Socialist attitudes

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A pretty general question:

Do you think that socialists, of all ilks, spend too much time focusing on exposing their differences with each other, rather than finding common ground?

It seems to me that there are a million different strands of socialism, and many groups refuse to work with each other over the smallest of theoretical issues. Surely we could send out a united (and thus more effective) message if we were to focus on what we, as socialists, all agree on (workers' rights, anti-capitalism, ridding ourselves of elitist rule, inequality, poverty, war etc.) and portray that as our message to the rest of the exploited class, rather than showing ourselves to be infighting, disunited and somewhat out of touch with the day-to-day concerns of many workers.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Unfortunately some people genuinely are more interested in hurling insults at each other than having a revolution. Personally, I'm open to working alongside any anti-capitalist, but the impression I have always been under is that generally anarchists would rather go it alone, and don't want to make time for Marxist-Leninists, and to be honest, when they call us Nazis and fascists, the prospect of rallying under one banner alongside them doesn't exactly excite me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be fair, I think the exclusion you describe works both ways.

It depends what you define as anti-capitalist, too. I would not be happy to support Mugabe, Saddam or the DPRK simply because they are anti-capitalist.

But I agree, the insult hurling is ridiculous. However, there must be a way to move forward, because as someone who is a relatively un-involved in left politics/activism, I can tell you it doesn't look pretty.

[h9socialist]

Yes Comrade DemSoc (love the acronym!).

Sectarianism has always put a huge strain on the Left -- and the right-wing loves to foment sectarian disagreements in the Left whenever it can.

I am one who believe that all elements of the Left serve a purpose, and should be respected. If we would concentrate fire on the capitalists, rather than skewering each other we would have had the revolution decades ago! We're supposed to be about solidarity, but some have more fun by arguing against other comrades and variations of socialist thinking. It' a tragic waste!

[FSL]

From what I've seen in broad alliances or multi-tendency parties, I find sectarianism one of the most productive features in the left. That way I can support workers without having to spend most of my time making lame excuses for someone else's backwards/wrong views.

[bcbm]

yes, most workers are worried about whether or not someone has the correct view on the stalinist states, various historical events nobody but socialists remember, etc.

[FSL]

yes, most workers are worried about whether or not someone has the correct view on the stalinist states, various historical events nobody but socialists remember, etc.


People view these differently because they stare from different angles. Unless you think the only differences between a trotskyist, an anarchist and an anti-revisionist group today are in historical matters and not in questions of organization, methods and aims.

[NecroCommie]

If I am not excluded, I will not exclude. I don't have to agree though.

[bcbm]

Unless you think the only differences between a trotskyist, an anarchist and an anti-revisionist group today are in historical matters and not in questions of organization, methods and aims.

i think the end results of most of these groups suggest primarily only an artificial difference, or rather they all function with a similar logic, but that's not really here or there.

[Red Rebel]

What happens if every socialist group came together and were united?

Instread of not even having 1% in elections, we would have what 2-5%? Not very impressive. Also in every sucessful revolution there were always mulitple revolutionary working class socialist groups struggling for power.

Leftists unity is a nice idea but very overrated.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Instread of not even having 1% in elections, we would have what 2-5%? Not very impressive. Also in every sucessful revolution there were always mulitple revolutionary working class socialist groups struggling for power.


Yeah, and typically once that group came to power, its first task was to wipe out all opposition parties. And judging by the nature of some posts here, I don't think that is likely to change.

[ZeroNowhere]

If they did, one would think the practice would have helped them become barely competent at it. So probably not.

[ckaihatsu]

But I agree, the insult hurling is ridiculous. However, there must be a way to move forward, because as someone who is a relatively un-involved in left politics/activism, I can tell you it doesn't look pretty.





Unfortunately some people genuinely are more interested in hurling insults at each other than having a revolution. Personally, I'm open to working alongside any anti-capitalist, but the impression I have always been under is that generally anarchists would rather go it alone, and don't want to make time for Marxist-Leninists, and to be honest, when they call us Nazis and fascists, the prospect of rallying under one banner alongside them doesn't exactly excite me.


Maybe just keep in mind that we're still operating under capitalist conditions, with all of the stresses, pressures, and chaos that they introduce into *any* sustained constructive efforts. Perhaps the various leftist organizations have their "intramural" rivalries, but overall they're covering the struggle where they're each at, respectively.

So there's no pan-leftist-organization world tourist tour to introduce newbies to *every last* orientation and tendency, and no pan-leftist eBay for putting in a bid on which flavor one likes the best -- tough shit. Many activists I've seen got into revolutionary politics through the *first* organization they encountered and that's what they see to be as the entire fucking universe of revolutionary history and theory. They'll defend that organization more avidly than an English football fan does their team, and that's that.

The "internecine" fighting *is* bemoanable, but it may be socially objectively necessary -- think of it as *organizational* politics, or "organism" overhead.... (I do.)


Chris



--



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- My superficiality is only skin-deep --

[h9socialist]

Comrade ckaihatsu - I understand your point, but our "internecine fighting" is a luxury that doesn't help us take power. There will still be dialectics and polemics AFTER the workers take over. In the meantime, in seems to me, capitalism is the enemy, and socialist, communist and anarchist comrades need solidarity more than ideological purity!

[ckaihatsu]

Comrade ckaihatsu - I understand your point, but our "internecine fighting" is a luxury that doesn't help us take power. There will still be dialectics and polemics AFTER the workers take over. In the meantime, in seems to me, capitalism is the enemy, and socialist, communist and anarchist comrades need solidarity more than ideological purity!


Well, * yeah *...!

I'm all for supporting "united front" types of coalitions within the revolutionary left, and sometimes including parts of the broader left, for certain issues.

I've come to conceptualize this as levels of platforms that grow wider over more commonly agreeable issues, like abortion rights, and smaller with more *focused* issues, like a centralized communist administration for a post-capitalist society.

Actual political contributions -- through non-personal, non-work, non-obligatory activities -- can be thought of as the *core* of vertical wooden platform supports, while *economic* political contributions can be thought of as the concentric "thickening" of the diameter of these vertical wooden platform supports.

The attached diagram shows a political spectrum -- as more neighborly political ideologies and tendencies support a platform in common (say, abortion rights), it would be reflected as *more numerous* supports, across a wider span of spectrum, soundly supporting a *wider* issue platform.

In this way we might be able to at least *map out* and *clarify* where different ideologies and tendencies are on any given issue. For the most part I think we, as revolutionaries, *should* concentrate on the *most important* platform, that being the anti-capitalist one -- I've come to view the inter-organizational infighting as being relatively minor and practically ignorable, if wasteful.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lol, that diagram is ridiculous.

How on earth are Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats (true ones, not the Browns and Blairs of this world) to the right of liberals and greens?

Also, what an earth is a class conscious but non-revolutionary Communist? This surely lends legitimacy to the muppets in charge of places like Moldova?

And Stalinism was de-centralised? hmm.

[ckaihatsu]

How on earth are Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats (true ones, not the Browns and Blairs of this world) to the right of liberals and greens?


I *did have* the mainstream, institutional Social Democrats -- the Browns and Blairs of the world -- in mind for that segment. And I also think of big-name, establishment types, like Bill Clinton, in regards to Democratic Socialists -- hence the placement.





Also, what an earth is a class conscious but non-revolutionary Communist? This surely lends legitimacy to the muppets in charge of places like Moldova?


Right -- the point is that many capital-C Communists (like populists, radicals, and/or Stalinists) go on to nation-supporting and nation-building instead of supporting a *class* orientation.

Also please note that this is meant to be *empirical* and as objective as possible -- that's why I included a full range from left to right.





And Stalinism was de-centralised? hmm.


Yes, relative to a truly Marxist, worldwide proletariat revolutionary consciousness. Stalinism contained political struggles within *national* borders, effectively *nationalizing* them. At the same time it was *relatively* revolutionary compared to capitalist production itself, though that ebbed over the span of several decades in the 20th century.

Also, from another posting, someone challenged the 'fascists' placement squarely under the 'traditional' plank, noting that plenty of fascists are pro-corporate and not necessarily traditionalist. I replied that it was a good critique and that, in retrospect and for the future I would consider replacing the 'fascists' category with a 'monarchists' category instead since that would be more fitting in that location.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah, fair enough. Apologies if I seem incredulous. I guess coming from different sides of the pond affects our outlooks. I would call Clinton a neo-liberal, and refer more to Benn and Galloway as democratic socialists.

I did understand capital-C 'Communists' (Stalinists, as opposed to the more anarchic kind) being more to the right than your typical revolutionary socialist - I guess if you put them under a 'counter-revolution' or 'conservative reactionary' label, it might be clearer.

[h9socialist]

My sense is that charting the political spectrum might be more accurately done in three dimensions. I am just not good enough at charting in 3D to make any worthwhile contribution to the effort.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

:laugh: That graphic claims Stalinism is a ideology that believes in decentralisation.

[ckaihatsu]

Ah, fair enough. Apologies if I seem incredulous. I guess coming from different sides of the pond affects our outlooks.


Well, technically it shouldn't. Especially when it comes to matters of imperialist war those types are all the same -- they'll soft-peddle, or even take a temporary, electoral position against war, as is the case most recently with Obama, but then go back to carrying out standard national and international bourgeois policy.





I would call Clinton a neo-liberal, and refer more to Benn and Galloway as democratic socialists.


I can appreciate that at least the left-*leaning* establishment types like Benn and Galloway have been more critical of imperialist war, so I think there's a legitimate distinction there. I could very well include the 'neo-liberal' category for the next version of the diagram.





:laugh: That graphic claims Stalinism is a ideology that believes in decentralisation.





I did understand capital-C 'Communists' (Stalinists, as opposed to the more anarchic kind) being more to the right than your typical revolutionary socialist - I guess if you put them under a 'counter-revolution' or 'conservative reactionary' label, it might be clearer.


I made a distinction between even Stalinists / Maoists and capital-C Communists -- I'm thinking more of the establishment Communist Party types for the latter.

Stalinists presided over assemblages that had anti-imperialist origins and were bureaucratic-collective in economic composition -- this makes them fundamentally *different* from straight Western favored-corporation capitalism. I agree that the Stalinists and Maoists were counter-revolutionary -- I was intending to show that by placing them under the 'decentralized' section.





My sense is that charting the political spectrum might be more accurately done in three dimensions. I am just not good enough at charting in 3D to make any worthwhile contribution to the effort.


I really don't subscribe to a two-axis (2-D) conception of the political spectrum, where the vertical axis spans from 'libertarian' (local-scale) to 'authoritarian' (large-scale) -- because it's just a cheap way of legitimizing a yesteryear, slavery-supporting right-wing ideology -- libertarianism.

At the same time it's a slight against leftism by composing a quadrant of "authoritarian leftism" -- this is meant to evoke the specter of Stalinism while at the same time dismissing that there *could* be a *legitimate*, mass-worker-based political authority that could wield state power effectively against the bourgeoisie in a class conflict.

The political spectrum is sufficient as a 1-dimensonal construction, since the issues of decentralized or centralized power bases are contained *within* the various ideologies themselves.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is a fundamental problem with placing Stalinists/Maoists under 'decentralised' to try and demonstrate their counter-revolutionary attitudes. This would suggest that centralisation = revolution, and vice versa, which many on the left, myself included, would disagree with.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I believe all of us work together against capitalism. The in-fighting, if you want to call it that, is merely between us and doesn't leak into debates, arguments or what have you against capitalism.

A Luxemburgist and a Trotskyist will look at showing someone how capitalism is wrong before they look at each other's theories.

[ckaihatsu]

There is a fundamental problem with placing Stalinists/Maoists under 'decentralised' to try and demonstrate their counter-revolutionary attitudes. This would suggest that centralisation = revolution, and vice versa, which many on the left, myself included, would disagree with.


I would consider placing Stalinists / Maoists under a 'revolutionary-nationalist' segment of the spectrum that would be well away from the "regular" (bourgeois) nationalism.

If you would like to suggest a reconfiguration here, please do -- thanks.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I guess it is a grey area.

You can't place Stalinists/Maoists too far away from ordinary Marxist-Leninists, yet the politics of the USSR, PRC and GDR (gotta love those acronyms) were rather different in character to that of Cuba, for instance.

Have you considered a 3D model, or a double axis spectrum? Perhaps one axis for contrasting revolutionaries and traditionalists, and another axis for differentiating between nationalists and internationalists?

[ckaihatsu]

I guess it is a grey area.

You can't place Stalinists/Maoists too far away from ordinary Marxist-Leninists, yet the politics of the USSR, PRC and GDR (gotta love those acronyms) were rather different in character to that of Cuba, for instance.

Have you considered a 3D model, or a double axis spectrum? Perhaps one axis for contrasting revolutionaries and traditionalists, and another axis for differentiating between nationalists and internationalists?


I gotta admit -- it's *not* a bad idea.... Perhaps this is what others were *trying* to get at with *their* second axis -- the "libertarian-to-authoritarian" one.... I've preferred to conceptualize a *generic* vertical axis of "micro-to-macro", which I've used in several diagrams I've made -- both this, and what you're suggesting, are better at defining matters of *scale*, which I think is often overlooked in historical treatments.

(Consider the ease of forming a nationalistic identity when a population is confined to a *smaller* geographic region, as with England, Haiti, Japan, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Vietnam, and others (sorted roughly by chronological order).)

So, with the four quadrants you're positing, the math would be:

- traditional + nationalist = autarky

- traditional + internationalist = imperialism

- revolutionary + nationalist = Stalinism

- revolutionary + internationalist = Bolshevism


Dig it...! I'll be mulling this over....

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

haha excellent.

Although, not all of us who are revolutionary and internationalist are Bolsheviki, bear that in mind:laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

haha excellent.

Although, not all of us who are revolutionary and internationalist are Bolsheviki, bear that in mind:laugh:


Hmmmmm, a fly in the ointment, huh?

= )

I guess we'll have no choice at this point but to sink into new rounds of sectarian flame wars over what to call this category...(!)

: D

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, here's a quick-n-dirty rendition of it. I went with 'Marxism' for the revolutionary internationalist quadrant -- hope that's not too controversial around here...!


= )