organizations betraying their principles to further the assumingly erroneous principles of the other. The reason there are different groups is because there are different ideas of how to "get things done". Anything else is a negative influence; the Bolsheviks were different from the Social-Democrats and Mensheviks because they believe action needed to the taken that the latter did not agree with; this inevitably led to a conflict in which the Bolsheviks subdued their opposition and carried through with their plans.

Likewise, I should concentrate on my organization's goals and principles and any others, be they communists, liberals, conservatives, bourgeois, etc, are my opposition. If I do not believe, for instance, the Communist Party of Canada has what it takes to successfully carry out a revolution why would I waste my time and effort helping them?

The point is -- and I'm trying to put this as lightly as possible, but lets dispense with pleasantries -- I operate under the principle that if you're not working with me, you are working against me, and should either be ignored or if your influence is destructive enough against my ideals, destroyed.

[Pogue]

No; according to me, one organization co-operating with another necessitates one of those organizations betraying their principles to further the assumingly erroneous principles of the other. The reason there are different groups is because there are different ideas of how to "get things done". Anything else is a negative influence; the Bolsheviks were different from the Social-Democrats and Mensheviks because they believe action needed to the taken that the latter did not agree with; this inevitably led to a conflict in which the Bolsheviks subdued their opposition and carried through with their plans.

Likewise, I should concentrate on my organization's goals and principles and any others, be they communists, liberals, conservatives, bourgeois, etc, are my opposition. If I do not believe, for instance, the Communist Party of Canada has what it takes to successfully carry out a revolution why would I waste my time and effort helping them?

The point is -- and I'm trying to put this as lightly as possible, but lets dispense with pleasantries -- I operate under the principle that if you're not working with me, you are working against me, and should either be ignored or if your influence is destructive enough against my ideals, destroyed.

Yeh, for example I wouldn't want to work like a boring old Stalinist like yourself.

[Il Medico]

The 1 uniting goal of the left:
Destroy Capitalism and bring about a classless society.
It is not in what we want to achieve that we differ, but in how we do it.

[mikelepore]

Here's a scenario which I wonder if everyone could agree with.

EVeryone works together for revolution and direct democracy. As the result of a massive reffendum, it's decieded what path we take. If you disagree with the majority enough then just chalk it up to needing to work more on getting your point across. Rinse and repeat.

I mean, if everyone want to go thier seperate ways after the revolution then that's fine

What happens if we have that referendum on which path to take, and, say, 60 percent of the participants vote to adopt a strategy which, if implemented, will cause the working class to get massacred by the millions, but only the 40 percent who lost in the refendum realize that this would be the inevitable outcome of the strategy that won the referendum?

For example, suppose the winner of that referendum on strategy is the suggestion for the workers' organization to act to take control of the means of production, but without first having socialist candidates elected to the political offices, as many anarchists and syndicalists recommend. So the capitalist class would still be in control of the police and army when the industrial organization of workers attempts to seize the means of production. As a result, the police and army are certainly going to bring about the worst holocaust in history. Now, in this case, should the people who realize that all this is going to happen go along with the winning decision in the referendum on strategy?

[redguard2009]

Yeh, for example I wouldn't want to work like a boring old Stalinist like yourself.

BORING?! Are you crazy!? By holding a harshly critical and antagonistic line towards other communist organizations and parties we have tons of fun. I mean, there was this one protest march we were in where our party and another communist party were throwing insults at one another in the form of chants. Was quite fun. We won of course because we had like 200 people and they had 10 but w/e. Also there was that time some OTHER communist party members attacked us.

[Bitter Ashes]

What happens if we have that referendum on which path to take, and, say, 60 percent of the participants vote to adopt a strategy which, if implemented, will cause the working class to get massacred by the millions, but only the 40 percent who lost in the refendum realize that this would be the inevitable outcome of the strategy that won the referendum?

For example, suppose the winner of that referendum on strategy is the suggestion for the workers' organization to act to take control of the means of production, but without first having socialist candidates elected to the political offices, as many anarchists and syndicalists recommend. So the capitalist class would still be in control of the police and army when the industrial organization of workers attempts to seize the means of production. As a result, the police and army are certainly going to bring about the worst holocaust in history. Now, in this case, should the people who realize that all this is going to happen go along with the winning decision in the referendum on strategy?
Well, if that was the case then maybe you should consider the alternative? Allowing 40% to dictate to the 60%? If it's a case that you feel that 40% hasnt been understood well enough then that can be healed with time. If it's something that is always going to be a minority view, then you've basicly got two options available. Minority rule, or learning to accept it.

[robbo203]

And yet, the objective known as Free Access has been part of the World in Common statement of principles from the day it was founded, and I'm convinced that Free Access is an idea that would be impossible to implement, totally disasterous if attempted, and disasterous even to suggest, because a blatantly unworkable definition of socialism prevents the working class from becoming socialists. Except for that little detail, congratulations on starting a group that invites people with different perspectives to get together and collaborate.


I think all communists/socialists agree that ultimately a communist/socialist society means from "each each according to their ability to each according to their need". In other words a society in which goods are freely available from the common stores and labour is performed on a completely voluntary basis.

I also think it is also agreed amongst us that free access might not be immediately implementable for everthing - or even anything - at the time socialism is established and that some form of rationing whether by labour vouchers or some other scheme (I prefer a compnsation model) would be necessary

However, i think it is absurd to then argue that free access would be "totally disasterous if attempted, and disasterous even to suggest, because a blatantly unworkable definition of socialism prevents the working class from becoming socialists". This is ahistorical and dogmatic. "Unworkable" under what conditions? You dont say but are we to infer from this that you accept the bourgeois prejudice that free access socialism is against human nature - or what?

Since I dont believe what you are saying is that free access is unworkable becuase it is againt human nature then I take it you mean that it is unworkable in the immeidate aftermath of a socialist revolution purely for technical reasons - the level of output wopuld be insiffucient. OK . I can run with this idea but you need to spell out the basis of your objections. There are pretty strong counter arguments that can be wielded against those objections

The world in common group refers to a free acces society as an ultimate goal which all communists and socialists accept. There are however some amongst us who explicitly advocate labour vouchers; many more I suspect go along with some form of rationing alongside or prior to free acess. Even the WSM does not advocate immediate universal free access to everything.

There is no real disagreement with free access as an ultimate goal; only with the shape of a socialist society in the aftermath of revolution

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't really see what reason there would be for excluding somebody who didn't believe that a 'free access' society would ever be possible, but was still a libertarian socialist, from the organization. For that matter, if you don't advocate free access immediately after revolution, you're not exactly advocating the replacement of capitalism by a free access society, but the replacement of capitalism with socialism using labour credits/rationing, and the replacement of that with FA socialism. I mean, I don't think that that's actually enforced, but it's still at the least badly worded.

[robbo203]

I don't really see what reason there would be for excluding somebody who didn't believe that a 'free access' society would ever be possible, but was still a libertarian socialist, from the organization. For that matter, if you don't advocate free access immediately after revolution, you're not exactly advocating the replacement of capitalism by a free access society, but the replacement of capitalism with socialism using labour credits/rationing, and the replacement of that with FA socialism. I mean, I don't think that that's actually enforced, but it's still at the least badly worded.


Well no one is or ever has been excluded from world in common as a group, to my knowledge, for believing that free access is not ever possible. A labour voucher scheme is still operated on the basis of common ownership of the means of prodoction and is still therefore technically communism - advocacy of which is what defines the revolutionary sector and indeed WiC. (unlike say the Leninist adsvocacy of state capitalism which is a bourgeois goal)

However, my quarrel with Mike is not that I question his socialist credentials - of course not - but that I think his views on free access are just too rigid and ahistorical. I dont believe he has presented any kind of convincing case that free access is not possible and I do believe that he is unconsciously projecting into a free access communist model certain aspects and ways of thinking that relate to capitalism

Again this is not to reject the idea of some sort of rationing in the early stages of communism. What form it takes and how extensive it might be is open to discussion

[ZeroNowhere]

Well no one is or ever has been excluded from world in common as a group, to my knowledge, for believing that free access is not ever possible.Sure, but the principles which "represent the common criteria for eligibility to participate in the World in Common project" includes "its [capitalism's] replacement by a classless, moneyless world community without borders or states and based upon a free access ‘use’ economy with production geared towards the satisfaction of human need." So according to this, somebody who did believe that would be ineligible, it seems. Though, to be fair, I don't believe that this kind of thing is in the Core Statement.

[El Rojo]

Wouldn't an Anarchist prefer a Socialist workers state to the current system, and vise versa? when 1/6 of the world's population doesn't recieve enough to eat and upwards of 20% of a nation's wealth is controlled by 1% of the population, what is the point of discussing the differences between to different left ideologies? any advance of the left, in any group, is a blow to capitalism, so why spend even a second attacking another left group, especially at a time when the right is in ascendancy?

[robbo203]

Wouldn't an Anarchist prefer a Socialist workers state to the current system, and vise versa? when 1/6 of the world's population doesn't recieve enough to eat and upwards of 20% of a nation's wealth is controlled by 1% of the population, what is the point of discussing the differences between to different left ideologies? any advance of the left, in any group, is a blow to capitalism, so why spend even a second attacking another left group, especially at a time when the right is in ascendancy?

A workers state is a contradiction in terms; it would be state capitalism run by a parasitic elite absurdly calling themselves proletarians when they are in fact an exploitative capitalist class . Such a state was the Soviet Union. Stalin claimed in 1936 there there were only 2 classes there - the workers and peasants which is ridiculous since workers imply the existence of capitalists and vice versa as any marxist knows. Neverthless among Stalin's so called working class there were huge inequalities.

You mention 1% of the population owning 20% of the nation's wealth in western capitalism. In the Soviet Union, according to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to retails outlets stocking western goods and other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the income ratio between high and low incomes was something like 1:100. Thats right 1 :100!! And there are some very naive people who still call this a socialist society. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of "economic success" It is hardly surprising that these red fat cats were able to morph so easily into private plutocracts following the fall of the soviet union

[ZeroNowhere]

Stalin claimed in 1936 there there were only 2 classes there - the workers and peasants which is ridiculous since workers imply the existence of capitalists and vice versa as any marxist knows.Nitpicking: Not quite, as Marx put it, "With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute." There are workers, but yes, not a working class.

[robbo203]

Nitpicking: Not quite, as Marx put it, "With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute." There are workers, but yes, not a working class.

No not nitpicking at all. Stalin specifically said there were only two classes in the USSR . Here are his words


"But in the USSR, there are no longer such classes as capitalists, landlords , kulaks and so on. There are only two classes in the USSR, workers and peasants" (The Draft New Constitution, Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee,1936)

From a marxian point of view this is a ridiculous claim since as Marx pointed out in Wage Labour and Capital

"Thus capital presupposes wage labour; wage labour presupposes capital. They reciprocally condition the existence of each other; they reciprocally bring forth each other."

[ZeroNowhere]

No, I said that I was nitpicking.

[robbo203]

No, I said that I was nitpicking.

Sorry, I misunderstood you

[El Rojo]

A workers state is a contradiction in terms; it would be state capitalism run by a parasitic elite absurdly calling themselves proletarians when they are in fact an exploitative capitalist class .

fair enough, the USSR was hadly a socialist utopia. but my point still stands if you take the meaning of workers stqte as envisaged by Marx as oppossed to realised by Stalin. The destruction of capitalism and spread of democracy are fundamentals of all left systems. therefore we have common objectives.

and ok there were rich corrupt traitors in the USSR but that doesnt detract from my point; we are ideologically "in the shit" to put it technically. we in a capitalist society. thereofre we should not be nitpicking at pointing out defects in a corrupted workers state, rather doing something about the present situation.

ademas, ?si estas de world in common, por que no me acuerdas?

[mikelepore]

Since I dont believe what you are saying is that free access is unworkable becuase it is againt human nature then I take it you mean that it is unworkable in the immeidate aftermath of a socialist revolution purely for technical reasons - the level of output wopuld be insiffucient.

I believe that free access is unworkable in principle, even many years after the revolution has occurred. It's unworkable because all animal brains, including that of Homo sapiens, operate according to the psychological principle that a behavior for which the individual gets rewarded is the behavior that tends to get repeated. A system of free access would reward the individual for never showing up at work. The system would do this by informing the individual that your personal standard of living won't depend marginally on whether you show up for work. On the contrary, the more frequently you fail to show up for work, the more frequently you will have available to you and your family all imaginable hobby and recreational activities, including transportation to every beautiful location in the world. As a consequence, in occupations that ordinarily overlap with hobbies, such as poets and musicians, there would be plenty of people available to volunteer, but, in occupations that have never been known to be anyone's hobbies, such as operating mines, refineries, mills and factories, the necessary number of people would not be available.

[robbo203]

I believe that free access is unworkable in principle, even many years after the revolution has occurred. It's unworkable because all animal brains, including that of Homo sapiens, operate according to the psychological principle that a behavior for which the individual gets rewarded is the behavior that tends to get repeated. A system of free access would reward the individual for never showing up at work. The system would do this by informing the individual that your personal standard of living won't depend marginally on whether you show up for work. On the contrary, the more frequently you fail to show up for work, the more frequently you will have available to you and your family all imaginable hobby and recreational activities, including transportation to every beautiful location in the world. As a consequence, in occupations that ordinarily overlap with hobbies, such as poets and musicians, there would be plenty of people available to volunteer, but, in occupations that have never been known to be anyone's hobbies, such as operating mines, refineries, mills and factories, the necessary number of people would not be available.

Now that you have explained your objection to free access it does rather seem like you are advocating a kind of human nature argument. I think your argument is groundless for a number of reasons. For starters what makes you so sure that voluntary labour in non hobby type activities would not be "rewarded" in communism. Or let me put it another way - why do you assume there is only one kind of "reward" i.e. material rewards?
.
Capitalist ideologists constantly put the argument that individuals will only be induced to contribute to the welfare of society if they stand to personally gain from this . So this justifies the existence of some kind of money incentive. It is a crude reductionist notion of human motivation which moreover is premissed on the patently false idea that the only kind of reward there is is material reward. I dont buy this argument at all. Moreover there is plenty of empircial research to refute it. People are motivated to do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Try telling the lifeboatman who risk their lives at sea to save other lives on a completely voluntary basis that what they are doing is just a "hobby"

In free access communism individuals will still desire the esteem and respect of their fellows . In the absence of a system that equates social status with conspicuous material consumption - there will be no point in such system when all goods are freely available to all - how will they gain this prestige and esteem ? There is only way available to them - through they contibution to society. Indeed, I would say the more difficult the job to be accomplished the greater will be the prestige attached to accomplishing it.

Being well thought of and admired is a very important kind of motivation or reward - more so evebn than material rewards today. Its efficacy is likely to expand greatly in a society in which status was no longer determined by whether you drove a posh car or lived in a stately mansion

[mikelepore]

It's true that I'm using a kind of human nature argument, because it's an argument about the nature of useful work itself, and work is a part of being human.

My premise is that it's not in the domain of any choice of economic system to cause work to become fun. Some work happens to be fun, but this has no bearing on that portion which isn't fun. There always has to remain some fraction of total human activities that people merely put up with to get it over with, so that they can leave work and then begin their period of having fun. What socialism will do in this area is reduce the time of work, perhaps give people a mere ten hour workweek, but this is a quantitative change, and therefore the need for the workers to be reliably present and motivated would be unchanged.

Regarding "lifeboatman who risk their lives at sea to save other lives on a completely voluntary basis" -- I see no comparison. While people respond to urgencies such as saving lives, but there is no comparable kind of urgency in routine matters such as tractors need bolts tightened, a lot of cement needs mixing, etc.

Re "individuals will still desire the esteem and respect of their fellows" -- a problem there is, unless we have a society dominated by of busybodies snooping on each other and filing reports, my friends and neighbors and relatives, and also the people around the world who work in my field of specialization, and the people of the entire city, have no way to know whether I went to work last month or not. I assume that a person wouldn't wear an obvious lapel button that says "I hammered a thousand nails last month."

I didn't say that "only kind of reward there is is material reward", but all other kinds of motivations, whether they are artistic expression, romantic love, physical fitness, etc., don't lend any assistance in this topic. After all considerations weigh in, it still remains true that going on a vacation at the beach is fun, while cleaning septic tanks isn't fun, so a precise reason for people to perform work has to be identified. Material motivations aren't everything, but they are the only motivations that an economic system can choose to turn on or off and adjust as needed here or there.

Also, I'm not claiming that no work would get done. I'm claiming that we wouldn't have the necessary assuredness that many essential kinds of work would get done in the amounts that match the rate at which goods and services get consumed by others.