I am sick of people yelling at me for being "sectarian!"

[A.R.Amistad]

ARG! So I'm managing one of my facebook commie groups, and its anti-Stalinist/Maoist, right? And I am constantly getting comments that we should "open up" and "be less sectarian and dogmatic." Heres an example of such childness:


i dont get it. if you guys are anti-stalinist/maoist/jucheist then why do you guys use soviet symbols for your profile picture. Plus Maoism is anti-bereaucratic. Seriously you guys have to be more open minded or you'll end up as narrow minded as fox news



OK, even all the Maoists, Hoxaists, MLs and Jucheists out there can agree with me that this is one fucking annoying comment. If he doesn't agree with our principles, why is he fuckin buggin us about it?? JUST IGNORE US THEN!!!!!!!! And Maoists and Trotskyists have a world of differing views on socialism and how to achieve it! C'mon, the one thing I think EVERYONE on here can agree with me is that they hate it when people say things like "can't we all just unite and forget our differences?" And the Fox News comparison. According to his logic, any political organization would fall under tht criticism. Are we just supposed to have no principles whatsoever??!!!!!! Just call ourselves "communists" and talk about how much Rush Limbaugh looks like a Greek God??? BULL!!!!!! Seriously, if people don't like a certain set of principles of a group, they should just move on, not ***** to their opponents for believing in something.

I'm sorry for ranting but this just grinds my gears.

[Chambered Word]

Your group wouldn't happen to be Uniting True Communists, would it?

There's nothing 'sectarian' about being anti-authoritarian.

[An archist]

Sectarian!

[Raúl Duke]

It's just a FB group...
I'm in the "Anarchists on FB" and I seldom even look at it...
The only leftists I might engage in discussion online are those in revleft.

[ZeroNowhere]

They figured that silly namecalling is a good way to take down tendencies they disagree with, surely it worked with the De Leonites...

[DecDoom]

Plus Maoism is anti-bereaucratic.So, the guy's point is "Sectarianism is bad, but my tendency is better than your tendency." :closedeyes:

[Tyrlop]

A group of people could also include different fractions of people with different tendencies.:) Open up that group,

[A.R.Amistad]

Your group wouldn't happen to be Uniting True Communists, would it?

There's nothing 'sectarian' about being anti-authoritarian.
I thin you know me lol yes


It's just a FB group...
I'm in the "Anarchists on FB" and I seldom even look at it...
The only leftists I might engage in discussion online are those in revleft.

I've actually found that recruiting on FB and FB activism is more fruitful. Nothing against Revleft, but I'm on here solely for discussion, not activism really.


A group of people could also include different fractions of people with different tendencies.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif Open up that group,


There's literally dozens of all inclusive Communist groups on F, why don't they just join those?

[red cat]

ARG! So I'm managing one of my facebook commie groups, and its anti-Stalinist/Maoist, right? And I am constantly getting comments that we should "open up" and "be less sectarian and dogmatic." Heres an example of such childness:



OK, even all the Maoists, Hoxaists, MLs and Jucheists out there can agree with me that this is one fucking annoying comment. If he doesn't agree with our principles, why is he fuckin buggin us about it?? JUST IGNORE US THEN!!!!!!!! And Maoists and Trotskyists have a world of differing views on socialism and how to achieve it! C'mon, the one thing I think EVERYONE on here can agree with me is that they hate it when people say things like "can't we all just unite and forget our differences?" And the Fox News comparison. According to his logic, any political organization would fall under tht criticism. Are we just supposed to have no principles whatsoever??!!!!!! Just call ourselves "communists" and talk about how much Rush Limbaugh looks like a Greek God??? BULL!!!!!! Seriously, if people don't like a certain set of principles of a group, they should just move on, not ***** Don't use that word.


to their opponents for believing in something.

I'm sorry for ranting but this just grinds my gears.About "opening up", I think that you Trots, along with some other tendencies, have either forgotten or are not aware of some revolutionary norms. That is why we often have some people affiliated to your groups using words such as "thugs" or "murderers" to describe Maoist revolutionary cadres, and asserting that whatever you are saying is correct while those who martyr themselves here are petty-criminals.

The working class in the third-world typically identifies with this sort of attitude the behavior of white imperialists back in the colonial days when they claimed to "civilize" the "barbaric" "niggers" and "yellow-dogs" back here, "saving" them from "thugs" who dared to wage wars of liberation back then.

In places where the Maoist movements have gained pace, you will not find a single Trot who is from the working class. All of them are elites who send absolutely false reports to your international organizations. So before you guys start commenting about us basing your thoughts on their reports, think twice.

Always remember that the revolutionary norm is to uphold, and not slander, any revolutionary movement in places where your tendency has failed to take any revolutionary initiative. That is why Maoists support FARC and criticize CPC for not supporting the Trotskyist rebellion in Sri Lanka in 1971.

[BobKKKindle$]

The working class in the third-world typically identifies with this sort of attitude the behavior of white imperialists back in the colonial days

I'm so happy we have you here to tell us the thoughts of all the workers of the "third-world" :)

[Tyrlop]

I'm so happy we have you here to tell us the thoughts of all the workers of the "third-world" :)
I'm so happy we have you here to point that out, because I was not sure if it was bad or "good" :)

[Communist Theory]

We're evolving...

[Chambered Word]

About "opening up", I think that you Trots, along with some other tendencies, have either forgotten or are not aware of some revolutionary norms. That is why we often have some people affiliated to your groups using words such as "thugs" or "murderers" to describe Maoist revolutionary cadres, and asserting that whatever you are saying is correct while those who martyr themselves here are petty-criminals.

The working class in the third-world typically identifies with this sort of attitude the behavior of white imperialists back in the colonial days when they claimed to "civilize" the "barbaric" "niggers" and "yellow-dogs" back here, "saving" them from "thugs" who dared to wage wars of liberation back then.

In places where the Maoist movements have gained pace, you will not find a single Trot who is from the working class. All of them are elites who send absolutely false reports to your international organizations. So before you guys start commenting about us basing your thoughts on their reports, think twice.

Always remember that the revolutionary norm is to uphold, and not slander, any revolutionary movement in places where your tendency has failed to take any revolutionary initiative. That is why Maoists support FARC and criticize CPC for not supporting the Trotskyist rebellion in Sri Lanka in 1971.

Why does some idiot always have to turn this into a tendency war (it always seems to be against Trotskyists, too)?

The Facebook group in question is for anyone who is not a Stalinist or Jucheist. Do you really insist on arguing against strawmen and making ad hominem attacks towards people of a certain tendency?

Sorry, but this really gives me the shits.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Lol, sectarianism. Fuck different tendencies. Just be a leftist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Lol, sectarianism. Fuck different tendencies. Just be a leftist.

No, fuck you, actually. The term "tendency war" should be banned from this forum and everyone should be made to learn what the term sectarianism actually means - it does not mean criticizing other people's political ideas, it means putting the interests of your own sect or organization above the interests of the working class. Given that definition, criticizing the Maoist thugs that you and other people on this forum admire is actually the opposite of sectarianism, because a refusal to criticize forces which masquerade as leftists but fight against working-class emancipation (like Maoists) would be to obscure the real meaning of socialism and to allow these reactionary forces to maintain the illusion that they are progressive or revolutionary just for the sake of "keeping the peace" and not upsetting people - it would, in other words, be the worst form of opportunism. A central part of being a revolutionary and winning people over to your ideas is clarifying where you stand in relation to other forces which also see themselves as being part of the left and being honest about your political stances, and that means being critical - critical of our history, of other organizations, of other people's ideas - not calling for a superficial kind of left unity and condemning critical and revolutionary voices as sectarian.

[Tyrlop]

The term "tendency war" should be banned from this forum .
Agreed comrade. also other reactionary words such as: "Reactionary" should be banned, or at least it should lead to restrictions if you use such a word that indicates you as a reactionary.

[Sam_b]

Lol, sectarianism. Fuck different tendencies. Just be a leftist.

Seeing as you haven't responded to the thread in learning about definition, I'm reposting my response here because I'd love to hear your thoughts:


If we shouldn't worry about labels, why are you suggesting what is in essence a broader label? What is a leftist?

[ls]

I'm so happy we have you here to tell us the thoughts of all the workers of the "third-world" :)

And you have quite recently done the same thing too.


In places where the Maoist movements have gained pace, you will not find a single Trot who is from the working class.

Don't like defending Trots but that's idiotic. Does personally knowing a Trot, who is from the Mumbai slums count?..


Always remember that the revolutionary norm is to uphold, and not slander, any revolutionary movement in places where your tendency has failed to take any revolutionary initiative. That is why Maoists support FARC and criticize CPC for not supporting the Trotskyist rebellion in Sri Lanka in 1971.

The Trots in Sri Lanka, or rather India as I would say seeing as the entire movement was and should always be linked, ultimately became degenerated in WWII. But once again, you don't seem to fully understand your history, so do continue.

[BobKKKindle$]

And you have quite recently done the same thing too.

Where?

[ellipsis]

facebook is counter revolutionary.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Agreed comrade. also other reactionary words such as: "Reactionary" should be banned, or at least it should lead to restrictions if you use such a word that indicates you as a reactionary.

As should the term "liberal" and anything else that is used as slander.


If we shouldn't worry about labels, why are you suggesting what is in essence a broader label? What is a leftist?

To me, anybody can be leftist if they're at least Anti-Capitalist, but even more so if they advocate the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.


No, fuck you, actually.

Mind not being a prick for once?

[Sam_b]

To me, anybody can be leftist if they're at least Anti-Capitalist, but even more so if they advocate the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system

What about people who are 'leftists' within the Labour party, for example? All you're basically saying is that people should shirk political labelling, for what is, a broader label.

Also, good to see you engaged with the political points Bob mentioned.

[Guerrilla22]

It's chit chat.

[mikelepore]

what the term sectarianism actually means - it does not mean criticizing other people's political ideas, it means putting the interests of your own sect or organization above the interests of the working class

I've never heard of anyone on the left who does that. Seems to me, everyone puts the interest of the working class first, but they disagree about what actions correspond to the interests of the working class, so that the first person accuses the second person of not putting the interests of the working class first, and the second person accuses the first person of not putting the interests of the working class first.

[The Red Next Door]

At least anybody haven't called you, anti American.

[Guerrilla22]

I'd love it if someone called me "anti-American"

[Patchd]

Lol, sectarianism. Fuck different tendencies. Just be a leftist.
But that means jack shit. It doesn't even amount to an opposition of capitalism.

[Chambered Word]

No, fuck you, actually. The term "tendency war" should be banned from this forum and everyone should be made to learn what the term sectarianism actually means - it does not mean criticizing other people's political ideas, it means putting the interests of your own sect or organization above the interests of the working class.

Not really.


Sectarianism is bigotry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry), discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) or hatred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred) arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination) of a religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) or the factions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faction) of a political movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement).

And here you go on to use your own personal definition of sectarianism to have a little spat at another tendency:


Given that definition, criticizing the Maoist thugs that you and other people on this forum admire is actually the opposite of sectarianism, because a refusal to criticize forces which masquerade as leftists but fight against working-class emancipation (like Maoists) would be to obscure the real meaning of socialism and to allow these reactionary forces to maintain the illusion that they are progressive or revolutionary just for the sake of "keeping the peace" and not upsetting people - it would, in other words, be the worst form of opportunism. A central part of being a revolutionary and winning people over to your ideas is clarifying where you stand in relation to other forces which also see themselves as being part of the left and being honest about your political stances, and that means being critical - critical of our history, of other organizations, of other people's ideas - not calling for a superficial kind of left unity and condemning critical and revolutionary voices as sectarian.

Clarifying one's political stances and engaging in a proper debate has nothing to do with slandering people of other tendencies like a 5 year old (sincerest apologies are given to any 5 year olds offended by the comparison).


criticizing the Maoist thugs that you and other people on this forum admire is actually the opposite of sectarianism, because a refusal to criticize forces which masquerade as leftists but fight against working-class emancipation (like Maoists)

Give this shit a break.

[scarletghoul]

Oh god I remember stumbling upon this group. Many facepalms ensued.

[red cat]

And you have quite recently done the same thing too.



Don't like defending Trots but that's idiotic. Does personally knowing a Trot, who is from the Mumbai slums count?..



The Trots in Sri Lanka, or rather India as I would say seeing as the entire movement was and should always be linked, ultimately became degenerated in WWII. But once again, you don't seem to fully understand your history, so do continue.

The Maoist movement exists mainly in rural Maharashtra, mainly around Gadchirroli. So there might be some working-class Trots in Mumbai, although I haven't heard of any of their achievements in any place in India.

[A.R.Amistad]

To me, anybody can be leftist if they're at least Anti-Capitalist, but even more so if they advocate the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.


Judging by that definition, all the Third Positionist neo-Fascists are leftists.

[BobKKKindle$]

Seems to me, everyone puts the interest of the working class firstClearly not - every leftist party claims to fight for the interests of the working class but that doesn't mean that most of them do. A key manifestation of sectarianism is opportunism, whereby, to take one of its most prominent forms, leftist organizations enter into alliances with bourgeois forces and surrender their political independence simply for the sake of increasing the size of their membership and raising their public profile. That's sectarianism, because it's sacrificing the interests of the working class in the interests of enhancing the power of your organization, and it's something that many parties on the left do.


Not really.Guess what! Words have different meanings in different contexts, and leftists sometimes don't share the same definitions as non-leftist sources like Wikipedia! Who would have thought? In a leftist context, sectarianism means exactly what I said - putting the interests of one's sect or organization above the interests of the working class. Obviously this isn't a definition you'll find if you open up a dictionary because there's no reason for a general definition to be centered around the working class, in the same way that a dictionary definition of the state won't say anything about the state being an organ of class rule, or a characteristic of certain epochs of history.


slandering people of other tendenciesThere's no slander, Maoists are counter-revolutionary thugs, whose parties and governments have frequently suppressed the struggles of working people.


To me, anybody can be leftist if they're at least Anti-CapitalistA quick look at the manifesto would do you some good, there's an entire section devoted to "feudal socialism", which, as the name suggests, is related to members and supporters of the feudal aristocracy who wanted to prevent capitalist development and return to a previous mode of production, feudalism, because of the way the rise of capitalism was threatening their own class interests. What distinguishes Marxism from these and other brands of "socialism" is that Marx was aware of capitalism's historically progressive role, amongst other things.

That's one of the main reasons the label "anti-capitalist" is insufficient - it's devoid of any materialist conception of history.

And no, I won't stop being a prick.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Don't use that word.
About "opening up", I think that you Trots, along with some other tendencies, have either forgotten or are not aware of some revolutionary norms. That is why we often have some people affiliated to your groups using words such as "thugs" or "murderers" to describe Maoist revolutionary cadres, and asserting that whatever you are saying is correct...
To be fair, everyone asserts that what they're saying is correct. No-one is going to assert that what they're saying is nonsense.


In places where the Maoist movements have gained pace, you will not find a single Trot who is from the working class.
Considering how keen Stalinists are on bumping Trots off, that's no surprise. It got a lot harder to find Vietnamese Trots after the Vietminh killed them (http://www.revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/rh0302/ttt.html), f'r instance.

No, fuck you, actually. The term "tendency war" should be banned from this forum and everyone should be made to learn what the term sectarianism actually means - it does not mean criticizing other people's political ideas, it means putting the interests of your own sect or organization above the interests of the working class. Given that definition, criticizing the Maoist thugs that you and other people on this forum admire is actually the opposite of sectarianism, because a refusal to criticize forces which masquerade as leftists but fight against working-class emancipation (like Maoists) would be to obscure the real meaning of socialism and to allow these reactionary forces to maintain the illusion that they are progressive or revolutionary just for the sake of "keeping the peace" and not upsetting people - it would, in other words, be the worst form of opportunism. A central part of being a revolutionary and winning people over to your ideas is clarifying where you stand in relation to other forces which also see themselves as being part of the left and being honest about your political stances, and that means being critical - critical of our history, of other organizations, of other people's ideas - not calling for a superficial kind of left unity and condemning critical and revolutionary voices as sectarian.
Kindles is pretty much spot on here. Even though I'd extend his definition of reactionary forces to include his org. ;)

[Raúl Duke]

Kindles is pretty much spot on here. Even though I'd extend his definition of reactionary forces to include his org. ;)


Other posts

Let's get this sectarianism started!!!!!!!!!! :D:w00t::D

:p

[mikelepore]

Clearly not - every leftist party claims to fight for the interests of the working class but that doesn't mean that most of them do. A key manifestation of sectarianism is opportunism, whereby, to take one of its most prominent forms, leftist organizations enter into alliances with bourgeois forces and surrender their political independence simply for the sake of increasing the size of their membership and raising their public profile. That's sectarianism, because it's sacrificing the interests of the working class in the interests of enhancing the power of your organization, and it's something that many parties on the left do.

I assume they sincerely believe that increasing the size and power of the their organization IS the thing that best promotes the interests of the working class, and they believe that their opportunism is necessary. Therefore, I don't have any label for them except to say that I consider their program to be all wrong.

My use of the word "sectarianism" is different from yours. To me it means the tendency to form a distinct group through overly specific definition, that is, to say you're on the true path only if you agree with all of these 200 concepts -- you say you believe in 199 of them but you disagree with one? -- then you're not a "genuine" whatever, you're "part of the problem" just like all the rest. When people say that, that's being sectarian. If it were not for that behavior, we wouldn't have the present situation where the left is divided into hundreds of groups, each of which says we are the one and only true whatever.

[Chambered Word]

Clearly not - every leftist party claims to fight for the interests of the working class but that doesn't mean that most of them do. A key manifestation of sectarianism is opportunism, whereby, to take one of its most prominent forms, leftist organizations enter into alliances with bourgeois forces and surrender their political independence simply for the sake of increasing the size of their membership and raising their public profile. That's sectarianism, because it's sacrificing the interests of the working class in the interests of enhancing the power of your organization, and it's something that many parties on the left do.

Fair enough.


Guess what! Words have different meanings in different contexts, and leftists sometimes don't share the same definitions as non-leftist sources like Wikipedia! Who would have thought? In a leftist context, sectarianism means exactly what I said - putting the interests of one's sect or organization above the interests of the working class. Obviously this isn't a definition you'll find if you open up a dictionary because there's no reason for a general definition to be centered around the working class, in the same way that a dictionary definition of the state won't say anything about the state being an organ of class rule, or a characteristic of certain epochs of history.

I've seen it used alot in a 'leftist context' on RevLeft, although it may indeed mean something different in real life when relating to revolutionary organizations. I am talking about the forum here.


There's no slander, Maoists are counter-revolutionary thugs, whose parties and governments have frequently suppressed the struggles of working people.

A quick look at the manifesto would do you some good, there's an entire section devoted to "feudal socialism", which, as the name suggests, is related to members and supporters of the feudal aristocracy who wanted to prevent capitalist development and return to a previous mode of production, feudalism, because of the way the rise of capitalism was threatening their own class interests. What distinguishes Marxism from these and other brands of "socialism" is that Marx was aware of capitalism's historically progressive role, amongst other things.

For the record I find Mao and authoritarian communist ideas repulsive in general, but I don't see why we have to start insulting eachother over different tendencies all the fucking time at the drop of a hat, in the manner that red cat did on page 1. I don't give a flying fuckeater how much you detest 'Trots' mate, go and tell somebody who cares. :rolleyes:


That's one of the main reasons the label "anti-capitalist" is insufficient - it's devoid of any materialist conception of history.

True.


And no, I won't stop being a prick.

:crying:

[Robocommie]

facebook is counter revolutionary.

Having a FACE is counter-revolutionary. We must reject the cult of the individual identity and it's focus on the ego!

[Kléber]

TROTS!

:lol:

[Black Sheep]

Your sectarian thread has no place here.