What are the main points the left dis agree on.

[StoneFrog]

What are the main points within the left that cause use to split into different tendencies?
I don't want them to be debated here, just compile a list of points that different tendencies strongly disagree on. Maybe we can make a thread after dealing with these, if possible.

[Robocommie]

I think you're about to find out that this is one of them. :lol:

[ContrarianLemming]

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the largest disagreement, the only large practical one, arguing for a transitional stage before going to communism called socialism in which the workers use the state as a toll to bring about communism, and, when ready, the state shall, as it's often said "wither away"

Anarchists: The DoP is not only uneccesary, but creates a new class over the workers and will always become a dictaroship over the propletarait, the state is not simply a tool.

Marxists: The Dop is necessary to protect the revolution, provide structure, defence and is the best tool available to destroy capitalism, the state is only a tool.

There are other points of disagreement, but I think this is the only important one.

[GPDP]

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the largest disagreement, the only large practical one, arguing for a transitional stage before going to communism called socialism in which the workers use the state as a toll to bring about communism, and, when ready, the state shall, as it's often said "wither away"

Anarchists: The DoP is not only uneccesary, but creates a new class over the workers and will always become a dictaroship over the propletarait, the state is not simply a tool.

Marxists: The Dop is necessary to protect the revolution, provide structure, defence and is the best tool available to destroy capitalism, the state is only a tool.

There are other points of disagreement, but I think this is the only important one.

It must be said, however, that this disagreement is sometimes, and even often semantical rather than substantial. Many Marxists' vision of the structure of the state in the DoP is in line with what most anarchists propose as far as a transitional stage (which most anarchists, as I understand, also believe necessary). Case in point: the Paris commune. It is often referred to positively by both anarchists and Marxists, with the former identifying it as an example of non-statist socialism, and Marxists referring to it as the first DoP. In other words, what some Marxists would call a state, anarchists would not identify it as such.

Granted, other Marxists (usually the more authoritarian Leninists) may in fact envision a state that anarchists would fundamentally object to (I point to MLs looking positively to the Soviet Union pre-1953, while anarchists strongly reject it as strongly authoritarian or even totalitarian), but then the question becomes not one of whether a transitional stage is necessary, but what structures would be created in the process of transitioning to communism. Whether those structures will be derided as states by the anarchists or not depends on the nature of those structures.

I think the more pertinent, substantial disagreements lie in organizational tactics and political strategies, such as the worthiness of entryism, using elections as a platform, democratic centralism, unions, etc.

[The Grey Blur]

Practical activity - whether or not to participate in bourgeois democracy, whether or not to participate in bureaucratic mainstream trade unions, intervention in mass campaigns, whether to support reforms of capitalism, whether to sell a paper or other organ, orientation towards other groups on the left, methods of opposing fascism, attitude towards guerrila-ism/terrorism, etc

The belief in the need for a party/political vehicle of the working classes to work towards revolution in contrast with the belief that revolution will be a more spontaneous affair with political direction thrown up as it goes along/a syndicalist view that workers' control of the workplace is the revolution.

Organisation - issues around democratic centralism, federalism, the inner democratic working of revolutionary groups.

The understanding of the state - whether a worker's state is necessary or whether a direction transition to communism/anarchy is possible after a revolution.

National liberation - support for or opposition to the right to a nation of self-determination, what role the working-class plays in such a struggle.

Philosophy - the acceptance or rejection of dialectical materialism.

The results of past revolutions - whether "worker's states" were created in Russia, China, Cuba etc, the debate over 'state capitalism' or 'degenerated socialism' with regards to those who do not classify the previous revolutions as having created true socialism. Attitudes towards the Spanish revolution, the student/worker uprisings of 1968, pre-capitalist communist efforts, etcetc are all issues of contention also.

Those are the main debates that exist on the revolutionary left, though I'm sure I've missed some or mischaracterised various positions. I think they're all worthwhile issues of debate but I've seen leftists who are better at criticising other left groups than they are explaining their opposition to capitalism, so best not too become too obsessed with them. I'd recommend some independent reading on the various subjects if you want to make your mind up and remember we're materialists so it isn't just a battle of ideas but also with how they fare as praxis.

[Zanthorus]

There are a lot of bullshit historical debates about who had the biggest revolutionary dick in some obscure events that happened decades ago and that no-one in the real world actually cares about besides people on the far-left.

I'd say the main points are:

Parliamentarianism/Electoralism - While all revolutionary leftists recognise the need for the replacement of bourgeois democracy by a new type of government which enfranchises the working classes we disagree on what our position on the current government while it still exists and is believed to be legitimate by a majority of people. Some will argue for participation on the grounds that at election time people are more open than usual to politics and a socialist candidate could whip up support for the cause. Others argue that it just diverts resources away from the movement unnecessarily.

National Liberation - Some comrades support national liberation movements as a way of breaking Imperialism and spurring on revolution in first world countries. Others will say that national liberation tends towards support for the national bourgeoisie and won't bring about any benefits for the workign class overall.

Trade Unions - Some revolutionaries argue that trade unions have become integrated into the state apparatus and become organs of beuracratic management over the workers. Others argue that there is still potential or at the very least revolutionaries should work within unions to spread their ideas. Still others support the formation of "red" or "revolutionary" unions like the IWW to overthrow capitalism.


Philosophy - the acceptance or rejection of dialectical materialism.

I would really hope that this would not be an issue which held any bearing on the lefts real world activity.

[GPDP]

Practical activity - whether or not to participate in bourgeois democracy, whether or not to participate in bureaucratic mainstream trade unions, intervention in mass campaigns, whether to support reforms of capitalism, whether to sell a paper or other organ, orientation towards other groups on the left, methods of opposing fascism, attitude towards guerrila-ism/terrorism, etc

The belief in the need for a party/political vehicle of the working classes to work towards revolution in contrast with the belief that revolution will be a more spontaneous affair with political direction thrown up as it goes along/a syndicalist view that workers' control of the workplace is the revolution.

Organisation - issues around democratic centralism, federalism, the inner democratic working of revolutionary groups.

The understanding of the state - whether a worker's state is necessary or whether a direction transition to communism/anarchy is possible after a revolution.

National liberation - support for or opposition to the right to a nation of self-determination, what role the working-class plays in such a struggle.

Philosophy - the acceptance or rejection of dialectical materialism.

The results of past revolutions - whether "worker's states" were created in Russia, China, Cuba etc, the debate over 'state capitalism' or 'degenerated socialism' with regards to those who do not classify the previous revolutions as having created true socialism. Attitudes towards the Spanish revolution, the student/worker uprisings of 1968, pre-capitalist communist efforts, etcetc are all issues of contention also.

Those are the main debates that exist on the revolutionary left, though I'm sure I've missed some or mischaracterised various positions. I think they're all worthwhile issues of debate but I've seen leftists who are better at criticising other left groups than they are explaining their opposition to capitalism, so best not too become too obsessed with them. I'd recommend some independent reading on the various subjects if you want to make your mind up and remember we're materialists so it isn't just a battle of ideas but also with how they fare as praxis.


There are a lot of bullshit historical debates about who had the biggest revolutionary dick in some obscure events that happened decades ago and that no-one in the real world actually cares about besides people on the far-left.

I'd say the main points are:

Parliamentarianism/Electoralism - While all revolutionary leftists recognise the need for the replacement of bourgeois democracy by a new type of government which enfranchises the working classes we disagree on what our position on the current government while it still exists and is believed to be legitimate by a majority of people. Some will argue for participation on the grounds that at election time people are more open than usual to politics and a socialist candidate could whip up support for the cause. Others argue that it just diverts resources away from the movement unnecessarily.

National Liberation - Some comrades support national liberation movements as a way of breaking Imperialism and spurring on revolution in first world countries. Others will say that national liberation tends towards support for the national bourgeoisie and won't bring about any benefits for the workign class overall.

Trade Unions - Some revolutionaries argue that trade unions have become integrated into the state apparatus and become organs of beuracratic management over the workers. Others argue that there is still potential or at the very least revolutionaries should work within unions to spread their ideas. Still others support the formation of "red" or "revolutionary" unions like the IWW to overthrow capitalism.



I would really hope that this would not be an issue which held any bearing on the lefts real world activity.

Both good posts. You both elaborated on what I suggested were the most pertinent disagreements. I could've done it myself, but I'm lazy. :p

Also, there is the question of what the actual new revolutionary society would look like. I already talked about the nature of the state, but there is also the issue of the make-up of the economic system. Will there be markets? If not, will we have centralized or decentralized economic planning? And what about social issues like crime, racism, and such? These are also points of contention.

[The Grey Blur]

I would really hope that this would not be an issue which held any bearing on the lefts real world activity.
Well I mean your 'real world activity' is itself a dialectical interaction between theory/practice, practice/theory. They inform one another and one without the other is useless. I also think it has bearing on a rejection of bourgeois or nihilist philosophical schools - I mean apply it to history and you get historical materialism. But like the OP said maybe this isn't the place for having this debate but rather pointing out that they exist.

[danyboy27]

the need of a vanguard party i think, is something that definitively split the left for a while now.