Sectarianism:

[Invincible Summer]

I've been taking a sociology of social movements class and have been thinking about the concepts in relation to communist activism. Generally speaking though, our texts do not specifically address communism so I'm just extrapolating.

The fact that communists tend to form groups that see themselves as "more true" to communism than other groups (ideological purity) is problematic. By excluding those that may be sympathetic to communism but not directly to the aspects of a tendency, we lose our ties to the outside world. The pressures to conform ideologically to an organization or party further exacerbate this exclusivity.
When we become highly exclusive and lose our connection to others, we tend to see "others" as incompatible and possibly even as "the enemy." While the ruling capitalist class is our enemy, we can't fall into the trap of only seeking individuals who are "real proletarians," or hardliners.

So the underlying problem here is sectarianism, pretty much. Why can't the SWP and the Spartacist League, for example, just become one larger group? Creating more solidarity within the radical left (other than the larger goal) is needed before creating solidarity with the working class. How can the working classes identify with our ideals if there are 500000 diff variations on a theme?

I think making use of the "strength of weak ties" can be beneficial; by being more inclusive in group/organization membership, we allow a greater variety of social groups in, which in turn allows us to reach more social groups. Acquaintances move in groups that differ much more than the groups of our close comrades.
I also know that many organizations do take actions w/ other non-communist yet pseudo-leftist organizations, which I think is a good thing. But it needs to evolve into something deeper than co-existing and partnership.
I think perhaps a form of the "Mass Line" concept would be in order: taking the issues of various social groups (not just the proletariat, but perhaps also the petty-bourgeoisie, lumpen, etc because revolutionaries can come from all class backgrounds) and apply revolutionary ideas to them in order to show a greater portion of the population that radical communism can address their problems.
I know this may lead down the path of "class collaborationism" or whatever you want to call it, but I'm sure there's a way to do this without compromising our goals.


I know I'm not saying anything new or radical, but I was wondering what your thoughts were.

[sanpal]

Why the word "sectarianism" shouldn't be given the respective meaning: "crisis in the left theory". Crisis because no one of the sectarianists did any offer to discuss an unutopian model of the transition period from capitalist society to communist society, model which could dialectically unify all different parts of the class society of the period of DotP.
Many times in Revleft I've offered to examine such model of the "multi-sector economy" and the "proletarian class parliament" of the Proletarian State after revolution but unfortunately in eyes of other "sectarians"
I was not more than a "sectarian". Though if to look carefully every "sect" could find the sphere for their applications: Anarchists - in communist sector (the "stateless moneyless self-management" part of the society), Socialists (market socialists), sindicalists, petty-bourgeoisie, middle bourgeoisie, proletariat as an adherent of wage labour, etc. - in State-capitalist and traditional bourgeois sectors, and so on. The diagramme of the transition period was shown here (http://struggle.net/images/perehodKapKom-English.GIF). Maybe it is way out from crisis of the left theory?

[Niccolò Rossi]

This is an interesting topic and I'd like to thank Rise Like Lions for posting this. These thoughts are common to most all people new to revolutionary political activity. I'm not sure how well I can articulate the issue in writing, but I will try.


The fact that communists tend to form groups that see themselves as "more true" to communism than other groups (ideological purity) is problematic.

Firstly I don't think this is an accurate description of reality at all. The division of revolutionaries aswell as 'the left' into different political groupings really has nothing to do with being 'more true' or preserving 'ideologically purity'. These positions are absurd caricatures which are either the product of ignorance or the political agenda of slander and misinformation from the supporters of baseless 'leftist unity'.

A political organisation is a group of people organised around a political platform, that is, a common set of principles or positions. The fact that different political organisations exist in society tells us that different groups of people happen to hold different political positions and hence organise themselves on this basis. This applies equally to groups on 'the left' as it does between the 'left' and 'right' wings of the political spectrum.

To criticise 'ideological purity', in the final analysis, means to criticise the political independance of the working class, after all, to form a seperate group apart from fascists, conservatives, liberals, social democrats or individuals of any other political stripe means to defend 'ideological purity' - something which you call 'problematic'.


By excluding those that may be sympathetic to communism but not directly to the aspects of a tendency, we lose our ties to the outside world. The pressures to conform ideologically to an organization or party further exacerbate this exclusivity.
When we become highly exclusive and lose our connection to others, we tend to see "others" as incompatible and possibly even as "the enemy." While the ruling capitalist class is our enemy, we can't fall into the trap of only seeking individuals who are "real proletarians," or hardliners.There are a number of problems here.

Before I go on, I should note, I respond to these points from the perspective of the Communist Left since I believe this is who Rise Like Lions is directing them against.

Firstly, you confuse excluding sympathisers from membership of an organisation, that is, from the status of political militants, with excluding them from all activity in the abstract. A sympathiser of an organisation is not merely someone who 'sort of agrees' with an organisations platform. To be an active sympathiser means to establish regular and fraternal contact with an organisation, contribute financially, subscribe to the press, contribute to the press where possible, attend and participate in public meetings, demonstrations, strikes, etc. This is certainly not excluding anybody in my opinion.

Secondly, you go on to assert that 'excluding sympathisers' leads to 'los our ties to the outside world'. This is simply untrue. Militants do still live in the real world.

Finally, you add your own dash of ameatur psychology of revolutionary organisations and predict that this can only lead to a fortress mentality. Whilst such mentalities do still manifest themselves and have existed in the past, this has nothing to do with the division between militants and sympathisers.


Creating more solidarity within the communist left (other than the larger goal) is needed before creating solidarity with the working class. How can the working classes identify with our ideals if there are 500000 diff variations on a theme?I think the issue here has its roots in a failure to understand the relationship between party and class. This question underpins the whole matter of sectarianism and has to be understood before we can engage in the latter in a proper way.

Revolution is not created by the party, whether operating as conspiratorial blanquists or as a mass organisation encompassing the entire class. With the exception of the Bordigists and Councilists, the Communist Left recognises the need for the formation of an international, centralised communist party, and more than this, that this party does not exist in the present nor can it be brought about voluntaristically by declaring it's formation.

The task of bringing into existance such a party can not be solved by left communists apart from the working class as a whole. Thus, the task of
"creating more solidarity within the communist left" can not possibly preceed the task of intervention in the workers' movement. To say that we must first examine our own political problems and then deal with the realities of the class struggle represents the worst possible caricature of 'exclusivity' and alienation from the real world which you warn left communists against.


I think perhaps a form of the "Mass Line" concept would be in order: taking the issues of various social groups (not [I]just the proletariat, but perhaps also the petty-bourgeoisie, lumpen, etc because revolutionaries can come from all class backgrounds) and apply revolutionary ideas to them in order to show a greater portion of the population that radical communism can address their problems.
I know this may lead down the path of "class collaborationism" or whatever you want to call it, but I'm sure there's a way to do this without compromising our goals.As you note, this notion drawn from Maoism is highly problematic as it sees revolution as being the product of correct ideas or the application of correct ideas, in other words, revolution is a propoganda war. This rejects the very core of Marxism - class struggle. Contrary to the peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletarian layers, the proletariat is the only fundamentally revolutionary class in modern capitalism.

It is the proletariats character qua revolutionary class which makes revolution a possibility, not the susceptibility of 'the masses' to revolutionary ideas.

I hope what I've said is coherent. I realise that it is incomplete.

[sanpal]

You correctly think, that it is necessary to go based on interests (ideology) of the working class. But ideologies of the working class are non-uniform. The most part of the working class from theirs own experience gravitates to trade-commodity relations, to market, to "fair" wages, etc. (they are most clear or usual for the working class), . and the working class spontaneously tries to make the "working" socialism from these relations and therefore they gravitates to a state models of the proletarian socialism because they believe in the proletarian state as defender. This is a spontaneous working socialism which has not grown yet to understanding that the valid emancipation of the working class could be carried out only in a commune where classes and trade-commodity relations are destroyed. But it is difficult to understand this concept not only by the workers, but also by the people who believe that only they give the correct theory to workers, i.e. by the proletarian intellectuals. These proletarian intellectuals single out from viewpoint of the working class only that which is quite clear for them (for intellectuals) and in a result of it the "sects" are occured. Each "sect" absolutizes the knowledge they have and does not take into account that the rational grain is contained at other "sects" as well. Synthesis of all rational grains is necessary, what I have tried to make, having placed model of the transition period. Here it is taken into account, firstly: that that part of the working class who is not ready to adopt the idea of communism remain in the trade-commodity (market) system, and secondly: that part of the working class who is ready to practise communism (non-market relations) voluntarily and with consciousness will go to self-management in a commune

[9]

Great response, NR, and I think most of what you said can be applied across the board, but I wanted to point out:



Before I go on, I should note, I respond to these points from the perspective of the Communist Left since I believe this is who Rise Like Lions is directing them against.


I'm not sure that this is the case. He uses the term 'communist left', but I think he might actually just mean the left broadly or communists in general. I could be wrong. But judging from the use of the Spartacists and the SWP as examples, I think probably he is not simply referring to left communists.

[Invincible Summer]

I will respond more later when I have time, but I just wanted to clarify that I was not directing my comments against Left Communism. That would be pretty ironic.

By "communist left" I meant leftists who are communists, not left-liberals or whatever other members of the left there are.

[el_chavista]

I think "sectarianism" doesn't refer to the fact that communists want to organize the proletariat in a distinctive political party. The crisis in the theory is our inability to do so.
Then sectarianism is insisting in limiting ourselves to or stick with an organization that seems to be unable to merge with the masses and direct its political action from within the working class.

[Invincible Summer]

Firstly I don't think this is an accurate description of reality at all. The division of revolutionaries aswell as 'the left' into different political groupings really has nothing to do with being 'more true' or preserving 'ideologically purity'. These positions are absurd caricatures which are either the product of ignorance or the political agenda of slander and misinformation from the supporters of baseless 'leftist unity'.


A political organisation is a group of people organised around a political platform, that is, a common set of principles or positions. The fact that different political organisations exist in society tells us that different groups of people happen to hold different political positions and hence organise themselves on this basis. This applies equally to groups on 'the left' as it does between the 'left' and 'right' wings of the political spectrum.

But the reason why there are different organizations and platforms must be because people feel there are "problems" with other platforms and form a separate organization.

If my statement wasn't even close to being accurate, why is there always debate on how "effective" group X's actions are, the splitting off from larger parties to form splinter groups, the efficacy of tendency X, etc?



To criticise 'ideological purity', in the final analysis, means to criticise the political independance of the working class, after all, to form a seperate group apart from fascists, conservatives, liberals, social democrats or individuals of any other political stripe means to defend 'ideological purity' - something which you call 'problematic'.
I'm talking more specifically about revolutionary communist organizations/parties, but I see what you're saying.

Of course the working class should have the independence to form their own groups apart from the ones you've mentioned, but there comes a point when breaking cohesive groups apart for the sake of satisfying sects is counter-productive to the overall movement. I'm not saying there should never be group splintering, but there really is a limit to how much it should occur.

I think this is especially an issue within the radical left, which is why I brought it up in the first place.


There are a number of problems here.

Before I go on, I should note, I respond to these points from the perspective of the Communist Left since I believe this is who Rise Like Lions is directing them against.

I've edited my original post and made a post earlier clarifying that I was not targeting Left Communism. I was using the term "communist left" as a phrase to refer to revolutionary leftists, as opposed to social democrats, etc, simply because I believe this issue is more prevalent and relevant for us.


Firstly, you confuse excluding sympathisers from membership of an organisation, that is, from the status of political militants, with excluding them from all activity in the abstract. A sympathiser of an organisation is not merely someone who 'sort of agrees' with an organisations platform. To be an active sympathiser means to establish regular and fraternal contact with an organisation, contribute financially, subscribe to the press, contribute to the press where possible, attend and participate in public meetings, demonstrations, strikes, etc. This is certainly not excluding anybody in my opinion.
We are both proposing different definitions of the term "sympathizer." I believe that the definition I put forth is perhaps more layman, but is valid. There comes a point when one is involved w/ an organization that one has to commit further - one cannot remain within a Leninist group without eventually being pressured to become more of a Leninist.

My point is that there are most likely many leftists and non-political members of society (working class and otherwise) that may be very interested in furthering socialism/communism, but are turned off by the very specific sect nature of an organization. For example, they may not necessarily want to identify as a Trotskyist, but the only organizations that are active are openly Trotskyist.



Secondly, you go on to assert that 'excluding sympathisers' leads to 'los our ties to the outside world'. This is simply untrue. Militants do still live in the real world.
I'm not saying that militants become isolated loners who only talk amongst themselves. What I refer to is losing connections to social groups which one may not be a part of or necessarily have access to. These sorts of connections may be beneficial in the long run.


Finally, you add your own dash of ameatur psychology of revolutionary organisations and predict that this can only lead to a fortress mentality. Whilst such mentalities do still manifest themselves and have existed in the past, this has nothing to do with the division between militants and sympathisers.
I'm not psychologist, so yes it is "amateur," but I'm not trying to be a psychologist. I'm just making inferences based on the various research and theoretical papers I've read in order to better understand this phenomenon/problem.

I do admit that I'm talking about more extreme cases of exclusivity, but I still think it's relevant.


I think the issue here has its roots in a failure to understand the relationship between party and class. This question underpins the whole matter of sectarianism and has to be understood before we can engage in the latter in a proper way.

Revolution is not created by the party, whether operating as conspiratorial blanquists or as a mass organisation encompassing the entire class. With the exception of the Bordigists and Councilists, the Communist Left recognises the need for the formation of an international, centralised communist party, and more than this, that this party does not exist in the present nor can it be brought about voluntaristically by declaring it's formation.

The task of bringing into existance such a party can not be solved by left communists apart from the working class as a whole. Thus, the task of
"creating more solidarity within the communist left" can not possibly preceed the task of intervention in the workers' movement. To say that we must first examine our own political problems and then deal with the realities of the class struggle represents the worst possible caricature of 'exclusivity' and alienation from the real world which you warn left communists against.
I'm not sure if this part of your response still applies, since it focuses on Left Communism, which I clarified was not my target.

And while I do agree that solidarity and intervention within the working class cannot be mutually exclusive, I think that the revolutionary left does need more solidarity to make bigger gains. While you're right, it shouldn't precede intervention in the worker's movement, it definitely has to be a prominent task, albeit a difficult one.



As you note, this notion drawn from Maoism is highly problematic as it sees revolution as being the product of correct ideas or the application of correct ideas, in other words, revolution is a propoganda war. This rejects the very core of Marxism - class struggle. Contrary to the peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletarian layers, the proletariat is the only [I]fundamentally revolutionary class in modern capitalism.

It is the proletariats character qua revolutionary class which makes revolution a possibility, not the susceptibility of 'the masses' to revolutionary ideas.

Revolution is largely a battle of ideas. The actual action that takes place can only be carried out once the ideas are accepted. A "propaganda war" (as you call it) and class struggle aren't mutually exclusive.

This may not be orthodox Maoism/Marxism/anyism (and perhaps even a misunderstanding of the term as I am still learning), but I take the concept of the Mass Line to be part of class struggle - in essence, it is a tool to bring about class struggle and class consciousness.

And although Maoism traditionally focuses on the peasantry, I don't see why a Mass Line concept can't be applied to the modern proletariat.

[sanpal]

Иван Крылов


ЛЕБЕДЬ, ЩУКА И РАК


Когда в товарищах согласья нет,
На лад их дело не пойдет,
И выйдет из него не дело, только мука.
_________

Однажды Лебедь, Рак, да Щука
Везти с поклажей воз взялись,
И вместе трое все в него впряглись;
Из кожи лезут вон, а возу все нет ходу!
Поклажа бы для них казалась и легка:
Да Лебедь рвется в облака,
Рак пятится назад, а Щука тянет в воду.
Кто виноват из них, кто прав, - судить не нам;
Да только воз и ныне там.


<1814>







============================================


Ivan Krylov (russian fabulist).


The SWAN, the PIKE And the CANCER



When among comrades there is no co-ordination,
Their business will not go successfully
And not business will be carried out from it but only a torment.
_________________________


Once the Swan, the Cancer and the Pike
Have undertaken to carry a cart with load,
And all three together were put to it;
They are going all out; but the cart is not moved to a course!
The load for them would seem is easy:
But the Swan rise up towards clouds,
The Cancer moves back, and the Pike draws to water.
Who is guilty from them who is right, - to judge not to us;
But only a cart until now there.


<1814>


PS: I beg you to forgive me nonprofessional translation.

[Tzadikim]

I myself am a big proponent of extending the "One Big Union" concept a bit further, and demanding "One Big Movement".

I may be a political anti-authoritarian first, and an economical anti-authoritarian secondly -- but this does not mean that I am disinclined from working with the most militant Stalinist where our goals converge. And our goals, in their broadest gestures - a classless society - are the same. I do not expect such an alliance to hold in a post-revolutionary world, but, why, that's what makes me a republican as well as a socialist: we must work out our differences after we succeed.

[Invincible Summer]

I myself am a big proponent of extending the "One Big Union" concept a bit further, and demanding "One Big Movement".

I may be a political anti-authoritarian first, and an economical anti-authoritarian secondly -- but this does not mean that I am disinclined from working with the most militant Stalinist where our goals converge. And our goals, in their broadest gestures - a classless society - are the same. I do not expect such an alliance to hold in a post-revolutionary world, but, why, that's what makes me a republican as well as a socialist: we must work out our differences after we succeed.

Fair enough. But then comes the question: how do we succeed if we all have different visions of what "success" is?