Unity makes strength

[Luisrah]

Let me get this straight.

I suppose most of us all here are communists right?
All of us (communists) want the same goal, but different means.
We all want communism, but we diverge when we debate on what form should socialism take.

And I've been around here for time enough to see big discussions of Stalin-Trotsky, vanguard-no vanguard etc...
I suppose we can't all think in the same way, but we have a common goal and a common enemy.

And the real question is, why are there so many separated communist parties (a trostkyist party, a marxist-leninist party, a maoist party...) around the world?
It's much harder to make a difference if we all don't set our differences apart and work together.

I know everyone has divergences, and it's not always easy to work with someone who you think that just wants power, or is a fool because he thinks that things should be done in a certain way, but why not ''negotiate'' a way to do things to please all?

Because frankly, if a revolution happens, and there is a completely viable path to walk to socialism, seeing that revolution break or fade away because of disputes between different tendencies would be the most sad thing I'd ever see.

This is something that I keep thinking about everyday. Thoughts?

[Tatarin]

I guess this question has been asked over and over again, and I believe most people do agree. On a positive note, all these sides show that people are aware on what they are doing compared to our enemies.

Personally, I hope that people are ready to support changes as they happen even if those events do not happen according to their beliefs. For example, I'm not an anarchist, but I wouldn't oppose an anarchist revolution. I think that is more important than people choosing what kind of leftists they are.

[Tablo]

I guess this question has been asked over and over again, and I believe most people do agree. On a positive note, all these sides show that people are aware on what they are doing compared to our enemies.

Personally, I hope that people are ready to support changes as they happen even if those events do not happen according to their beliefs. For example, I'm not an anarchist, but I wouldn't oppose an anarchist revolution. I think that is more important than people choosing what kind of leftists they are.
I'm an Anarchist and honestly I would support a Marxist revolution. I often throw my support towards Marxist groups as well.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people will not accept other ideologies at all. Even if they are an improvement over the current condition of the world. I think the biggest weakness of our fight for revolution is the fact we are so critical of each others ideologies that we refuse to even work together. Not that I think being critical of one another is bad, I just think it has divided us to a point where we are the weakest we have been in a very long time. Maybe we are the weakest we have ever been since our presence was known.

[red cat]

It might not be the way you think. Instead of there being so many "communist" parties trying to bring communism in different ways, they could really be political organs of the bourgeoisie that destroy the revolutionary potential of many communists at the grass-root level by misguiding them. That is why, instead of compromising with other tendencies at a party level, I advocate conducting political struggle against them.

[FSL]

There was a first split before Utopian and Scientific Socialists.

Then the supporters of Scientific Socialism split to marxists and anarchists.

Marxists later split to communists/social democrats.

Most of the communists identified themselves as leninists.

Leninists split into anti-revisionists and Trotskyists, Maoists, eurocommunists etc.

So there's nothing new about it really.


The best age for the movement came after many splits had already come. Maybe working together with someone just for the shake of unity helps much less then having clear aims that can motivate the masses.


People see small parties and want them to merge just so they 'll be bigger. The first international wasn't exactly "massive" in terms of size and didn't have the role and the importance the 2nd and 3rd ones did. But no one would ever claim that that is a good reason to not seek the right way to change.

And I'm not talking about some concept of "ideological purity" but that you simply can't ask all political forces that merely speak alike to act together, even if they may actually represent interests of different classes.

[Искра]

I'm an Anarchist and honestly I would support a Marxist revolution.
I'm an anarchist and I'll never support Marxist revolution. Good thing is that this can't happen, because Marxist groups/organisations/parties are to week.

Only revolution I support is revolution of working class. I wouldn't have any problems with Marxist groups and organisations involved in it. Why should I?

[Tablo]

I'm an anarchist and I'll never support Marxist revolution. Good thing is that this can't happen, because Marxist groups/organisations/parties are to week.

Only revolution I support is revolution of working class. I wouldn't have any problems with Marxist groups and organisations involved in it. Why should I?
That is what I meant when I said Marxist revolution. I meant revolution of the working class lead by Marxist ideology.

[NecroCommie]

This is basically THE reason why sectarians are despised.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I'll cooperate with any socialist group that's willing to cooperate with me--left communist, Trotskyist, and yes, even Marxist-Leninist. Unfortunately, a minority of Marxist-Leninists (such as red cat) seems carried away by the ridiculous conspiracy theory that we are "organs of the bourgeoisie" aiming to divide the working class. Ironically, this is exactly what they themselves are doing by propagating this idea.

That's not to say we shouldn't disagree or debate, of course (and if this is what red cat meant by "conducting political struggle", I apologize for misinterpreting his post). However, we should keep in mind that if a proletarian revolution occurs in our lifetimes, we will all be--and should all be--on the same side of the barricades.

[Luisrah]

However, we should keep in mind that if a proletarian revolution occurs in our lifetimes, we will all be--and should all be--on the same side of the barricades.

Exactly!

That's why I was always confused as to why did Trotsky continuously attacked Stalin's way of doing things. I must admit I am not fully aware of the story, but from what I've heard, he was actually helping (though I suppose unwillingly) the western world countries by saying bad things about Stalin's rule, eventhough it was (I suppose, again,) better than a capitalist state at the time.

For example, eventhough I don't have my tendency completely decided, I wouldn't think twice before helping another type of socialist revolution

[core_1]

Exactly!

That's why I was always confused as to why did Trotsky continuously attacked Stalin's way of doing things. I must admit I am not fully aware of the story, but from what I've heard, he was actually helping (though I suppose unwillingly) the western world countries by saying bad things about Stalin's rule, eventhough it was (I suppose, again,) better than a capitalist state at the time.



I wouldn't worry, I think one Joseph Stalin ensured the world bourgeoisie would be alright.;)

[NecroCommie]

Wikipedia decribed sectarianism as a behaviour in which the sectarian spends more time and effort attacking people with similar ideas, rather than consentrate on a common enemy. And I think it's pretty accurate. Everyone can now reflect and wonder how much they spend time on their enemies and comrades.

[ArrowLance]

There is a thin line here, between working with a group you don't agree with for a common goal and accepting policies you disagree with. The latter is liberalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is basically THE reason why sectarians are despised.
What, because of the 'anti-sectarians' they breed? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure they should be blamed for that in its entirety. As for me, I'd say Engels has a viewpoint quite similar to mine, and expressed quite well here:

"Unity is quite a good thing so long as it is possible, but there are things which stand higher than unity. And when, like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else (for we only regarded the bourgeoisie as a class and hardly ever involved ourselves in conflicts with individual bourgeois), one cannot greatly grieve that the inevitable struggle has broken out."

[NecroCommie]

Well, okay ofcourse we should never go as far as to actually ally ourselves with movements such as the modern social democrats. Ofcourse there are limits, but I did have the assumption that we were talking about anti-capitalist communist ideologies. In which case my post fits quite well I think.

[gorillafuck]

I'll cooperate with any socialist group that's willing to cooperate with me--left communist, Trotskyist, and yes, even Marxist-Leninist. Unfortunately, a minority of Marxist-Leninists (such as red cat) seems carried away by the ridiculous conspiracy theory that we are "organs of the bourgeoisie" aiming to divide the working class.
I agree that sectarian disputes are most often a bad thing, but I think that most people who believe the other CP's are organs of the bourgeois don't think that they intentionally are, just that they end up being that way (for example, CPUSA are reformist social democrats who support politicians that not even the Green Party support).