US Parties

[Qayin]

Heres what I don't get this is coming from an anarchist.

Whats the point of all the Vanguard Parties?
Why cant they all just combine and form a massive single CP and be part of ONE International? Isnt that what Marxism-Leninism is about?

I don't understand all the sectarianism its only hurting revolutionary consciousness. How many Socialist parties exist in the US alone that form any true opposition? I mean to be a "radical" in the US its like voting for progressive Dems or Nader. Cant all the parties just get together and stand in opposition in the Imperialist state,or does Stalin vs Trotsky mean that much?

[The Douche]

Heres what I don't get this is coming from an anarchist.

Whats the point of all the Vanguard Parties?
Why cant they all just combine and form a massive single CP and be part of ONE International? Isnt that what Marxism-Leninism is about?

I don't understand all the sectarianism its only hurting revolutionary consciousness. How many Socialist parties exist in the US alone that form any true opposition? I mean to be a "radical" in the US its like voting for progressive Dems or Nader. Cant all the parties just get together and stand in opposition in the Imperialist state,or does Stalin vs Trotsky mean that much?

It isn't a difference of "which leader you follow" there are very distinct differences in the ideology/tactics/strategy of the various groups.

[ZombieGrits]

there are very distinct differences in the ideology/tactics/strategy of the various groups.

Horseshit. It's not like all the tactics/strategy can't work at once, the M-Ls will work with industrial laborers and the Maoists will work with agricultural laborers and whoever the hell wants to will work with students. And they're all Leninists at their core, so what the hell are they waiting for? This is why I hate being a communist, is because nothing ever actually gets done

[The Douche]

Horseshit. It's not like all the tactics/strategy can't work at once, the M-Ls will work with industrial laborers and the Maoists will work with agricultural laborers and whoever the hell wants to will work with students. And they're all Leninists at their core, so what the hell are they waiting for? This is why I hate being a communist, is because nothing ever actually gets done

Socialism in one country? Factions/tendencies in the party? Armed struggle? Electoral politics? Labor union involvement? Those are issues that divide MLs and Trots, just off the top of my head.

[Jacobinist]

Trotsky V. Stalin is very important in socialist history. Not that we know that Trotsky wouldnt have ended up as authoritarian as Stalin, no one can say that. But there are very big flaws in Stalinist theory. Did it get things done, sure, with a rifle aiming at the proletariat's head the whole time.

I do agree with the a transparently run, direct-democratic and activist Popular Front.

[ZombieGrits]

Socialism in one country?

Trots and MLs should realize that that argument has no place in the US, since the US isn't a nation of agricultural workers like Russia was during their revolution.

This is the only one of those issues that I have any real knowledge of :D would you mind explaining the others to me in brief? thanks

[mikelepore]

Someone ought to make a grid like people use to compare the features of appliances. Rows = organizations, columns=ideas, and put an x if the box if that organization supports that idea.

[The Douche]

Trots and MLs should realize that that argument has no place in the US, since the US isn't a nation of agricultural workers like Russia was during their revolution.

This is the only one of those issues that I have any real knowledge of :D would you mind explaining the others to me in brief? thanks

Socialism in one country doesn't have much to do with "agricultural workers", Stalin said you can have socialism in one country, Trotsky said you can't.

Factions/tendencies in the party-Some trot parties allow tendencies in their parties, MLs do not, some trots do not.

Armed struggle-Some ML tendencies support armed struggle as the path to revolution, some trots are opposed to it.

Electoral politics-Most trot parties run in elections, some ML parties do, some do not, some trot parties practice "entryism" where they join a mass party (like the democrats) en masse to try and influence the party.

Labor union involvement-Most ML parties have stopped participating in an organized way in the labor movement, some trot parties encourage entryism.

[ZombieGrits]

Socialism in one country doesn't have much to do with "agricultural workers", Stalin said you can have socialism in one country, Trotsky said you can't.

well the origin of the debate was back in the original revolution Trotsky proposed the "permanent revolution" theory so that the Russian Revolution could line up with orthodox marxism. since Russia barely had any industrial working class Trotsky said that the revolution, to succeed, would have to spread to other more industrialised nations. but then Stalin just said "fuck that". as far as i understand it he had no real reason to not advocate the spread of revolution :confused:


I can see the value that entryism would have if it worked, but it doesn't seem like it would work in the context of a couple dozen trots entering the democratic party :lol:

[Qayin]

Trotsky V. Stalin is very important in socialist history. Not that we know that Trotsky wouldnt have ended up as authoritarian as Stalin, no one can say that. But there are very big flaws in Stalinist theory. Did it get things done, sure, with a rifle aiming at the proletariat's head the whole time.

Fucking wrong thread for this.
Yeah because the ruling class today gives a damn about 20th century socialists ideological issues. Capitalism isnt waiting for us nor does it give a damn about a bunch of small vanguard parties who constantly split off over small ideological issues, the states ever so expanding its police state capabilities and imperialism is going on right now in foreign lands.


Armed struggle-Some ML tendencies support armed struggle as the path to revolution, some trots are opposed to it.
Lets see these "armed struggle" advocates actually fucking do something,its all talk to them.


Someone ought to make a grid like people use to compare the features of appliances. Rows = organizations, columns=ideas, and put an x if the box if that organization supports that idea.


Or Leninists could make ONE vanguard of the US proletarian and actually strive for revolution instead of bicker over small issues that are not relevant to the US or the 21st century.


This is why I hate being a communist, is because nothing ever actually gets done

Sole reason i dropped Marxism-leninism.

[MarxSchmarx]

Someone ought to make a grid like people use to compare the features of appliances. Rows = organizations, columns=ideas, and put an x if the box if that organization supports that idea.

Better yet, why not have "Consumer Reports" do an article on "What Leninist Sect is right for me", and cosmopolitan can have the self-quiz you suggest?

It actually is deeply troubling that both of these ideas would arguably provide far more exposure than we currently enjoy.

[Martin Blank]

If the differences between organizations are principled, then remaining separate is justified and understandable.

If the differences are strategic or tactical, then they can be contained within a single healthy democratic (or even democratic-centralist) organization.

If the differences are doctrinaire/historical, they should be contained within a single organization. Period.

If the differences are strategic, tactical or doctrinaire/historical, but are being raised to the level of principle, then the organization is useless and should be written off as such.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Heres what I don't get this is coming from an anarchist.

Whats the point of all the Vanguard Parties?
Why cant they all just combine and form a massive single CP and be part of ONE International? Isnt that what Marxism-Leninism is about?

I don't understand all the sectarianism its only hurting revolutionary consciousness. How many Socialist parties exist in the US alone that form any true opposition? I mean to be a "radical" in the US its like voting for progressive Dems or Nader. Cant all the parties just get together and stand in opposition in the Imperialist state,or does Stalin vs Trotsky mean that much?

What do you mean by standing together. I don't quite understand some arguments against having several organisations. What do people who want these organisations to merge seek to achieve? I don't quite see as much as need for revolutionary organisations to be coherent and stand together as I see a need for building our trade union movement and grassroots organisation and united attempt to do this. Communist organisations in our current time take on the purpose of propoganda primarily and I don't quite understand the reasoning that a lack of class consciousness and leftist sentiment is a result of a lack of unified organisation within our movement.

[Ismail]

Unity for the sake of unity is useless and won't actually lead to unity. When unity is needed, it will come.

As for why different parties exist today, take the issue of China. Some "Marxist-Leninist" parties defend it as a glorious socialist and anti-imperialist state which needs our support. Others regard it as a capitalistic state and as a growing imperialist superpower.

There are also debates over Cuba. One side says it is socialist, the other side says it is state-capitalist. Both sides call for the defense of Cuba against imperialism, but that's about it.

And then there are the actual sectarian parties such as the Sparts who have been known to physically attack other Communists who disagree with them even though their entire foreign policy line is pretty much "Every state ever, including China, is a degenerated/deformed workers state which needs our defense," which would nominally put them in the "Pan-Socialist" camp.

In the end it is up to the various political parties to raise proletarian consciousness in their own areas. 10 people in a determined party with access to a printing press and organizational skill could wind up doing a lot more than 1000 loosely-organized people spread across the entire country dicking around. Case in point, the very first meeting of the RSDLP was conducted in a modest house and attended by 9 men who were all put under arrest soon after, and that Congress was seen as a glorious event uniting the various social-democratic parties together into one.

[The Idler]

All too often, its an ego split. Splitters share sufficiently similar ideology to work in the same party, but split due to egos.

Still, provided you can make electoral alliance organisations, splits can be mitigated.

I was working on a self-quiz for "which left-wing party should i join?", but will have to find the link.

[ZombieGrits]

Sole reason i dropped Marxism-leninism.

I never was an ML, but they're pretty much the only tendency that actually has functioning organisations :(

[mikelepore]

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, I'm a Marxist-De Leonist, but since there are something like six De Leonist organizations, it seems to be the same miserable situation.

"Defending our principles" is sometimes a fake.

A much more common reason why so many factions exist, even in cases where they agree with each other on almost everything, is that a member gets expelled after being accused of insulting the national secretary, or making some other relatively unimportant remark. Now that individual, in order to remain active in the same way as before, has no choice but to establish a competing organization that is nearly identical with the other organization. Then the memory of that event inevitably takes the form, "we are the true socialists, unlike those betrayers."

If the political left had 20 million members, it would probably take the form of 4,000 organizations with 5,000 members each, each of which says "we are the one and only true working class organization, so please disregard those other 3,999 fraudulent organizations."

(Editorial opinion: this situation stinks.)

[cb9's_unity]

Unity for the sake of unity is useless and won't actually lead to unity. When unity is needed, it will come.

As for why different parties exist today, take the issue of China. Some "Marxist-Leninist" parties defend it as a glorious socialist and anti-imperialist state which needs our support. Others regard it as a capitalistic state and as a growing imperialist superpower.

There are also debates over Cuba. One side says it is socialist, the other side says it is state-capitalist. Both sides call for the defense of Cuba against imperialism, but that's about it.

I can't understand how disagreements over foreign country's really matter for domestic party organization. Can't just half the party do things to support Cuba or China while those believe its capitalist simply disagree with them?

There are legit domestic organizational issues that need to be overcome. However dividing over beliefs in Cuba are just about as useless as dividing over whether Stalin was a saint or a homicidal fuck. It makes for great debate, but I just don't need to see why it needs to split party's.

[mikelepore]

If the differences between organizations are principled, then remaining separate is justified and understandable.

If the differences are strategic or tactical, then they can be contained within a single healthy democratic (or even democratic-centralist) organization.

If the differences are doctrinaire/historical, they should be contained within a single organization. Period.

If the differences are strategic, tactical or doctrinaire/historical, but are being raised to the level of principle, then the organization is useless and should be written off as such.

I would say, in ALL cases, encompassing an anarchist, a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, a De Leonist, and more, all of these could immediately form one umbrella coalition that describes itself broadly as "we are working class people who recognize that capitalism is an oppressive system, and we promote further study of alternatives."

It would be worthwhile even if it only for the saving of funds associated with having one large publishing plant instead of many smaller ones.

But the benefits would be greater than that. Whereas now they don't talk to one another at all, they should be producing debates with one another, in the form of books and audio/video recordings and webcasts. I mean debates in the usual sense: you talk for five minutes, then I talk for five minutes, your rebuttal, then my rebuttal.

[Martin Blank]

I would say, in ALL cases, encompassing an anarchist, a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, a De Leonist, and more, all of these could immediately form one umbrella coalition that describes itself broadly as "we are working class people who recognize that capitalism is an oppressive system, and we promote further study of alternatives."

That's a question of the level of principles involved. If the principles are basic enough, then there should be a greater ability to unite across doctrine like you suggest above. The problem I notice, though, is that most people will talk about being "non-sectarian" and wanting "unity", but when it comes to actually moving from words to practice, there is always an excuse to maintain the status quo. (I'm not commenting on anyone involved in this thread here; I'm merely making an observation from past real-world experience.)

[Ismail]

I can't understand how disagreements over foreign country's really matter for domestic party organization. Can't just half the party do things to support Cuba or China while those believe its capitalist simply disagree with them?I'd be pretty annoyed if party funds were being diverted to help defend a capitalist state such as China.

As I've said before, when real unity is needed it'll come. Marxism in the US isn't a potent force, and it actually takes such potency for unification to come around. When Marxist organizations, no matter how small, become determined and active, when they hold strikes, mass meetings, set up affiliated organizations or groups, etc., then people will be sufficiently "in the know" to realize when unity is necessary.

As said before, 10 guys in the Democratic Socialist Party of Nebraska uniting with their brethren of 8 in the Trotskyist Communist Party (Eighth International Revolutionary Section of Sheboygan) to form the Cross-Country Democratic Socialist Communist Party would matter little, and since tiny; ineffective parties have a tendency to emphasize unwarranted self-importance (particularly under egomaniacs in party leadership), it'd just lead to the formation of a splinter Cross-Country Democratic Socialist Communist Party (Internationalist) anyway.