It is time for the US left to think about a United Leftist Front

[LeninistKing]

Hello all: I think that instead of bashing the capitalists. It is time to think about what is to be done in order to get out of this economic situation in which we are of a poverty trap caused by the monopoly-oligarchic capitalist system in which only a few live real well, and the majority of us are beating the bullets.

We need a scientific, revolutionary plan on what to do, on what is to be done like lenin said, in order for the left to rise to government-power !!

.

[RedFruit]

Hello all: I think that instead of bashing the capitalists. It is time to think about what is to be done in order to get out of this economic situation in which we are of a poverty trap caused by the monopoly-oligarchic capitalist system in which only a few live real well, and the majority of us are beating the bullets.

We need a scientific, revolutionary plan on what to do, on what is to be done like lenin said, in order for the left to rise to government-power !!

.
Amen.
First of all I think even if all socialist parties of the US would merge to one big party they wouldn't have any chance in the 2012 elections. The anti-socialism propaganda machine is doing quite well and the so called US 'democracy' is based on money, more money, and even more money.

However I agree that too many already small parties split again because of tiny little disagreements.
But it just doesn't make sense to merge say Marxis-Leninist with Trotskyist parties. It just woulnd't work.

[KC]

Edit

[RED DAVE]

Hello all: I think that instead of bashing the capitalists. It is time to think about what is to be done in order to get out of this economic situation in which we are of a poverty trap caused by the monopoly-oligarchic capitalist system in which only a few live real well, and the majority of us are beating the bullets.

We need a scientific, revolutionary plan on what to do, on what is to be done like lenin said, in order for the left to rise to government-power !!I have been listening to calls for left unity for longer than I like to remember. Let me state, unequivocally, that the differences between the various left groups are not trivial. They are based on significant differences over the very definition of socialism, and, in practice, the different groups advocate different strategies and tactics.

The only true unity will come in practice. As capitalist crises unfold, and various groups confront these crises, opportunities will arise for success, failure, unity and disunity.

Praxis will out.

RED DAVE

[Outinleftfield]

Amen.
First of all I think even if all socialist parties of the US would merge to one big party they wouldn't have any chance in the 2012 elections. The anti-socialism propaganda machine is doing quite well and the so called US 'democracy' is based on money, more money, and even more money.

However I agree that too many already small parties split again because of tiny little disagreements.
But it just doesn't make sense to merge say Marxis-Leninist with Trotskyist parties. It just woulnd't work.

Don't you mean Stalinist parties with Trotskyist parties? Trotsky diverged after Lenin and Lenin even wanted him over Stalin but died before he could object to Stalin.

[Pogue]

Oh well I'm glad you said that because now it will convince everyone to unite when they read this thread. :rolleyes:

I'm so glad you've returned and are giving us such valuable input.

[A.R.Amistad]

Elections are not going to bring about socialism alone. We need real revolutionary change, and that can't happen in the bureaucratic electoral system we have under capitalism. Even if a leftist party were to be elected tomorrow, they would be powerless to create a socialist state because the working class hasn't been organised into a force that can govern effectively, i.e., into soviet councils. We do run in elections, but when we do, we do so as a way of both educating the masses and organizing them to prepare them for socialist revolution. An elected candidate can be powerful in mass organization, but not revolutionary action in a capitalist republic. I admire your desire for unity, but comrade RED DAVE is very correct: the most major divisions are not trivial and they differ in theory and tactic. I believe that the best way we can unite is to form a United Front. In fact, this website acts very much as a cyber-United Front directed against capitalism. It would be very possible to create an anti-capitalist front, but every organization and party that was a memeber of it would retain their political autonomy and would healthily compete for the support of the workers while not losing sight of the common goal.

[The Idler]

I suppose the question could be asked as to why at least the Trots don't get together? Socialist Equality Party, International Socialist Organization, Socialist Party USA. I understand (from Wikipedia) the organization known as Solidarity was formed as a merge of the ISO, Workers Power and Socialist Unity.

[A.R.Amistad]

I suppose the question could be asked as to why at least the Trots don't get together? Socialist Equality Party, International Socialist Organization, Socialist Party USA. I understand (from Wikipedia) the organization known as Solidarity was formed as a merge of the ISO, Workers Power and Socialist Unity.


The divisions in the Trotskyist movement are, in my opinion, largely trivial when it comes down to differences between the USFI, CWI, IMT, etc. because they are based on several fairly trivial factors:
1. Interpretations of history, particularly whether or not certain Stalinist regimes were State Capitalist or Deformed Workers' States.
2. More or less dogmatic following of certain Trotskyist theorists like Mandel, James, Shactmann, etc.
3. Views on the Cuban Revolution and government (this is actually non-trivial)
4. The new development of the rift between "Castroists" and more orthodox Leninists.

One group whose differences I don't consider to be trivial is the ISO. I was a member of the ISO for awhile and basically, in my opinion, they have become a strange mix of ultraleftism, reformism and hyper State Capitalist convictions that prevent any radical socialist action, and I believe that most of the members are not very active and are only in support of "socialism" for moral reasons. Oh yes, and the ISO members I did meet refused to call themselves "communists" because they saw that as Stalinist. This is actually the opposite aim of Trotskyism, which is to reclaim communism and continue it free of Stalinist domination. But yes, unity for the formation of a larger and stronger Fourth International would be nice.

[Delenda Carthago]

The divisions in the Trotskyist movement are, in my opinion, largely trivial when it comes down to differences between the USFI, CWI, IMT, etc. because they are based on several fairly trivial factors:
1. Interpretations of history, particularly whether or not certain Stalinist regimes were State Capitalist or Deformed Workers' States.
2. More or less dogmatic following of certain Trotskyist theorists like Mandel, James, Shactmann, etc.
3. Views on the Cuban Revolution and government (this is actually non-trivial)
4. The new development of the rift between "Castroists" and more orthodox Leninists.

One group whose differences I don't consider to be trivial is the ISO. I was a member of the ISO for awhile and basically, in my opinion, they have become a strange mix of ultraleftism, reformism and hyper State Capitalist convictions that prevent any radical socialist action, and I believe that most of the members are not very active and are only in support of "socialism" for moral reasons. Oh yes, and the ISO members I did meet refused to call themselves "communists" because they saw that as Stalinist. This is actually the opposite aim of Trotskyism, which is to reclaim communism and continue it free of Stalinist domination. But yes, unity for the formation of a larger and stronger Fourth International would be nice.

When you are surrounded by enemies,I think its worthless to even think about dividing your powers.RevLefts,Stalinists,Trotskyists,anarchists etc need to come together in order to form a powerfull anticapitalist group.Only then they will rise a litle bit,and when they dont need it anymore they can split.

but even if they dont do that,I thing that solidarity must be the first priority.I dont know how it works over there,but I think that if a marxist group calls for,lets say,an intermission,anarchists must show up too.

We have more to share,than to split.

[RHIZOMES]

I think just forming a "United Leftist Front" and thinking that'll solve our problems will be a complete abject failure due to the completely different tactics, outlooks, views on socialism, etc. What instead should be the case, is completely open and rigorous debate between the different groups on how to make revolution to the particular conditions facing the US, flinging old dogmas and petty sectarian territorialism out the window. Views would then start to synchronize a bit more and there'd be a stronger unity in tactics and action amongst the left, and they'd would be a stronger fighting force.

And we know that isn't gonna happen, except hopefully among more intelligent sections of the left.


The divisions in the Trotskyist movement are, in my opinion, largely trivial when it comes down to differences between the USFI, CWI, IMT, etc. because they are based on several fairly trivial factors:
1. Interpretations of history, particularly whether or not certain Stalinist regimes were State Capitalist or Deformed Workers' States.
2. More or less dogmatic following of certain Trotskyist theorists like Mandel, James, Shactmann, etc.
3. Views on the Cuban Revolution and government (this is actually non-trivial)
4. The new development of the rift between "Castroists" and more orthodox Leninists.

I'd say there's quite a huge difference with the IMT. They advocate Militant Tendency-style entryism into centre-left parties such as the Democrats and Labour. Which usually fails since even if they have a working class voting base, the actual activist base tend to be middle-class aspiring bureaucrats and bourgeois liberal politicos. And their influence usually amounts to like 0.5% anyway.


Don't you mean Stalinist parties with Trotskyist parties? Trotsky diverged after Lenin and Lenin even wanted him over Stalin but died before he could object to Stalin.

Except for like hardcore anti-revisionists such as the CPGB-ML and the Hoxhaist Union, and hardcore ultra-Trots such as the Sparts and so on, I think the modern-day differences that separate a lot of "Stalinists" (Maoists, etc) and Trotskyists are quite inconsequential and purely based on historical pettiness. At least this is how it's looked to me as a member of the WP, a party that is a merger of pro-Mao and pro-Trotsky elements (with a mutual understanding that ideas such as Permanent Revolution and New Democracy have no real relevance to modern-day capitalist NZ, and the conditions facing a possible NZ revolution are going to require different solutions).

[Revy]

I would support a merger of the SP-USA and ISO. Small groups could join too.

The demand of unity is an important demand and really, I think people like KC are trolling with their useless comments.

An electoral coalition wouldn't work in the US. A much larger party formed on the basis of the unification of various groups would at least forge a more effective voice.


I have been listening to calls for left unity for longer than I like to remember. Let me state, unequivocally, that the differences between the various left groups are not trivial. They are based on significant differences over the very definition of socialism, and, in practice, the different groups advocate different strategies and tactics.


This is an excuse. Just because there are differences doesn't mean there can't be unity. What you're espousing is the reason these sects never unite.



The only true unity will come in practice. As capitalist crises unfold, and various groups confront these crises, opportunities will arise for success, failure, unity and disunity.
We do not need to wait for "crises" to unify. The Great Depression did not produce a united left, the recession of the '80s did not, the current recession will not (at least automatically). Unity is not something to wait to fall from the sky. It is a mistake to predict some great moment for the left during times of economic recession, and indeed psychotic to take such joy in a more unfortunate time. The capitalist system must be confronted in a level-headed, intelligent manner, not based on prophecy.

[RHIZOMES]

The demand of unity is an important demand and really, I think people like KC are trolling with their useless comments.

I think he has a point. Uniting all the left groups doesn't mean jack shit if we have no real clear grasp of what to do (which we don't). It's attacking the symptom rather than the cause. It is also based on the assumption that a lot of these ultra-Trotskyist dogmatic sectoids like the activists in the Barnesite SWP, the SEP, etc would be at all useful to the worker's movement.

[A.R.Amistad]

When you are surrounded by enemies,I think its worthless to even think about dividing your powers.RevLefts,Stalinists,Trotskyists,anarchists etc need to come together in order to form a powerful anti-capitalist group.Only then they will rise a litle bit,and when they don't need it anymore they can split.
Au contraire. On surface value simply uniting into one, single, anti-capitalist party seems like a good idea, but that in fact would create less unity. Why? The same reason that all Popular Fronts fail. When political groups have to give up their tactics and viewpoints and subordinate themselves to a single party, the divisive tensions grow wider because one group will dominate the party and the others will accuse it of totalitarianism. The failure that you are describing is actually prevented in a United Front.
In a United Front, all tactics and ideologies of each participating party are preserved in their purest form, but they are simply united by a single enemy or a single problem. For example, the communists in Yugoslavia would never have come to power if they had formed a joint party with the Cetniks, who were actually ultra-right nationalists. But they were somewhat united in their firm opposition to the Axis powers, and in the end, when the combined actions of both forces capitulated fascist imperialism, the workers' chose the communists to lead instead of the Cetniks.

[Intelligitimate]

Assuming for a moment that there was no historical differences in interpretations dividing people, there are still very important strategy and organizational differences between various groups.

Anarchists are almost always stupid Lifestylists and the kind of moronic 'guerilla theater' crap they want to do and the informal hierarchies they create in their organizations prevent any real movement from developing. Being mostly ignorant, young, petty-bourgeois white children who don't shower and listen to crap music doesn't help either.

Most Trotskyite groups are cults, and their political activity centers around selling newspapers and fiercely denouncing other Left groups, mostly other Trot groups with trivial differences in line. Most of them actively denounce any sort of actual organizing of the masses and seem to think the revolution will take place after they get everyone to read their paper.

Uniting with crap like this can only hurt you.

[KC]

Edit

[Delenda Carthago]

Au contraire. On surface value simply uniting into one, single, anti-capitalist party seems like a good idea, but that in fact would create less unity. Why? The same reason that all Popular Fronts fail. When political groups have to give up their tactics and viewpoints and subordinate themselves to a single party, the divisive tensions grow wider because one group will dominate the party and the others will accuse it of totalitarianism. The failure that you are describing is actually prevented in a United Front.
In a United Front, all tactics and ideologies of each participating party are preserved in their purest form, but they are simply united by a single enemy or a single problem. For example, the communists in Yugoslavia would never have come to power if they had formed a joint party with the Cetniks, who were actually ultra-right nationalists. But they were somewhat united in their firm opposition to the Axis powers, and in the end, when the combined actions of both forces capitulated fascist imperialism, the workers' chose the communists to lead instead of the Cetniks.

I didn't say anything about a party.I am talking about unity in action.Supporting each other.Anticapitalist front today.Tomorow that you have more power,you split to whatever feels like.Besides,from what I know,you dont have much to lose over there...Only to gain.

[black magick hustla]

There is a united leftist front. It is called the left wing of the democratic party. Ask the Democratic Socialist of America, CPUSA, and any other worthless "leftist" pressure group.

[Robocommie]

I have been listening to calls for left unity for longer than I like to remember. Let me state, unequivocally, that the differences between the various left groups are not trivial. They are based on significant differences over the very definition of socialism, and, in practice, the different groups advocate different strategies and tactics.

The only true unity will come in practice. As capitalist crises unfold, and various groups confront these crises, opportunities will arise for success, failure, unity and disunity.

Praxis will out.

RED DAVE

But what happens if we start shooting each other over one group or another being Stalinists or Trotskyists or Social Democrats? What happens if one group comes to power and starts purging the other?

I also am not sure if I like the idea of just passively waiting for a revolution to break out before something can be done.

I guess what I'm really asking is, how the hell do we as individuals DO Socialism? What should be the active component of our political beliefs?

[Robocommie]

Hell, Rise of the Iranian People at its height was receiving more hits daily than some long-established leftist news/organization websites, and that was only a few days after its creation!!! And all it took was a very small group of people gathering news, photos and video and posting it on a blog. Very little of the material on that site is original. The fact that such a small group of people could outperform the entire left in terms of site traffic and link referrals in such a short period of time is incredibly sad. We should all be crying over this.

But a situation like the Rise of the Iranian People taps into extremely contemporary events, and sortof rides the currents of what people are worried about right now. Sometimes I worry if revolutionary Marxism has almost... I dunno, run out of gas. I know how that sounds, but look around. We're all associating ourselves with guys like Trotsky, Lenin, Tito, people who have been dead for decades. Almost all our socialist icons are dead.

I don't mean to despair, and I don't think Socialism in general is dead, but I have to wonder about the future of Marxism in a post-Soviet world.

[Delenda Carthago]

But a situation like the Rise of the Iranian People taps into extremely contemporary events, and sortof rides the currents of what people are worried about right now. Sometimes I worry if revolutionary Marxism has almost... I dunno, run out of gas. I know how that sounds, but look around. We're all associating ourselves with guys like Trotsky, Lenin, Tito, people who have been dead for decades. Almost all our socialist icons are dead.

I don't mean to despair, and I don't think Socialism in general is dead, but I have to wonder about the future of Marxism in a post-Soviet world.

Marxism has a lot to offer.The School of Frankfurt,Guy Debord and italian workers autonomy has showed that.

[Robocommie]

Marxism has a lot to offer.The School of Frankfurt,Guy Debord and italian workers autonomy has showed that.

I'm a huge fan of the Frankfurt School, but there's a bit of a gap between theory and praxis, isn't there? What I mean is, how much have there ideas disseminated to the working class?

I'm not familiar with Italian workers autonomy, could you explain it to me?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh well I'm glad you said that because now it will convince everyone to unite when they read this thread. :rolleyes:

Likewise, such attitudes towards 'newbies' will also encourage participation from those currently not enveloped in the intricacies of Marxism.:rolleyes:

[Delenda Carthago]

I'm a huge fan of the Frankfurt School, but there's a bit of a gap between theory and praxis, isn't there? What I mean is, how much have there ideas disseminated to the working class?

I'm not familiar with Italian workers autonomy, could you explain it to me?

Let me tell you something comrade:Greek anarchist space,would be half if the Frankfurt School didn't exist.That's actually all I can tell you with certainty,cause I have not a clue from the inside for movements in other countries.

About italian workers autonomy,check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomia_Operaia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_M._Bonanno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Alice

[chegitz guevara]

I would support a merger of the SP-USA and ISO. Small groups could join too.

I wouldn't, at least not today. If such a thing were to occur, basically all we'd be doing is handing the Socialist Party name to the ISO. Both groups may have over 1,000 members, but the ISO's are most active, where the SPUSA's mostly are not.

[chegitz guevara]

I have been listening to calls for left unity for longer than I like to remember. Let me state, unequivocally, that the differences between the various left groups are not trivial. They are based on significant differences over the very definition of socialism, and, in practice, the different groups advocate different strategies and tactics.

The only true unity will come in practice. As capitalist crises unfold, and various groups confront these crises, opportunities will arise for success, failure, unity and disunity.

Praxis will out.

RED DAVE

Actually, most of the "significant" differences aren't. There is no good reason for groups to be separated over the definition of countries that no longer exist. Pretty much all of us agree that, with the possible exception of Cuba, socialism, if it existed anywhere on Earth, no longer does. If you're too dogmatic and sectarian to get over that shit and unite with me on the tasks that we need to accomplish today, I would argue you will never amount to anything as a revolutionary.

The truth is, most of us don't know jack shit. We think we do. We think our ideas are better than everyone else's. Prove it. You can't. So until we can prove one way or another whose ideas are correct, and whose ideas aren't, it makes no sense not to unite democratically.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello all: I think that instead of bashing the capitalists. It is time to think about what is to be done in order to get out of this economic situation in which we are of a poverty trap caused by the monopoly-oligarchic capitalist system in which only a few live real well, and the majority of us are beating the bullets.

We need a scientific, revolutionary plan on what to do, on what is to be done like lenin said, in order for the left to rise to government-power !!

.
Groups split or come together because of changes in the class struggle and new experiences causing new consensuses or new arguments. When the new left was surging, new political formations were created often smaller groups coming together or splitting and joining bigger groups. When that era's mass movements were falling apart or slowing, a lot of groups split over views of what to do next or why the revolution never materialized.

What I hope that all serious groups do at this particular political moment is to look outward and try as much as they can to build a leftwing working class opposition to the intensified class-war brought on by what looks to be a long-lasting economic crisis.

Through looking outward, I think we will probably begin to see more alliances between groups, working together in coalitions or for short term goals.

But whatever groups do, I think the most important thing is to build and organize immediately because there is a huge gaping hole where radical politics should be in society right now. We are tiny and our arguments are largely kept out of the mainstream. The working class is walking into the biggest economic crisis of most of our lives defenseless because of the weak state of the labor movement and without a radical left, the offense!

[KC]

Edit

[syndicat]

I think that when someone starts talking about "left unity", we should always ask, unity to do what? Where would this unity in pratice be manifest? It seems to me that there are various potential areas of mass organizing (e.g. worker controlled unions, enviromental justice organizing), movement building, alternative institution building (E.g. a popular education center, such as a working people's university to train people to do workplace & community organizing, learn about economics, labor law etc) where this might be feasible among people who are reaonable.

There have been two left "refoundation/regroupment" processes going on to try to develop better understanding, possibly more coordinated activity, and maybe regroupment. One of these are the meetings called Revolutionary Work In Our Times, sponsored jointly by Solidarity, Freedom Road, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Left Turn, and the Malcolm X study group, and possibly a couple other groups.

The second of these "refoundation/regroupment" processes has occurred in the context of the two Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences last year and this year, bringing together a number of groups: Workers Solidarity Alliance, North East Federation of Anarchist-Communists, Solidarity & Defense, Common Action, Union Comuniste Libertaire (Quebec), Common Cause, Amanecer, Four Star Anarchist Group and Buffalo Class Action, and maybe one or two other groups. This is a conversation among the more pro-organization, working class-oriented, pro-mass organizing section of anarchists or libertarian socialists in North America. There were about 100 activists at each of these conferences, and about 300 to 400 people in the groups involved.

[LeninistKing]

Because Trotskists are humans. And most humans both leftists, right-wingers are selfish, greedy and full of psychological disorders and problems, like pessimism, anger, negativism, an excess of skepticism which is form of negativism. People are very negative, and with this excess of pessimism and lack of optimism in the left we wont get anywhere

.



I suppose the question could be asked as to why at least the Trots don't get together? Socialist Equality Party, International Socialist Organization, Socialist Party USA. I understand (from Wikipedia) the organization known as Solidarity was formed as a merge of the ISO, Workers Power and Socialist Unity.

[Kassad]

This discussion comes up a little too much for my liking. Let's get right down to it and take a look at Russia before the revolution in 1917. There was an assortment of different revolutionary groups all promoting their own line, their own method and attempting to gain power. It took a lot of debate, discussion and time before any group grasped the revolutionary opportunity enough to actually sow the seeds of revolution in the working class. A united front between anarchists, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks and social-democrats did not work for any real extended period of time, but that didn't stop the Bolsheviks under Lenin from gaining power and tearing down the bourgeois state.

This brings us to a pretty simple revelation. As Mao said, "continuing revolution is not a dinner party." It is not some simplistic social change and that's why there are so many different groups attempting to comprehend modern events that happen in the world while still attempting varying levels of criticism of former and current socialist states. Because there is not a revolutionary situation in the United States, meaning that it is not really an ideal time for the working class to take power due to a pretty low level of revolutionary class consciousness and a lack of organization, it is the duty of all Marxists in the United States and around the world to prepare for a time when it may be possible. When this situation unfolds, it will become much more clear what kind of banner the proletariat will rally behind and this will likely lead to a lot less sectarianism. However, presently it would be impossible to think that some kind of 'united front' between groups with such varying ideologies would actually change much. You can't force class consciousness, so no matter how large any socialist group gets right now, it isn't going to awaken the dormant power of the working class. Revolution is an act of the proletariat itself, not parties. Parties are a guide, used to spread Marxist theory, promote revolutionary change and sow seeds of class consciousness in the working class, but they cannot initiate revolution without the support of the working class. Thus, as KC put it, a united front is not only impossible, but it is a laughable concept.

[LeninistKing]

Kassad: I think you are 100% correct. You painted the US situation just like it is right now. The US workers are still too individualists, too involved in the consumerist way of life in America, going about their own private lives, accepting their low-wages and not feeling about it, and not doing any thing about it. So like you said, we gotta wait for a deep economic crisis ahead.

.



This discussion comes up a little too much for my liking. Let's get right down to it and take a look at Russia before the revolution in 1917. There was an assortment of different revolutionary groups all promoting their own line, their own method and attempting to gain power. It took a lot of debate, discussion and time before any group grasped the revolutionary opportunity enough to actually sow the seeds of revolution in the working class. A united front between anarchists, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks and social-democrats did not work for any real extended period of time, but that didn't stop the Bolsheviks under Lenin from gaining power and tearing down the bourgeois state.

This brings us to a pretty simple revelation. As Mao said, "continuing revolution is not a dinner party." It is not some simplistic social change and that's why there are so many different groups attempting to comprehend modern events that happen in the world while still attempting varying levels of criticism of former and current socialist states. Because there is not a revolutionary situation in the United States, meaning that it is not really an ideal time for the working class to take power due to a pretty low level of revolutionary class consciousness and a lack of organization, it is the duty of all Marxists in the United States and around the world to prepare for a time when it may be possible. When this situation unfolds, it will become much more clear what kind of banner the proletariat will rally behind and this will likely lead to a lot less sectarianism. However, presently it would be impossible to think that some kind of 'united front' between groups with such varying ideologies would actually change much. You can't force class consciousness, so no matter how large any socialist group gets right now, it isn't going to awaken the dormant power of the working class. Revolution is an act of the proletariat itself, not parties. Parties are a guide, used to spread Marxist theory, promote revolutionary change and sow seeds of class consciousness in the working class, but they cannot initiate revolution without the support of the working class. Thus, as KC put it, a united front is not only impossible, but it is a laughable concept.

[LeninistKing]

Did you know that with that the excess of rationalism leads to pessimism? with that negative mentality that you have, and even claiming that a United Front is laugable, we won't get any where in USA. Great men of history are not pessimists. Pessimism is a sign of weakness. We have to be optimists, positive and conquer fear, death and every thing.

Che Guevara said that we should never say that we cannot do this or that.

.



Thus, as KC put it, a united front is not only impossible, but it is a laughable concept.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would support a merger of the SP-USA and ISO. Small groups could join too.


I wouldn't, at least not today. If such a thing were to occur, basically all we'd be doing is handing the Socialist Party name to the ISO. Both groups may have over 1,000 members, but the ISO's are most active, where the SPUSA's mostly are not.

One more thing: the ISO is an organization of the Student Left, not an organization of workers per se.

[cb9's_unity]

If for nothing else socialist party's should unite to create a mass propaganda unit. With capitalists actively distorting class lines in the eyes of workers, it would be helpful for a group to create a reasoned way of explaining class politics to the workers. Essentially at this point the main goal of socialist party's should be nothing more than to sell the concept of socialism and refute capitalist lies. We should be creating the conditions for workers to become class conscious and revolutionary. Socialist party's should unite to run candidates for local elections while explaining the massive flaws and corruption of the inherently pro-capitalist two party system.

At the moment workers are massively discontent with the current system. However due to lies about socialism most of them either become more outspoken liberals or turn to the right. The irony about the tea party movement is that it shows how many workers want to be distanced from the bourgeois state, however due to fears of 'elitist' socialists they unite with some sections of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. A mass socialist group could grow large enough to directly confront the false beliefs of the ever growing 'libertarian' faction (that are pleading to be radicalized against the status quo).

One mass party isn't going to happen any time soon, forming some sort of united front or mass propaganda group is hopefully more likely. Doing something like creating a coherent website or forming any sort of national organization or congress would be a huge step forward.

[mikelepore]

To emphasize the need for unity fails to address the reasons why there isn't already unity. There isn't already unity because some groups say and do things that other groups can't in good conscience approve of. Some groups say and do things that other groups believe do more harm than good. You might as well go to each organization and tell them to stop saying and doing all the things that others on the left believe to be harmful. There's no mystery here, it's quite simple actually: take your list of goals and strategies, throw away ninety percent of the items on your list, and everyone's mood for unification will suddenly increase.

[syndicat]

Sometimes, however, there are separate organizations with few political differences, or they may come to believe these are not so important as to prevent a closer working relationship. Also, conversations over time may reveal less disagreement than was thought.

These sorts of considerations are what lay behind the two refoundation/regroupment processes I referred to earlier...the Revolutiionary Work In Our Times conferences (initiated by Solidarity and Freedom Road and Revolutionaries for a New America) and the series of Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences (initiated by Workers Solidarity Alliance and NEFAC). In each of these cases there are ongoing conversations, aimed at greater coordination and unity.

[Ben Seattle]

The central task that will unite revolutionary activists will be the creation of a revolutionary news service that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and discussion from the perspective of the material interest of the working class. This news service will be open to contributions from all progressive trends (and from ordinary people) and will also provide a platform for the struggle of trends.

The various sectarian and reformist groups will not voluntarily support this project. Rather they will, so to speak, be dragged into it against their will, kicking and screaming, as they find that they must participate in the project in order to remain competitive with other sectarian and reformist groups. In other words, they will lose supporters and be unable to recruit if they are not part of the project.

The tendency will be, as a result of the closer contact and working relationships between activists from various trends (who will find themselves working on projects together for the revolutionary news service) that sectarian barriers will face relatively rapid erosion. The nature of reformism and other forms of opportunism will also become more clear as the news service (and the class struggle itelf, to which the news service will be closely linked) develop.

I have written about this in more detail at (http, etc) NewsRefinery.com and "How to Build the Party of the Working Class" (please use link below since the software in this forum does not yet allow me to post links)

[mikelepore]

I would like to see groups that disagree on various things attempt to co-author and co-publish documents that describe their differences of opinion. They wouldn't have to compromise on their principles, but only come to an agreement about what words objectively characterize the participants and their disagreement.

"Viewpoint 1 says blah-blah, but viewpoint 2 says blah-blah. 1 offers this list of reasons. 2 offers this list of reasons. Here is the rebuttal of each to the reasons given by the other."

Imagine if people who disagree at least tried to understand one another, to paraphrase the other person's viewpoint accurately, rather than misquote one another.

It would be hugely educational for the novice reader.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

A brilliant idea. Truly you deserve your title, O' king of the Leninists. I shall harken to all local parties so they may hear of your wisdom.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't quite understand what anyone ever means when they say the left should unite. What are we uniting into? A party to get elected? How is this conducive to building our trade union movement? To giving working people actual power in their communities? To ultimately building class power? This 'united' left seems to be too often touted as a solution to the lack of class consciousness and class power in our world when I don't think it is.

[Kovacs]

The idea of a united left goes hand in hand with the common misconception that the right is a unified thing. They both fracture and display myriad sorts of sectarianism and factional backbiting. Of course a strong, unified left is a thing to aim for but not at the expense of certain principles, or silencing certain voices. The blessing the rightists have is that the people who vote for them will be willing to forgo certain objections so long as he is 'our guy'. Leftists tend to have a greater emphasis on the particulars of their ideological stance and hence are perceived as far more fractious.

I also think the unification of the US left has some serious problems to overcome regarding the way they deal with lifestyle politics and the deep racial divides. It can be done, and I wish our US comrades luck and victory in their endeavors