The greatest internal threats to our movement?

[Comrade Akai]

Comrades, it is no news that our movement is very divided on numerous issues. What would you say the biggest threats to our movement are?

The way I see it, there's one thing that is a massive threat to the socialist movement. Sectarianism. Often, we shun other leftists because they like Trotsky, or because they're feminists, or because they consider themselves anarchists, or whatever. This needs to stop. We all want the same thing in the end, so let's work together for our common goal. Let's stop *****ing at each other for our minor differences in ideology.

Any other ideas, guys and gals? Let's bring these issues out in the open.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I agree, but this should be in Theory.

[Comrade Akai]

^^^I agree, but this should be in Theory.

Gotcha, my bad. Can a mod move it?

[AK]

What? Some leftists oppose feminism...?

[Dean]

Moved to Theory. 03-30-10 Dean

[RadioRaheem84]

Agreed. A coalition of Carlists, Falangists, Monarchists, Industrialists and Right Wingers took down the Spanish Republic. Our fault, (which is a very good thing so not really a fault), is that we're independent thinkers and will run from what we think will lead the working class astray. The Spanish Republic fell because of sectarian power grabs and an inability to work together to fight against Fascism.

These new right wing movements have united theocrats, right libertarians, paleo-cons, neo-cons and right wing democrats against a liberal government. The right is too united because of their one track robotic mindset. I am not saying we need to mimic them in that regard but we do need a popular front against the rising tide of right wing extremism in the US.

[Comrade Akai]

What? Some leftists oppose feminism...?

Surprisingly, yes, some do.


Agreed. A coalition of Carlists, Falangists, Monarchists, Industrialists and Right Wingers took down the Spanish Republic. Our fault, (which is a very good thing so not really a fault), is that we're independent thinkers and will run from what we think will lead the working class astray. The Spanish Republic fell because of sectarian power grabs and an inability to work together to fight against Fascism.

These new right wing movements have united theocrats, right libertarians, paleo-cons, neo-cons and right wing democrats against a liberal government. The right is too united because of their one track robotic mindset. I am not saying we need to mimic them in that regard but we do need a popular front against the rising tide of right wing extremism in the US.

We very much do need a popular front. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing which type of leftist ideology you like best, as long as there's no forcing it on others, shunning others because of their specific ideology, etc.

We just need one big red flag to fly under.

[AK]

Hmm I made a similar thread to this over a week ago.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t130992/index.html?t=130992

[Kléber]

I agree that sectarianism is a huge issue and when leftists kill each other, the revolution is falling apart. But we need a united front of workers, not a "popular" front where we give up our political independence to liberal capitalists. The Comintern policy of "Popular Front" (1934-1939) meant crushing workers' power to make the British and French imperialists happy. It was an abandonment of the world revolution. The Spanish Republic was doomed because Morocco could not be liberated so as not to piss off the French, and the Catalonian workers had to be put down to ensure the Republic's international bourgeois respectability; the demoralization this wrought upon the Moroccan and Spanish proletarian masses allowed the Nationalists to triumph.

[Comrade Akai]

I also think hippies are a serious problem. No, I really am serious about this. Hippies have pretty much the same political ideas as us, but they sit around and do nothing. We need to get these hippies active. If the hippies are active our movement will be stronger.

[anticap]

I poured forth ~1,000 words of candid opinion, lashing out in every direction, before I realized that nobody would hear what I was actually saying, and that I'd only manage to get restricted to OI for my trouble. So fuck it. :)

Simply put, the greatest threat to "our movement" is that there isn't one, because every last one of us is a worthless piece of shit. :)

[which doctor]

Hippies have pretty much the same political ideas as us, but they sit around and do nothing. We need to get these hippies active. If the hippies are active our movement will be stronger.
Hippies don't have political ideas. They're just...hippies.

[AK]

Hippies have very similar ideas to us: get out of Iraq, get stoned instead...

[Muzk]

Hippies have very similar ideas to us: get out of Iraq, get stoned instead...

There's a problem since the hippies aren't in Iraq.

and they get stoned nevertheless.

[AK]

There's a problem since the hippies aren't in Iraq.

and they get stoned nevertheless.
I meant like they're telling the army to get out.

[¿Que?]

A lot of the hippies I run into are actually Ron Paul libertarians. I think RadioRaheem84 has a thread that discusses this topic. Peace!

[MarxSchmarx]

Sectarianism has been a disaster in the past, but in this day and age it is symptom, and not a cause, of our impotence.

If our only goals were to persuade people that (1) capitalism sucks (what most already know), and (2) a stateless, classless society is desirable and feasible, then the current sectarian divides are indeed a ridiculous duplication of effort.

The real problem is that we do not have a gripping way to explain this message to a large segment of the population yet. As such, only a few dedicated cadre will be drawn to the movement, and these people, perhaps by disposition, are more inclined to be ideological purists. Sectarianism flourishes in those environments, and until the appeal to a broader demographic is made, it will continue to persist.

Moreove, I am not convinced that getting rid of sectarianism will solve our lack of appeal to the larger population. Take the Trotskyist movement. In my country, even if we put together all the trot sects from all their internationals, we'd have MAYBE 5000 people - probably more like 1000 if you get to the people that actually go to meetings and stuff. Now that's a start, to be sure, but it's about the size of a tiny mountain hamlet. Whether these people bicker among themselves about a degenerated workers state versus state capitalism is really of no consequence. Add in the Maoists and the anarchists and the rest of them and you're up to maybe 20000.

The consequences of sectarian disagreements are so minor, the odds against capitalism apparently so daunting, that people in practice have little incentive to swallow their pride and tow any given party line. And this goes back to the problem of retaining people's convictions.

Moreover,the goal of a political organization is not just persuasion. It is also implementation. And this is what critiques of sectarianism in the modern movement often ignore.

At the risk of sounding sectarian, I don't see why, say, those that more or less want to re-enact the Bolshevik revolution and its methods have much to learn from or gain from anarchists who lack a very coherent plan of how we get from our present state of affairs to a stateless society, and vice versa. Of course both agree on the critique of capitalism largely, and in terms of the final objective.

The disagreements that lead to sectarianism in our movement today are primarily ones of tactics. We can afford to disagree over somewhat arcane points in large part because we have no broad appeal. Sectarianism does not help to persuade those that are not already convinced, and it does to a large extent waste a lot of time in our movement. But I do think that hardly any of the myriad of sects right now have a particularly viable vision for social change (at least in the global north) and until this is
addressed, sectarianism is here to stay.

[Ben Seattle]

Cartoons (below) about the sectarian
and reformist diseases are from
Politics as Usual: A Cartoon Guide to the Left in Seattle (http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon.htm)

http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon/6.jpg

http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon/5.jpg

[which doctor]

I meant like they're telling the army to get out.
Yes, but they usually do so for much different reasons than socialists.

[OldMoney]

Are we talkin about the internal obstacles within the left, or are we also looking at external obstacles too. One of the main internal obstacles I see is the conscience of people on the left. Where the bourgeois are willing to goto extremes to do whatever it takes to keep people oppressed, it seems that the left are too good for thier own good, and are not willing to seize the means of production if it means doing things a little underhandedley. We need to fight dirtier. Then theres a whole slew of external obstacles to our strugle. Things like the imperialist controled Media and education are 2 of the hugest hinderances I see.

[Q]

Moreove, I am not convinced that getting rid of sectarianism will solve our lack of appeal to the larger population. Take the Trotskyist movement. In my country, even if we put together all the trot sects from all their internationals, we'd have MAYBE 5000 people - probably more like 1000 if you get to the people that actually go to meetings and stuff. Now that's a start, to be sure, but it's about the size of a tiny mountain hamlet. Whether these people bicker among themselves about a degenerated workers state versus state capitalism is really of no consequence. Add in the Maoists and the anarchists and the rest of them and you're up to maybe 20000.
I think that this is a wrong piece of analysis. One of the reasons why the far left stays so small is because of the high turnover caused by disillusionment, burn outs, etc. Sectarianism plays a big part in this. If the far left was actually more or less united around an action programme, then it has a very good chance to not only appeal to those hundreds of thousands that have been in this or that far left organisation in the past, but also to the less politically developed worker.

Said differently: uniting the far left isn't simply adding up membership numbers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I see sectarianism more as a symptom of stagnation in the left, not the cause of it. Sectarianism generally comes from being isolated and not being able or interested in testing out strategy and theory in practice. So sectarian logic goes: "the left isn't growing, but we have great ideas that make sense - if only everyone else would adopt X programme or theory or tactic, then we could REALLY get some things done!"

The groups with the most sectarian reputations tend to be the ones who are least involved in day-to-day struggle with as of yet non-radical workers: so they call for general strikes (or even soviets - yes, I am thinking of a specific group here) while not having a base to actually do anything. So if workers are not taking up their perfectly worded programme, then it must be the fault of all the other groups!

When the left is growing, however, then politics can be tested. So, as comrade Q said above, the best thing for groups to do to counter sectarianism subjectively is by concentrating on concrete shared goals.

[Dimentio]

Agreed. A coalition of Carlists, Falangists, Monarchists, Industrialists and Right Wingers took down the Spanish Republic. Our fault, (which is a very good thing so not really a fault), is that we're independent thinkers and will run from what we think will lead the working class astray. The Spanish Republic fell because of sectarian power grabs and an inability to work together to fight against Fascism.

These new right wing movements have united theocrats, right libertarians, paleo-cons, neo-cons and right wing democrats against a liberal government. The right is too united because of their one track robotic mindset. I am not saying we need to mimic them in that regard but we do need a popular front against the rising tide of right wing extremism in the US.

The reason for right-wing unity is that its much easier for them to find common ground since they are basically opposed to things.

[Q]

The reason for right-wing unity is that its much easier for them to find common ground since they are basically opposed to things.

Then, with that logic, why isn't the left united? We are all against capitalism and for workers organisation, why can't we unite around these themes?

[Raúl Duke]

I agree that sectarianism is a huge issue and when leftists kill each other, the revolution is falling apart. But we need a united front of workers, not a "popular" front where we give up our political independence to liberal capitalists. The Comintern policy of "Popular Front" (1934-1939) meant crushing workers' power to make the British and French imperialists happy. It was an abandonment of the world revolution. The Spanish Republic was doomed because Morocco could not be liberated so as not to piss off the French, and the Catalonian workers had to be put down to ensure the Republic's international bourgeois respectability; the demoralization this wrought upon the Moroccan and Spanish proletarian masses allowed the Nationalists to triumph.

I agree, I wouldn't mind uniting with most other anti-capitalists (not the MIM, RCP, etc. But Kasama Maoists, most Trots (CWI seem ok, not sure about IMT), members of the SPUSA and PSL, certain kinds of Leninists, and especially with Left-Communists) on things where our interests align (although I would be weary, especially in a revolutionary situation, but more-a-less open to some form of unity or at least an agreement not to focus much/solely on sectarianism against one another more than fighting the enemy).

Perhaps I'm not really asking for a formal "united left front" but more as attempt to co-operate together on things we could all agree with.

[Comrade Akai]

Then, with that logic, why isn't the left united? We are all against capitalism and for workers organisation, why can't we unite around these themes?

We are bound by ideals and a vision for the future, not by money as the right is. Many of us disagree on how to achieve this future, and there is much misconception and confusion among the leftist ideological platform. Take Stalinism, for instance. Some are for it, some are against it, but it's hard to define at times what Stalinism actually means.

[RadioRaheem84]

Then, with that logic, why isn't the left united? We are all against capitalism and for workers organisation, why can't we unite around these themes?

Easier said than done. Since we're not motivated by financial gain or ideas of becoming super wealthy or promoting a system that will achieve that for us, we tend to be protective of the working class by promoting the best way for them to be the freest and most productive. How can an anarchist share the same vision as a Marxist Leninist really? I mean the whole fight against capitalism is to set up a free world not switch rulers.

I think at the core we all want freedom from the ruling class but just have different methods to get there. I think the best way might be to unite in a popular front, and promote a Republican style government like the Spanish Republic but this time without the liberals or social democrats. One that has a diverse set of ideas all bound to serve an anti-capitalist cause.

[Q]

Easier said than done. Since we're not motivated by financial gain or ideas of becoming super wealthy or promoting a system that will achieve that for us, we tend to be protective of the working class by promoting the best way for them to be the freest and most productive. How can an anarchist share the same vision as a Marxist Leninist really? I mean the whole fight against capitalism is to set up a free world not switch rulers.

I think at the core we all want freedom from the ruling class but just have different methods to get there. I think the best way might be to unite in a popular front, and promote a Republican style government like the Spanish Republic but this time without the liberals or social democrats. One that has a diverse set of ideas all bound to serve an anti-capitalist cause.

That's a united front then, be it that those are around specific issues. If you want a united platform of action on a semi-permanent basis, I think you basically have a proto-party in the making. Such a platform/party has to be based on the principle that unity can only exist in diversity. As soon as one opinion is enforced, as political debate becomes more and more sterile, as soon as open and transparent discussion ceases, then the chances of a split and of marginalisation increases.

And yes, I'm rather optimistic that Marxists-Leninists and Anarchists can unite on a common platform of action. All we need is a desire to actually do so and someone willing to do the first step.