The revolutionary left and the non-revolutionary left

[Dervish]

Hey there RevLeft,

I've got a question for you-

What should be relations between the revolutionary left (anarchism, marxism) and the non-revolutionary left? Should the revolutionary left side with the non revolutionary left on issues that are relevant to both? Should the revolutionary left sometimes help the non revolutionary left to achieve reforms? Should there be any co-operation with the non revolutionary left?

[mikelepore]

I would say that, if just a few candidates of a revolutionary party were elected to a legislature, they wouldn't have a sufficient number to enact radical changes, but they should vote for some of the liberal-introduced bills that will improve medical care, education, etc. While doing so, they should make it clear that their real objective is collective ownership of the means of production, and as soon as they acquire sufficient numbers that is what they will they will help to implement. Their speeches and literature shouldn't perpetuate the mistaken belief that hundreds of reforms to capitalism accumulate into a road to socialism. Some reforms can be worthwile while growth of a revolutionary organization is in progress, but they are not steps in the direction of socialism. Most leftist publications and web sites fail to make this clear; I don't know whether or not they are thinking that, but, in any event, they fail to say it.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Yes I do think there should be co-operation. I don't think that there should be a merging of the revolutionary left and the non-revolutionary left, though. Obviously that would just cause more conflict and would probably end up diluting the far-left's politics to something more centrist.

I don't see the harm in cooperating to achieve certain common goals. If both parties share a similar outlook on a particular issue then surely it can't be a bad thing to work together for a change.

[F9]

Hey there RevLeft,

I've got a question for you-

What should be relations between the revolutionary left (anarchism, marxism) and the non-revolutionary left? Should the revolutionary left side with the non revolutionary left on issues that are relevant to both? Should the revolutionary left sometimes help the non revolutionary left to achieve reforms? Should there be any co-operation with the non revolutionary left?

Obviously it depends.I cant say that i will never ally with a non-revolutionary left, nor that i will ally and thats it.There are cases and situations when our ally is "natural" and cases when the cooperation seems to contrast one of the two ideas.
For example, in the antifa scene,(which i am more active) the majority is indeed non-revolutionary leftists, thats sad, but this dont get in contrast with our cause!
In the elections they will ask for votes, for some help etc, of course they wont get anything...(from me at least)
So yeah there are some "bridges" that connect us, and there seem to be some common causes, which i dont mind having them next to me.
But there are others we clearly some of us dont belong.

Fuserg9:star:

[Rebel_Serigan]

Politicts and warfare are fought in similer fashions. You likely will not win a war on multipul fronts so ultimately it is not a good idea to isolate ourselves totaly. Not only that but if we both have the same goal then we should work together, but just as in warfare we must watch them closely and when the time arises eliminate them as an oponent. So it is simple, use the non-revelutionary when they are useful and remember that eventualy they will be an enemy as well. Co-opperation is nessesary, for now.

[Manzil]

If I support something, and so does someone else, why not cooperate?

There is obviously an argument against revolutionaries and reformists permanently coexisting within the same organisation, but given the considerable overlap between the beliefs and interests of communists and social democrats, I think we should be open-minded about working with people and parties we have, admittedly sometimes serious disagreements with.

That said, communists and revolutionary socialists should appeal for support as Marxists and as revolutionaries. It's no use, as has happened, the revolutionary left watering down its politics or uncritically supporting electoral lash-ups with reformists in the hopes of picking up the odd bit of influence or new recruit.

[Q]

Cooperation is not only desirable, but vital. The masses aren't very radical most of the time, let alone revolutionary. We can only convince the masses of a revolutionary outlook, starting with the leftwing of the (neo-)reformist parties, through a programme of action.

The question then arises "how should we do this?" and the Trotskyist answers to that are either to work inside broader reformist parties which have activist layers (entryism) or to organise multiple organisations to stand together on a common theme (the united front). Both have their appliances in different situations.

[robbo203]

Hey there RevLeft,

I've got a question for you-

What should be relations between the revolutionary left (anarchism, marxism) and the non-revolutionary left? Should the revolutionary left side with the non revolutionary left on issues that are relevant to both? Should the revolutionary left sometimes help the non revolutionary left to achieve reforms? Should there be any co-operation with the non revolutionary left?


The problem is that the revolutionary left (anarcho communists, left communists, de Leonists, WSMers and so on) and the non revolutionary left (the "marxist-leninists", trots, stalinists, maoists and so on) are after two completely different things.

The non-revolutionary left while claiming to stand for communism or socialism actually work to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism in its statist form. They might say that this is a necessary transitional stage to socialism or communism but this argument has been completely refuted on empirical and theoretical grounds. State capitalism does NOT lead to socialism and there is absolutely no reason to think that it ever would. In effect, the non revolutionary left are reformists in wanting to retain the wage labour-capital relationship and deluded in thinking this relationship can ever meaningfully operate in the interests of the workers.

The small non-market anti-statist political sector are the real revolutionaries of today. Its relationship to the non-revolutionary left has to be one of principled opposition

[teenagebricks]

I think it's a tad unfair to label Marxist-Leninists, Trotskys and Maoists as non-revolutionary, especially when you consider how much they have achieved (whether you agree with them or not).

Personally I think when Dervish said non-revolutionary left they were referring to social liberals, democratic socialists, etc. and I think we should work with them whenever it is possible to do so while still upholding and promoting our own views. Collaborating on a common cause with those who may not share some of our other opinions furthers our own agenda and of course we might win over a few centre-lefties to the revolutionary side while we're at it. Shunning groups for not being radical or revolutionary enough is not only damaging to our image, but it's also elitist, and elitism is anti-socialist.

[fredbergen]

"Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism." --Lenin in Put Pravdy 12 April 1914

The "revolutionary left" (or more precisely, Marxists) must undermine and destroy the "non-revolutionary left" (opportunists and reformists) by combating the workers' illusions in them.

The greatest obstacle to revolution is the present leadership of the workers movement, and its "left" and "socialist" courtiers, who screen its betrayals and prop it up in the name of "unity."

[Dervish]

I think it's a tad unfair to label Marxist-Leninists, Trotskys and Maoists as non-revolutionary, especially when you consider how much they have achieved (whether you agree with them or not).

Personally I think when Dervish said non-revolutionary left they were referring to social liberals, democratic socialists, etc. and I think we should work with them whenever it is possible to do so while still upholding and promoting our own views. Collaborating on a common cause with those who may not share some of our other opinions furthers our own agenda and of course we might win over a few centre-lefties to the revolutionary side while we're at it. Shunning groups for not being radical or revolutionary enough is not only damaging to our image, but it's also elitist, and elitism is anti-socialist.

Like you said, in 'non-revolutionary left' I was referring to the reformist left.

I fear that the reformist left makes the revolutionary left appear irrelevant -- and that sometimes the struggle for better conditions within the capitalist system can harm the revolutionary cause.

I believe that co-operation between the reformist and revolutionary left should be encouraged, but the revolutionary left should be careful not to forget it's revolutionary cause, as sometime happens, and to always stress that it's actions are part of a larger, revolutionary scheme. I believe that taking part in reformist struggles could be a useful way to achieve wider support of the revolutionary ideas -- but it's extremely important to promote the entire revolutionary scheme when doing so.

Commonly cited examples that show why it's important is the struggle against the poll tax in Britain, in which anarchists took part, but the anarchist ideas did no receive wider audience even though the struggle was successful -- most likely because the anarchists who partook in the struggle did not stress their revolutionary scheme. To contrast that, the Irish WSM who partook in the struggle against the water charges did stress their revolutionary scheme -- and because of that, the anarchist ideas in Ireland had spread to a much wider audience.

[Pogue]

Theres a difference between cooperating with non-revolutionary leftists and building formal alliances with non-revolutionary leftist organisations. I'll cooperate with the members and try to win them over but I wont align with them in 'popular fronts' organisationally because often the leadership is explicitly counter-revolutionary and cannot be trusted.

[robbo203]

I think it's a tad unfair to label Marxist-Leninists, Trotskys and Maoists as non-revolutionary, especially when you consider how much they have achieved (whether you agree with them or not)..

I don't think it is unfair at all. Lets not beat about the bush here - these people are the ideologists of state capitalism whatever lipservice (if any)they may pay to socialism/communism . How much they have achieved is not the issue; its what they achieved that is the issue. And in that regard they have relentlessly worked to shore up capitalism in its statist form and to reinforce large chunks of the collective mindset that keeps capitalism going as the taken-for-granted background to all our lives. That makes them a still formidable obstacle, and a diversion along the road, to socialism




Personally I think when Dervish said non-revolutionary left they were referring to social liberals, democratic socialists, etc. and I think we should work with them whenever it is possible to do so while still upholding and promoting our own views. Collaborating on a common cause with those who may not share some of our other opinions furthers our own agenda and of course we might win over a few centre-lefties to the revolutionary side while we're at it. Shunning groups for not being radical or revolutionary enough is not only damaging to our image, but it's also elitist, and elitism is anti-socialist ..

Again I disagree completely here. This has got nothing to do with elitism; it has everything to do with taking a principled and uncompromising stand on a clear understanding that our basic aims are fundamentally divergent and incompatible. The whole history of the Second International decisively disproves your point: all the social democratic parties who collaborated with others on precisely the same grounds as you advance - that it might somehow "advance their own agenda" - went down the plug hole or transformed themselves over time into openly capitalist parties. That is the logical outcome of opportunist collaboration.

You have to draw the line somewhere. I will only ever collaborate with someone who is on the same basic wavelength as me and that includes the kind of groups I mentioned earlier that comprise the revolutionary anti-statist non-market sector. I will not collobrate with people just becuase they call themselves "socialists". Labour governments still prattle on about something called "democratic socialism" and labour MEPS belong to the so called "socialist" bloc of MEPs in the European parliament. So do you think we should work with the capitalist Labour party in that case? In fact many in the non-revolutionary left thought just that and pursued a thoroughly opportunist and dishonest policy of entryism into the LP.

I might add that you have to make a distinction between the individual and the group. I dont shun the individual despite his or her non revolutionary leftist views; I am always more than willing to engage such in individuals in discussion. Many I am sure are very well meaning and sincere if misguided. I dont mean to make this sound patronising but it is the case. The group on the other hand is another matter. Collaborating with a group that is to all intents and purposes a pro-capitalist group simply for the sake of your "image" and to gain kudos in the eyes of others is put yourself on the slippery slope to political oblivion and the complete abandonment of revolutionary socialism

[gorillafuck]

Almost all my politically active friends aren't revolutionary or radical but they still support things that certainly deserve support (abortion rights, gay rights, etc.). Of course we should work with them sometimes.

[NecroCommie]

Cursed be the naive attitude of the reformist lot! It was they who so nefariously degenerated the second international, and it was they who turned to nationalism during the world wars. Aye, I feel another poem coming...

Trust thee not reformist scum,
they deal with vile class-foe
They twist our noble intentions,
and hear not the workers woe

But if they so decide to fight,
to smite their evil lords
Be sure to join in common cause,
to lend them magic-swords

[Manzil]

The problem is that the revolutionary left (anarcho communists, left communists, de Leonists, WSMers and so on) and the non revolutionary left (the "marxist-leninists", trots, stalinists, maoists and so on) are after two completely different things.

The non-revolutionary left while claiming to stand for communism or socialism actually work to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism in its statist form. They might say that this is a necessary transitional stage to socialism or communism but this argument has been completely refuted on empirical and theoretical grounds. State capitalism does NOT lead to socialism and there is absolutely no reason to think that it ever would. In effect, the non revolutionary left are reformists in wanting to retain the wage labour-capital relationship and deluded in thinking this relationship can ever meaningfully operate in the interests of the workers.

The small non-market anti-statist political sector are the real revolutionaries of today. Its relationship to the non-revolutionary left has to be one of principled opposition

If the revolutionary left consists only of the purest elements of libertarian socialism, and has no common interest with other identifiable sections of the left, that would be deeply troubling. I don't think it's quite the case, however.

Separating oneself from practical cooperation, on ideological grounds, is an obstacle to change. Even if I agreed with your conception of leftist politics, I would argue that capitalism as an economic system - the expropriating of a surplus from wage labour, for the purposes of competitively accumulating capital - cannot be abolished at will. It is not a question of ideas, but the actual state of relations between different classes in society. Revolutionary change is a process and we can't simply leap forward to an extensive transformation of society without a progressive development of the proletarian movement, its ideas, level of organisation. This requires compromise, learning from mistakes and so forth.

So while I disagree that the Marxist left, in which I place myself, should be characterised as an example of reformism, even that were not the case I think the correct socialist position is for everyday unity in practice - although obviously maintaining free debate between tendencies. Otherwise the 'revolutionary left' of your definition will remain isolated in perpetuity.

[robbo203]

If the revolutionary left consists only of the purest elements of libertarian socialism, and has no common interest with other identifiable sections of the left, that would be deeply troubling. I don't think it's quite the case, however.

Separating oneself from practical cooperation, on ideological grounds, is an obstacle to change. Even if I agreed with your conception of leftist politics, I would argue that capitalism as an economic system - the expropriating of a surplus from wage labour, for the purposes of competitively accumulating capital - cannot be abolished at will. It is not a question of ideas, but the actual state of relations between different classes in society. Revolutionary change is a process and we can't simply leap forward to an extensive transformation of society without a progressive development of the proletarian movement, its ideas, level of organisation. This requires compromise, learning from mistakes and so forth.

So while I disagree that the Marxist left, in which I place myself, should be characterised as an example of reformism, even that were not the case I think the correct socialist position is for everyday unity in practice - although obviously maintaining free debate between tendencies. Otherwise the 'revolutionary left' of your definition will remain isolated in perpetuity.

It depends of course entirely on what you mean by all this in practical terms. In that respect, the devil is in the details.

Let me clarify my postion so there will be less confusion. I used to be in a trade union when I worked in the NHS. I was also for a while in the IWW. (my position is radically different now as I live a precarious self employed existence in the black economy in southern spain but enough of that). The point is that, as a trade unionist I am perfectly happy to cooperate with fellow trade unionists, even if they are not in the least revolutionary. Likewise, I would be quite happy to cooperative with fellow members of my housing association over matters relating to the neighbourhood. And so on and so forth.

It is in the sphere of political activity that the problem arises. Here we are obliged to draw lines in the sand and make distinctions. When I say that I will not coopoerate or collaborate with the non revolutionary left this is what I have in mind - in terms of political activity. That does not prevent me from talking to nonrevolutuionary leftists or in your words maintaining a free debate with them. I just do not join them in their political - and I stress political - endeavours.

You say

Revolutionary change is a process and we can't simply leap forward to an extensive transformation of society without a progressive development of the proletarian movement, its ideas, level of organisation. This requires compromise, learning from mistakes and so forth.

This is ambiguous and unclear. In the sense that I am talking about revolutionary change cannot involve compromise. You cannot both want to mend capitalism and end capitalism. You have to chose and once you have chosen it behoves you to stick uncompromisingly to your postion.

History completely vindicates the need for an uncompromising revolutionary position. Like I said, look what happened to the Second International. Every single one of the organisations that comprised it either diappeared or become transparently capitalist organisations. Every single one of them!! Most of them thought they could hold a dual position of a minumum and a maximum programme - arguing for the reform of capitalism while still advocating revolution. What always happens - inevitably - is that the reformist imperative triumphs over the revolutionary imperative and for obvious reasons of opportunism. Over time the socialist transformation of society as a political goal disappears likes the cheshire cats' grin until there is nothing whatoever left of it.

That is why I say there can be no compromose with the non revolutionary left - the leninists, the maoists , the trots and the rest of these state capitalist reformists. However well meaning they may be they stand not for socialism but statified capitalism. We cannot collaborate with people whose fundamental objectives are radically dissimilar to our own in the non-market anti-statist sector.

By all means keep lines of communication open with them. By all means cooperate with them as fellows members of a trade union , housing association and so on. But as political creatures we have no other option than to openly and honestly oppose them on principled and revolutionary socialist grounds

[Dervish]

I don't think it is unfair at all. Lets not beat about the bush here - these people are the ideologists of state capitalism whatever lipservice (if any)they may pay to socialism/communism . How much they have achieved is not the issue; its what they achieved that is the issue. And in that regard they have relentlessly worked to shore up capitalism in its statist form and to reinforce large chunks of the collective mindset that keeps capitalism going as the taken-for-granted background to all our lives. That makes them a still formidable obstacle, and a diversion along the road, to socialism




Again I disagree completely here. This has got nothing to do with elitism; it has everything to do with taking a principled and uncompromising stand on a clear understanding that our basic aims are fundamentally divergent and incompatible. The whole history of the Second International decisively disproves your point: all the social democratic parties who collaborated with others on precisely the same grounds as you advance - that it might somehow "advance their own agenda" - went down the plug hole or transformed themselves over time into openly capitalist parties. That is the logical outcome of opportunist collaboration.

You have to draw the line somewhere. I will only ever collaborate with someone who is on the same basic wavelength as me and that includes the kind of groups I mentioned earlier that comprise the revolutionary anti-statist non-market sector. I will not collobrate with people just becuase they call themselves "socialists". Labour governments still prattle on about something called "democratic socialism" and labour MEPS belong to the so called "socialist" bloc of MEPs in the European parliament. So do you think we should work with the capitalist Labour party in that case? In fact many in the non-revolutionary left thought just that and pursued a thoroughly opportunist and dishonest policy of entryism into the LP.

I might add that you have to make a distinction between the individual and the group. I dont shun the individual despite his or her non revolutionary leftist views; I am always more than willing to engage such in individuals in discussion. Many I am sure are very well meaning and sincere if misguided. I dont mean to make this sound patronising but it is the case. The group on the other hand is another matter. Collaborating with a group that is to all intents and purposes a pro-capitalist group simply for the sake of your "image" and to gain kudos in the eyes of others is put yourself on the slippery slope to political oblivion and the complete abandonment of revolutionary socialism

However, don't you think that taking part in reformist struggles, and perhaps co-operating with reformist organizations while doing so could sometimes hold some strategical benefit for the revolutionary left?

[robbo203]

However, don't you think that taking part in reformist struggles, and perhaps co-operating with reformist organizations while doing so could sometimes hold some strategical benefit for the revolutionary left?

Not really. I think the opposite is true. The only strategic advantage will lie with the reformists who will be better able to persuade and co-opt the undecided by pointing to the cooperation of revolutionaries in their refromist endeavours. The revolutionaries in the meantime will just be chewed up and spat out in the maw of the reformist political machine.

Like I said this is what has happened time and time again whenever revolutionaires compromised on the issue of reformism. There is -unfortunately perhaps - no middle ground. You either chose to mend capitalism or end capitalism. As Marx said communism is the most "radical rupture" from traditional property forms; to bring about requires a radical approach

There is a way in which revolutionaries can arguably make more headway than they have done so far which does not involve reformism but this is possibly the subject of another thread...

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I notice comrade Hyacinth's Thank You rep point to Robbo, I must say that I have reservations with what the latter is saying.

For me, "reformist" covers a wide spectrum, ranging from pseudo-reformist Blairites to traditional "social-democrats" like Oskar Lafontaine to... pareconists, DeLeonists, WSMers (attachments to parliamentarism or preferrably more radical constitutional reform by all three groups).

In a class-strugglist organization, the third category should be welcomed on the condition that class struggle as a political struggle (party politics, "state within the state" organization like the pre-war SPD, etc.) is the top priority for them, and on the condition that individual elements themselves are manual, clerical, or professional workers and not from outside classes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not really. I think the opposite is true. The only strategic advantage will lie with the reformists who will be better able to persuade and co-opt the undecided by pointing to the cooperation of revolutionaries in their refromist endeavours. The revolutionaries in the meantime will just be chewed up and spat out in the maw of the reformist political machine.

If revolutionaries are organized and principled and open about their politics then I see no evidence that they will be chewed-up by the reformists. If radicals see a reform as an end unto itself, then yes, it does not help create a radical consciousness. But radicals being absorbed into reformism and radicals abstaining from class struggles leads to the same exact result!

The class struggle does not exist in the world of ideas alone - ideas and politics are important... but only in that they help our side, the working class, understand how to fight int their own interests and develop the skills to fight. If workers are fighting for the 8 hour day (a reform) and they only hear a reformist argument, then if the movement fails, the only logical conclusion is that "we tried and failed, you can't beat the system". If they only hear reformist ideas and the reform is won, then they conclude that reformism is all we need.

Why in the world would radicals not want to argue their case with other people who want a better world! If radicals can be open about their politics they can go into a reformist movement and argue why an 8 hour day will be good and a defeat for the ruling class in the class war, but the battle won't be over until capitalism is overthrown by the working class. The funny thing about reformists and liberals is they usually have terrible tactics that lead them to loose - think about business-unionism. Radicals can explain the radical tactics that are necessary and if the movement looses, then workers have an alternative, radical explanation for why. If the reform is won, then radicals can agitate for workers to take their momentum and keep on the offensive whereas the reformists will invariably argue that the race has been won and try and demobilize the movement.

In the US there is no organized reformist institutions like in Europe - this has not helped the class struggle, it has lead to massive demoralization of the working class. At least if there were a reformist movement here, radicals could point out it's shortcomings and agitate for more radical demands. Instead we get a situation best described in the blues saying: "I've been down so long it looks like up to me". In the US BS neoliberal reforms that hurt the working class are seen as positive things - workers are grateful for things that workers in Europe would see as a slap in the face.

I agree with the comrades who said that work with non-revolutionaries should be done on a case-by-case basis and the determining factor is if it moves us forward or backward in the class struggle.

As for Trots not being revolutionary... I fight for socialism from below, not state-capitalism! Also I believe in fighting and meeting workers where they are at in the class struggle and working with them while bringing a revolutionary analysis. What's not revolutionary is one who abstains from struggle until the working class is deemed revolutionary enough.

[teenagebricks]

There's really no excuse for not supporting others on certain issues, if, for example, a liberal party were to announce that they were going to push for an open borders policy, I would openly support that, it would be stupid not to. If one were to oppose the proposal or even abstain from taking a position on the issue, to me that gives off the impression that they don't really care about the issue at all.

[robbo203]

While I notice comrade Hyacinth's Thank You rep point to Robbo, I must say that I have reservations with what the latter is saying.

For me, "reformist" covers a wide spectrum, ranging from pseudo-reformist Blairites to traditional "social-democrats" like Oskar Lafontaine to... pareconists, DeLeonists, WSMers (attachments to parliamentarism or preferrably more radical constitutional reform by all three groups).

In a class-strugglist organization, the third category should be welcomed on the condition that class struggle as a political struggle (party politics, "state within the state" organization like the pre-war SPD, etc.) is the top priority for them, and on the condition that individual elements themselves are manual, clerical, or professional workers and not from outside classes.

With respect, parliamentarism or electoralism per se has nothing whatsoever to do with reformism as such. This is a common enough myth on the left. It reveals a basic misunderstanding of what is meant by "reformism".

By reformism is meant action by the state directed at the management of capitalism with a view to remedying or ameliorating problems that derive from the nature of capitalism itself. Essentially, the field of reformist activity is political (i.e. is centred on the state) while its focus is ultimately economic (capitalism being defined in essentially economic terms). What this means is that something like trade unionism cannot be categorised as reformist since what you have in this case is a different configuration to refromism. In this case the field is economic not political even if the focus is similarly economic. You can categorise other kinds of activities in the same way as different combinations of field and focus and differentiate these too from reformism.

What separates a revoluionary appproach from a reformist apprach is not the fact that it might operate in the same field as reformism - the political field - but what it aims to do. Revolutionary activity does not aim to enact measures that remedy or ameliorate the problems that arise from capitalism but rather seeks to eliminate capitalism itself. It is predicated on the understanding that the problems of capitalism are incapable of solution within the framework of capitalism itself. It therefore rejects any peciemeal attempt to reform capitalism. Advocating reformism is condeming yourself to an endless treadmill since you are trying to solve the the problems that arise inexprably from the social system you keep intact by your very desire to "reform" it

It is thus totally possible for revolutionaries to make use of the electoral method - parliamentarism -without being refromist at all. It is also possible to be revolutionary while rejecting completely the electoral method. Whether or not one should make use of the electorial method is a secondary issue that has nothing to do with reformism

What makes someone revolutionary is dependent on the aim that he or she endorse NOT the method by which they hope to realise that aim
On this understanding vast swathes of the left fall emphatically within the reformist camp. Organisations that call for example the nationalisation of some or all the menas of production are clearly reformist since what they are proposing is a merely a different way of managing capitalism.

I have always felt that this question of reformism is an absolutely vital one and needs clarification. Among the left there is an awful lot of confusion and misunderstanding of what this entails and this is one of the many reasons why the left finds itself in such an impasse today. I recall SWPers telling me that to advocate the parliamentary approach to capturing state power was "reformist" and then in the next breath urge workers to vote for the capitalist labour Party but "without illusions" on the flimsiest of pretexts that they were at least a bit better than the Tories. The irony of it all seemed to have completely escaped them!

[Manzil]

It depends of course entirely on what you mean by all this in practical terms. In that respect, the devil is in the details.

Let me clarify my postion so there will be less confusion. I used to be in a trade union when I worked in the NHS. I was also for a while in the IWW. (my position is radically different now as I live a precarious self employed existence in the black economy in southern spain but enough of that). The point is that, as a trade unionist I am perfectly happy to cooperate with fellow trade unionists, even if they are not in the least revolutionary. Likewise, I would be quite happy to cooperative with fellow members of my housing association over matters relating to the neighbourhood. And so on and so forth.

It is in the sphere of political activity that the problem arises. Here we are obliged to draw lines in the sand and make distinctions. When I say that I will not coopoerate or collaborate with the non revolutionary left this is what I have in mind - in terms of political activity. That does not prevent me from talking to nonrevolutuionary leftists or in your words maintaining a free debate with them. I just do not join them in their political - and I stress political - endeavours.

You say

Revolutionary change is a process and we can't simply leap forward to an extensive transformation of society without a progressive development of the proletarian movement, its ideas, level of organisation. This requires compromise, learning from mistakes and so forth.

This is ambiguous and unclear. In the sense that I am talking about revolutionary change cannot involve compromise. You cannot both want to mend capitalism and end capitalism. You have to chose and once you have chosen it behoves you to stick uncompromisingly to your postion.

History completely vindicates the need for an uncompromising revolutionary position. Like I said, look what happened to the Second International. Every single one of the organisations that comprised it either diappeared or become transparently capitalist organisations. Every single one of them!! Most of them thought they could hold a dual position of a minumum and a maximum programme - arguing for the reform of capitalism while still advocating revolution. What always happens - inevitably - is that the reformist imperative triumphs over the revolutionary imperative and for obvious reasons of opportunism. Over time the socialist transformation of society as a political goal disappears likes the cheshire cats' grin until there is nothing whatoever left of it.

That is why I say there can be no compromose with the non revolutionary left - the leninists, the maoists , the trots and the rest of these state capitalist reformists. However well meaning they may be they stand not for socialism but statified capitalism. We cannot collaborate with people whose fundamental objectives are radically dissimilar to our own in the non-market anti-statist sector.

By all means keep lines of communication open with them. By all means cooperate with them as fellows members of a trade union , housing association and so on. But as political creatures we have no other option than to openly and honestly oppose them on principled and revolutionary socialist grounds


Your reasoning is that organisations which have compromised even slightly have fallen to their worst, most opportunistic instincts and ceased to be of any use to proletarian class struggle. But are mass social democratic workers' parties reflective of the wider left, or their behaviour comparable to the attempts of modern revolutionary organisations to cope with the relative backwardness of the labour movement? Even during the high water mark of European social democracy, when did affiliates to the Second International regard the prospect of socialism as anything more than a rhetorical flourish to hoodwink the most politically conscious of their supporters? They were part of our movement only if we accept the most diluted definition of leftist politics.

You cannot compare the parliamentary careerism of the social democrats to the tactics of revolutionary Marxism. What you see as 'state capitalist reformism' I regard as being the product of difficulties experienced by actual historical revolutionary states. That this experience has allegedly been adopted as gospel by latter-day revolutionary socialist organisations is besides the point: Marxism remains a concrete body of ideas on how to analyse and fight against bourgeois society, and how to best facilitate the complete replacement of capitalism; its principles are consistent and its objective of a classless society distinct from the practice of social democratic reformism. Organisations which want a humanised capitalist system are quite simply not Marxist.

If you believe the 'anti-statist' left cannot cooperate politically with Marxists, fair enough. Obviously we will not agree on the place of Marxism in relation to the revolutionary left. I appreciate that - in terms of everyday workers' struggles - you acknowledge the need for cooperation between leftists on the basis of their common proletarian defensive interests. To be honest, in the current period, the 'political' work of the left often does not extend far beyond this sort of basic trade union action, so thankfully I do not see differences between anarchists and communists impeding the work of the left (which I regard as a label common to both of us). Obviously though, debate of this kind is necessary and I don't think Marxists should shy away from honest debate over correct revolutionary practice which anarchist or any other branch of critics.

[blake 3:17]

Word up Gravedigger and teenagebricks!

To not support reformists (or for that matter ultraleftists) on campaigns that we agree with is silly and a sign of being a useless waste of time. As robbo23 has said you get behind people in your union or tenants organization. Within those organizations you push for both radical democratic demands and methods.

In the absence of mass revolutionary organizations you have to work with people willing to work within the system. That doesn't mean compromising basic class, anti-imperalist or democratic politics but pointing out the wrongs of others on the same side is useless in the absence of an alternative.