Manifesto for a united left?

[blackwave]

I was thinking, if we really want to bring about global change we need a united movement (which, of course, is ultimately what this forum is for). I was wondering if there were certain key points and ideas which unite the vast majority of us, and which we could put together in a 'united left' manifesto for the sake of increasing solidarity?
Discuss...

[Delenda Carthago]

What is the "Left" and why should it unite?

[blackwave]

Alright then, how about 'united anti-capitalist'. Why? To ensure that the world's future is not filled with perpetual conflict and suffering, instead dominated by solidarity and well-being.

[khad]

I was thinking, if we really want to bring about global change we need a united movement (which, of course, is ultimately what this forum is for).
Actually, you are missing the plot.

The point of this forum is to have a space where the various leftist tendencies can debate each other, gather recruits, and generally try to prove that they have the correct line.

It's not ideal, and while I myself don't like it, it appears that this is what people try to do. In the past, there have been many attempts to bridge sectarian gaps like yours, and unfortunately I think that your proposal will likely suffer their fate.

[blackwave]

Fair enough. The despair kicks in... :(

[mikelepore]

Experience shows, as some people begin to draft the united left manifesto, by the time you get fifty words into it you will have said several things that many others oppose and cannot in good conscience sign their names to. This filtering process continues such that, the longer your statement of principles, the smaller your membership. But you can't avoid saying too much, because, for every generality, someone may ask, "How do you propose achieving that?" In other words, the left isn't splintered for no reason; the left is splintered because the groupings believe in incompatable principles. Build a classless society? Great, we're all in. But how would that classless society work, and by what method can we achieve it? As you are in the process of answering that, you see people streaming out the door. That's the difficulty that prevents us from saying, "All this infernal sectarianism - everybody just knock it off already."

But, by all means, try it again. Nothing to lose except some time, and the attempt is good practice anyway. One of these days we will stumble on the new method that will unite the working class. We will only know what that method is when the task is done and we can look backwards.

[The Idler]

Attempts continue to unite the left (CNAP and TUSC in the UK) and some might even view those efforts in a positive light.

[punisa]

Yes, united left is stupid idea.. right, that is the reason while we're never going to triumph anyway.
Face it, majority of differences between so called tendencies are infantile and pointless.
I disagree with the statement that people here wish to fight solely for their tendency and bring it forward as the best one.
Majority of people would be very happy to put our differences aside and fight for a better tomorrow - today.

Unfortunately there are many who will disagree.

[mikelepore]

It always seems like it's the other person who is the obstacle. If people are writing a unity manifesto, and you insist on inserting a certain sentence that the other person insists on omitting, you say "it's so sectarian of you to refuse to allow this wonderful sentence to be included", and the other person says "it's so sectarian of you to insist that this miserable sentence be included." This never fails. The problem is always identified as the other person, never oneself. We all do it. I guarantee you, if I were to propose the first draft for a statement of what the working class needs to do to change society, most of the people here who say they want unity would quickly reject my version with sharp criticism. Why is that? I thought you wanted unity, so why don't you accept the very first proposal that you hear about? Because when you say "no", that's only common sense. It's when the other person says "no", that's being sectarian.

[theblackmask]

I'm seeing a lot of negative comments here, and I agree with them that a united left is pretty much impossible now, but I think it's something that we need to be working towards. Most organizations/tendencies spend too much time refuting others and not enough trying to understand why the other person is saying "no."

The bottom line is that people need to stop placing tendencies before the revolution and realize that these minor differences do not mean we can't work together.

[blackwave]

I was honestly thinking of it more as a 'what and why' document than a 'how' one, as I know that on that we are far too divided to agree. The problem with this, of course, is that, whilst we all generally agree on what we want, we spend forever arguing about how to do it, and so, in fact, never actually try. Frankly, I'd be willing to compromise on my practical inclinations, because I know that someone elses way may in fact be more successful. A lot of people are not willing to compromise though, and this is arguably why the anti-capitalist movement has not gotten closer to triumph.

[scarletghoul]

There's no way a manifesto could be written to unite the left, without it being extremely vague or something. We can not be entirely united, these divisions exist for real reasons. However we should definately be working together on issues where we share common ground, and there are many of them especially in these early stages

[syndicat]

I think it's possible to work at the problem here through the building of mass organizations or participation in such. I've been in situations where I was building an organization (such as a union local or a housing group) with Greens or Marxist Humanists or Leninist party members who I might disagree with on various political questions. I'm not saying the disagreements don't come out in the mass organization. They do. But the disagrement is more limited by the frame, What is this organizationg going to do next? Should we strike? Should we have a speakout? Etc.

[anticap]

It always seems like it's the other person who is the obstacle. If people are writing a unity manifesto, and you insist on inserting a certain sentence that the other person insists on omitting, you say "it's so sectarian of you to refuse to allow this wonderful sentence to be included", and the other person says "it's so sectarian of you to insist that this miserable sentence be included." This never fails. The problem is always identified as the other person, never oneself. We all do it. I guarantee you, if I were to propose the first draft for a statement of what the working class needs to do to change society, most of the people here who say they want unity would quickly reject my version with sharp criticism. Why is that? I thought you wanted unity, so why don't you accept the very first proposal that you hear about? Because when you say "no", that's only common sense. It's when the other person says "no", that's being sectarian.

I dunno shit about Hegel aside from the few quotes I've read, and I'm not even sure how (or if) this one relates, but your comment reminded me of it, so here it is:


Since the man of common sense appeals to his feeling, to an oracle within his breast, he is done with any one who does not agree. He has just to explain that he has no more to say to any one who does not find and feel the same as himself. In other words, he tramples the roots of humanity underfoot. For the nature of humanity is to impel men to agree with one another, and its very existence lies simply in the explicit realisation of a community of conscious life.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm

[AK]

There's no way a manifesto could be written to unite the left, without it being extremely vague or something. We can not be entirely united, these divisions exist for real reasons. However we should definately be working together on issues where we share common ground, and there are many of them especially in these early stages
True. A united left manifesto would be very short and be along the lines of "state = bad, capitalism = bad, revolution = good".

[blackwave]

True. A united left manifesto would be very short and be along the lines of "state = bad, capitalism = bad, revolution = good".

Not really. I was thinking of a document explaining the general rational basis of our disagreement with capitalism. To just say 'I want so and so' is completely worthless as a basis for revolution if there is no reasoning behind it, in my estimation.

[mikelepore]

Some unity around "capitalism bad" is actually a workable plan. Doesn't the entire left all agree that capitalism has caused many social problems, such as wars to win markets and raw materials, poverty that includes homeless children, the pollution of the air and water, dangerous work enviroments that kill and maim the workers, promoting bigotry to keep the workers divided, giving the billionaires more mansions instead of giving the sick their medicine, and many more horrors? We may not agree on what superior system to replace it with, but we all agree that capitalism malfunctions critically. Unlike the mainstream media, we point directly at capitalism and class rule by name. Imagine producing a new series of literature and videos and community meetings that would teach people about just this aspect, and a coalition of the entire political left shares the effort. It's doable and there is nothing to lose by trying it. Worse case, even if the project were to fall apart before completion due to personality confllicts, any little piece if it has already been done would still be useful, for example, at least we may have produced an educational video. Upside potential, unlimited. Downside potential, none.

[blackwave]

So if I proposed a 'United Anti-Capitalist League', would people think it absurd and unworkable, or would anyone honestly think it worth a try? Though I respect that people align themselves with particular sects, yet I feel if we anti-capitalists wish to ever make our voices heard we need to come together as one.

[anticap]

The iron is hot -- and most vulnerable to being struck -- when capitalism is in crisis. If anyone were going to attempt something like this, now would be as good a time as any.

Sectarian squabbles amongst the Left, however valid the origins, do nothing to bring down capitalism. For every convert you gain, you'll lose another. The Right looks on with relief as the Left plays this game of musical chairs.

[Yawn]

i like what your saying, but i think there would be to many opposing political differences and most surely a power struggle would occur to see who would lead the movement publicly as the front man.

[mikelepore]

Here is another unity idea that I have been proposing for years. For some groups on the left who tend to argue against each other, get them to have a consultation, not necessarily to agree on any principles, but to see if they can agree on what is a fair wording of what their differences are. They can set the goal to draft a new pamphlet that says "Group 1 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 2 sees the disadvantages of that idea as .... Group 2 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 1 sees the disadvantages of that idea as ..... Readers, you are invited to contact both sides in this debate at their addresses listed below, and make an informed decision for yourself." I believe that step would be very productive. They haven't compromised their beliefs one inch, but now they have agreed on a definition of what their difference are. Just that step alone would be unprecedented. Such a project can only generate publicity, and all participants will benefit from publicity.

[blackwave]

Here is another unity idea that I have been proposing for years. For some groups on the left who tend to argue against each other, get them to have a consultation, not necessarily to agree on any principles, but to see if they can agree on what is a fair wording of what their differences are. They can set the goal to draft a new pamphlet that says "Group 1 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 2 sees the disadvantages of that idea as .... Group 2 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 1 sees the disadvantages of that idea as ..... Readers, you are invited to contact both sides in this debate at their addresses listed below, and make an informed decision for yourself." I believe that step would be very productive. They haven't compromised their beliefs one inch, but now they have agreed on a definition of what their difference are. Just that step alone would be unprecedented. Such a project can only generate publicity, and all participants will benefit from publicity.

If this were done it would have to be made certain that it didn't get in the way of unity. I was thinking that a united anti-capitalist movement would first and foremost focus on bringing together anti-capitalists worldwide and spreading understanding of our basic critique, which is usually very similar, if not exactly the same. But, yeah, you could even, for example, start a publishing wing which published works discussing the various arguments and counter arguments.
Maybe people think I'm being overly 'utopian', but I really think we have nothing to lose in giving this a go, and everything to gain.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3959/uacllogo1bsmall.th.gif (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/uacllogo1bsmall.gif/)

[NecroCommie]

I don't see why united left would be a far fetched idea. The finnish anti capitalist left only has two realistic parties. The reformists and the communists. Hell, while other communist parties brand their party to some sect (for example CP India (marxist leninist)) the finnish party brands itself the finnish communist party (unity). Even these two parties are constantly co-operating, often joined by anarchists.

Just admit it. Left of the major western countries is sectarian as hell.

[anticap]

Just admit it. Left of the major western countries is sectarian as hell.

And when I ask myself why this is, I can't help but think that the "Third-Worldists" are onto something. When revolutionary leftism is a matter of urgency, shit gets done. When it isn't so urgent, pompous asshats spend their time bickering over their differences, or, at best, gathering at socialist symposiums to discuss how those differences might be bridged.

[blackwave]

Nice to see some genuinely positive feedback. So the question is, where do we start? How about we come up with some keywords for issues that should be covered within an anti-capitalist manifesto:

Exploitation, dehumanisation, alienation, imperialism, private property...

Edit:

I've come up with a draft opening / mission statement, criticisms and opinions would be nice:

Who are the United Anti-Capitalist League? We are an organisation set up to bring together anti-capitalists around the world. Our goal is to unite all anti-capitalists - whether they be Leninist, anarchist, or anything else - around the common idea at the root of all their ideologies: that of the harmfulness, wrongness, and undesirability of capitalism. By this means we hope to create a united front of international solidarity, to gain a voice on the world stage, to pool our resources to promote our common cause, and to push for the realisation of a new society.
We have utter respect for the diversity among anti-capitalists, yet we fear that our arguments on the specifics of revolutionary change are getting in the way of such change. So long as we stick purely to our small sectarian groups, so long as we fail to co-operate, those forces which we oppose will remain relatively unchallenged. This cannot be tolerated!
We also wish to educate the average person on the street about the real core of anti-capitalism. Communism and anarchism, in the popular consciousness, so often carry purely negative connotations, chiefly of authoritarianism and violence respectively, and our political enemies pounce on this ignorance in an attempt to discredit us. We must bring to the people an awareness that at the root of our politics is a common concern for the well-being and dignity of the human being. We wish to liberate man, not enslave or destroy him.

[cenv]

Nice to see some genuinely positive feedback. So the question is, where do we start? How about we come up with some keywords for issues that should be covered within an anti-capitalist manifesto:

Exploitation, dehumanisation, alienation, imperialism, private property...

These are all important issues (and kudos for identifying dehumanization and alienation, concepts a lot of anti-capitalists push to the side, as cornerstones of revolutionary theory), but they're all destructive poles of our movement. Of course, it's crucial to pinpoint what we're fighting against, but if we base unity on anti-capitalism without adding a constructive component, we don't have a solid foundation for the transformation of social conditions.

I tend to be suspicious of attempts to "unify" the "left" because they usually seem little more than an attempt to cram contradictory, fragmented ideologies into a single box. Instead of unifying the left, we should transcend it. I don't think the way forward is by trying to find a common strand among ideologies that have failed us for decades. Rather, we need to strip issues like exploitation, alienation, property, and the others you brought up of their ideological connotations and engage with them more deeply. We need to understand what these issues mean to us on a personal level, how they arise from the material circumstances of contemporary society, and how they shape life under modern capitalism.

Ultimately, bridging the gap between various ideologies in an exercise in futility. We need to tear down the ideologies that spawned that gap and create a dynamic revolutionary praxis rooted in something much more real than tentative agreements of unity and ideological intersections.

[blackwave]

I'm not so sure that you're not just proposing the creation of a new ideology. Very few are going to agree to let go of their particular choice of 'system', hence why I think we need to start something in which only the basic core of anti-capitalism is explicit. Clearly my keywords idea was too specific, too big a step into ideology.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=461

[mikelepore]

The name "anti-capitalist" seems negative because it describes it by saying what it isn't. Perhaps a more positive sounding name would be something that indicates the activity of exploring all the alternatives to capitalism.

[mikelepore]

This phrase:


We have utter respect for the diversity among anti-capitalists,

is a bit unrealistic. It makes it sound as though it's a matter of subjective preference, which it isn't believed to be. There are a definite right way and a definite wrong way to be found, we just don't have certainty or proof about which is which.

The reason why the factions have split apart is because they realize that the success of the working class isn't automatic, maybe we will be victorious and maybe we will be defeated, depending on what we choose to do. On that point, the matter of identifying what must be done so that we will be victorious and not defeated, is just what the disagreement is about. Each groups is saying to the others: you are part of the problem -- if we were to try to do it your way, we would be doomed.

Or, to flip this around, maybe I'm the one who's wrong. Maybe if the working class does it your way then we will win our emancipation, but if the working class does it my way then we would be headed for disaster. But either way, the program that the working class will follow is a crucial choice.

To say that we respect the diversity among us doesn't quite convey that universal sense that there is a right or wrong answer out there somewhere, we just can't prove our proposed answers to each other. If we were flying an airplane, and arguing about which button would allow us to land softly, and which button would make us crash, we wouldn't say that we respect the diversity among ourselves.

[blackwave]

All I meant by it is that we, as a group, don't wish to force a particular ideology on people. The intention, from the beginning of this thread, was not to strip away differences, but to dig beneath them to that core in which there is solidarity to be found.

Edit:
I've changed it to: 'We respect the fact that there is ideological diversity among anti-capitalists'

[mikelepore]

"Respect" is a feeling of adoration or something like that: children are taught to respect their grandparents.

How about: "In this limited cooperation, we are responding to the fact that there is ideological diversity among anti-capitalists."

[anticap]

Or, "We recognize the fact that there is ideological diversity among anti-capitalists...."

[revolution inaction]

Or, "We recognize the fact that there is ideological diversity among anti-capitalists...."

I don't accept that Leninist are anti capitalists, they all support state capitalism

I think this (http://afed.org.uk/blog/historical/113-anarchist-federation-neither-left-nor-right.html) and this (http://libcom.org/library/fight-against-fascism-begins-with-fight-against-bolshevism-ruhle) are relevant to the idea of a united left.

[blackwave]

Or, "We recognize the fact that there is ideological diversity among anti-capitalists...."

Already changed it to that anyway. :p

[The Idler]

Blackwave, have you been involved in any united left projects before?

[blackwave]

Blackwave, have you been involved in any united left projects before?

No sir. I am relatively new to the political world. Perhaps that is obvious in my naive optimism.

[The Idler]

No sir. I am relatively new to the political world. Perhaps that is obvious in my naive optimism.
An optimistic new member of the left is welcome, its left veterans who refuse to get involved in left unity projects, then propose unity projects on their terms, which are the problem.

[mikelepore]

A follow-up to my post of May 3 suggesting the production of new literature and videos to spread the message that capitalism produces society's problems. My own biographical information, I was drawn to the Socialist Labor Party in the 1960s because much of their literature took this approach, first delivering some argument that capitalism necessarily generates critical problems, before going on to say anything else. One of their mid-1960s leaflets that influenced me was entitled "SLP position and program." As the reader unfolded the paper, one side said, "All the grave social problems we face stem from one common cause: capitalism." That header was followed by five separate sections that were entitled War, Racism, Poverty, Violence, and Pollution. For me personally, that approach was persuasive. Reference: the following page shows a photograph of that leaflet alongside a transcipt of the text.

http://www.deleonism.org/text/slppp.htm

[Stand Your Ground]

Anyone who wants to work towards a united left has my support.

[Atlee]

I for one would like to see a more united movement. :rolleyes: My experience however has been less than excited noting three different socialist parties holding ballots in my state alone and several more factions holding protest. I am not seeing groups coming together in common action except on local issues. I hung out with a peace group from the UU, but I was told point plank they were not into socialism. :crying: Weird though, in their faith they practiced it. ;) I have been working on a different tactic whic is talking to people about how they live and work and then showing them how they are being socialist. I then introduce them to socialism. :blink: Sometimes they deny what they know in their hearts to be true.

[Atlee]

The name "anti-capitalist" seems negative because it describes it by saying what it isn't. Perhaps a more positive sounding name would be something that indicates the activity of exploring all the alternatives to capitalism.

In reviewing what has been written so far, I notice the factionalism or divide when there is talk of Leftism or ideology. So for now we can leave them out.

mikelepore makes a good point in that people gather around positive or saying what a group is "for" and not against. I am sure a hard lefty is stewing because there will always be one out there with a negative word or two. However, we need to be more catchy and "Alternatives to Capitalism" has a positive ring to it plus there seems to be thought to "options" and "open conversations" to finding today's alternatives to capitalism.

[scotchwallace]

I would hope the unifying theme for socialists would be democratic control of the means of production and distribution. I am a member of the Workers' International Industrial Union. We are trying to get various socialist groups, anarchists, unions, and churches involved in this effort. Please consider joining us. We have a lot of work to do.





w

[Atlee]

I would hope the unifying theme for socialists would be democratic control of the means of production and distribution. I am a member of the Workers' International Industrial Union. We are trying to get various socialist groups, anarchists, unions, and churches involved in this effort. Please consider joining us. We have a lot of work to do.

w

Perhaps a unity theme would not repeat history's mistakes by limiting "democratic control of the means of production and distribution" to 51% having the ability to do harm to the other 49% who would bring down the revolution which would be a mass reform movement. As we know democracy is where the 49% can express their views freely. Therefore, it must have a humanity clause to do not harm.

[mikelepore]

If this project makes ANY declaration about the goal, or the method to achieve a goal, then the unity will be lost, because those are the issues about which the left was divided in the first place. I personally believe that the goal and program are the most important issues, but anyone seeking unity has to resist the temptation to make any pronouncements about them, or there will be no unity.

Therefore I recommend concentrating on the limited area that the entire left agree on, which is the anti-social character of capitalism, for example, poverty, the wide gap between the classes, the toxic waste dumps, the inadequate condition of medical care, aircraft companies getting wealthy from war, corporations bribing politicians, etc. I would further add a recognition of the need to investigate alternatives to capitalism and begin a great dialogue. If you can find any other kinds of conclusions that the entire left agrees on without hesitation, I'd like to hear about them. I hope that the subject of social tactics will be avoided.

If some of the suggested social alternatives (workers' democracy, etc.) are reviewed, they should be reviewed encyclopedically, reporting that one group has said yes to a particular statement where another group has said no to it, which is an objective fact. I hope that many people will be able to agree on the fair wording of a description of what they disagree about. But if any social goal or strategy is reported as the "real" answer, then any unity that has been attained up to that point will be gone.

[Atlee]

If this project makes ANY declaration about the goal, or the method to achieve a goal, then the unity will be lost, because those are the issues about which the left was divided in the first place. I personally believe that the goal and program are the most important issues, but anyone seeking unity has to resist the temptation to make any pronouncements about them, or there will be no unity.

Therefore I recommend concentrating on the limited area that the entire left agree on, which is the anti-social character of capitalism, for example, poverty, the wide gap between the classes, the toxic waste dumps, the inadequate condition of medical care, aircraft companies getting wealthy from war, corporations bribing politicians, etc. I would further add a recognition of the need to investigate alternatives to capitalism and begin a great dialogue. If you can find any other kinds of conclusions that the entire left agrees on without hesitation, I'd like to hear about them. I hope that the subject of social tactics will be avoided.

If some of the suggested social alternatives (workers' democracy, etc.) are reviewed, they should be reviewed encyclopedically, reporting that one group has said yes to a particular statement where another group has said no to it, which is an objective fact. I hope that many people will be able to agree on the fair wording of a description of what they disagree about. But if any social goal or strategy is reported as the "real" answer, then any unity that has been attained up to that point will be gone.

The list above is more or less what would be on an objective platform of a united Left and not addressing the ideological divides that haunt our own specter in pejorative labeling. The problem with being nebulous in idea is that abuses can take place, as we already know firsthand or history's readings.

I am all for creating a spread sheet for public viewing and having a round table, but to date fear has paralyzed the Left because no one wants to go first. Anyone speaking out is demonized by the ideologue and nothing moves forward. We each in our foxhole dug in deep peering out with sniper shots.

[farleft]

I would hope the unifying theme for socialists would be democratic control of the means of production and distribution. I am a member of the Workers' International Industrial Union. We are trying to get various socialist groups, anarchists, unions, and churches involved in this effort. Please consider joining us. We have a lot of work to do.



w


Churches? :mad:

Hate to be sectarian but no religion, god(s) or religious connections.

Would support a unified left though, TUSC was a good idea in the UK general election.

[x371322]

Churches? :mad:

Hate to be sectarian but no religion, god(s) or religious connections.

Congratulations. You've just alienated about 95% of the working class...

Look I hate religion too. But the fact remains that we can't have working class connections, if we don't maintain religious connections. Like it or not, churches do a lot of good work for their communities, and are generally seen as a positive force. I see no problem in tapping into that if it means greater support for the left. Now I'm not saying the entire organization has to be pro-religion... but it sure as hell shouldn't be anti-religion. It would be like trying to sell a hamburger to a vegan. They'd want nothing to do with it.

[Nachie]

Here ya go, I've solved all your problems:

Ideological manifesto for a "united Left" (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html)

Manifesto for actions of a "united Left" (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/praxis/2/principlesofaction.html)

[Walt]

Meh. I think the fascists of conservative parties ultimately disagree with each other more than the leftists, yet, in most cases, they are united party.

I don't see why leftists can't manage to do it- it needs to be done, and our way to a socialist revolution would be a little bit closer.

[Agnapostate]

There cannot be a united "socialist" coalition because forum members and theoreticians of numerous tendencies flatly deny that forum members and theoreticians of other tendencies are socialists, or that their underlying philosophical aims are socialist, or at the very least, assert that their platforms will not result in the implementation of socialism or communism. And regardless of whatever ambiguous rhetoric can be agreed on, the level of disagreement rises along with the level of intricate detail in any proposal. Depth and breadth are legitimately competing factors in this case.

But you came to the right idea: unity in anti-capitalism, or in response to radical graffiti's remark (which he made to me several months ago), unity in opposition to popularly understood market capitalism, which all self-described socialists profess opposition to.


Some unity around "capitalism bad" is actually a workable plan. Doesn't the entire left all agree that capitalism has caused many social problems, such as wars to win markets and raw materials, poverty that includes homeless children, the pollution of the air and water, dangerous work enviroments that kill and maim the workers, promoting bigotry to keep the workers divided, giving the billionaires more mansions instead of giving the sick their medicine, and many more horrors? We may not agree on what superior system to replace it with, but we all agree that capitalism malfunctions critically. Unlike the mainstream media, we point directly at capitalism and class rule by name. Imagine producing a new series of literature and videos and community meetings that would teach people about just this aspect, and a coalition of the entire political left shares the effort. It's doable and there is nothing to lose by trying it. Worse case, even if the project were to fall apart before completion due to personality confllicts, any little piece if it has already been done would still be useful, for example, at least we may have produced an educational video. Upside potential, unlimited. Downside potential, none.


So if I proposed a 'United Anti-Capitalist League', would people think it absurd and unworkable, or would anyone honestly think it worth a try? Though I respect that people align themselves with particular sects, yet I feel if we anti-capitalists wish to ever make our voices heard we need to come together as one.

Yes and yes. I commented on this several months ago:


This post is an insightful one; it corresponds with the "intermediate phase" of a proposed developmental strategy of mine that I mentioned in another thread.


I've rejected violent revolution as improbable and unfeasible at this time in politically stable and developed first-world countries, due to the lack of experience of the general population with true political warfare as opposed to the consensus politics of the Democrats and Republicans, as well as the substantially improved labor conditions that reduce extreme and widespread hostility towards capitalists and coordinators, and the resultant apathy and weakness from such factors.

So I instead promote the big tent that diminishes into a small tent over time, a sphere of participation that gradually declines until the heart of the movement is dealing with the heart of the issues. In our current climate, for example, we'd have a broad and generic "left" coalition when it comes to advancing similarly broad and generic "progressive" goals (a cessation of immigration restrictions, a minimum wage increase, etc.), a smaller "anti-capitalist" coalition that includes self-described socialists of all stripes that could be in agreement when it came to the implementation of anti-capitalist aims while using republican tactics as a mechanism (such as the pursuit of nationalization efforts), and finally, an anarchist core that seeks explicitly anarchist goals when anarchism was expansive enough to function as an influential social movement. The intermediate sphere is what unites RevLeft.

Our roads will eventually part. But we're going in the same direction at the moment, so why not carpool instead of driving separately?


Progressive and liberal-leftists hog most of the left media in this country. We would have to include them too. They kind of see themselves as the only legitimate leftist force in the US.

In my opinion, to create a distinct movement of our own, it must be explicitly anti-capitalist. While progressives and liberal-leftists have a role in a portion of this process, our goal is not to be immersed into the coffee party movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Party), but to stand out as a populist coalition that recognizes that capitalism is the fundamental cause of economic crisis and reforms within the context of capitalism will only bring about temporary alleviation.


We share some of the same beliefs as progressive liberals: gay rights, pro-choice (for the most part), sympathy for the oppressed. I suppose it would not be too hard to convert the majority of them to anti-capitalists.

It would not be too hard to convert a number of social democrats and more leftist liberal democrats to anti-capitalism. I was once one of them. However, we must keep in mind that while our strategy might be intertwined at some phase of activism, our underlying philosophy is not and cannot be. We must remember that we are principled and devoted anti-capitalists even if we have points of agreement with liberal and social democrats, since liberal and social democracy ultimately sustain the means of production.


Agnapostate: You couldn't be more right about the easy "appeal" of the Tea Party movement. Do you think we would have to dumb down our message so the masses could accept and appreciate it?

I've chosen to respond to this comment last because I wanted to make my organizational strategy recommendations clear first. A movement parallel to the tea party movement must be explicitly anti-capitalist, in my opinion, and must rally around critical points that there is a consensus on. In the tea party movement, this is an abstract ideal of "liberty through free markets," and intense anti-establishment opposition to the current administration around the points of alleged statism (true) and anti-capitalism (false) on his part. In my opinion, the central faults of capitalism are its destruction of liberty, efficiency, and prosperity. The one that we find a consensus on, however, is prosperity, due to our common opposition to the exploitation and poverty that capitalism generates. We can then appeal to populist sentiments through concise and easily repeated talking points based on that, as the tea party does (while not abandoning more developed thought, however, as they have).

As an example, consider this anti-capitalist platform (http://revcom.us/a/151/system-en.html) of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist organization that is only sparsely represented on here (and disavowed by some fellow Maoists), entitled "We don’t need to 'Rescue' this Capitalist System - We need to GET RID OF THIS SYSTEM -We Need Revolution!"


http://revcom.us/i/151/BevHillsHomeless.jpg

A homeless woman in Beverly Hills reads on the park bench where she has been sleeping since 2000. Some 88,000 people in L.A. County live on the streets or in shelters amid the structures of superfluous wealth.


Millions of people in the U.S., the wealthiest country in the world, are homeless. People’s need for shelter and other facilities does not determine what actually gets built. Instead, if more profit can be extracted by building luxury condos than by constructing good basic housing for masses of people, then it is luxury condos that get built. This is because different blocs of capital must either expand or die, and their expansion depends on the highest possible profit. This basic law of capital determines what gets produced, how, and for whom.


Should we rescue this?



http://revcom.us/i/151/ChildLabor.jpg


Child laborers carrying stones at a stone crusher near Gauhati, India, June 2008.

One in six children on this planet are child laborers. Many of these children are owned outright as slaves. Despite laws against child labor, capitalists are driven to maximize profit and to gain competitive advantage over other capitalists by exploiting, and robbing the youth from approximately 250 million children around the world.

Should we rescue this?



http://revcom.us/i/151/MexCorn.jpg

Globalized agriculture has deeply affected production of basic crops of corn and beans in Mexico. Corn is now being grown for ethanol fuel.


Under global capitalism, third world countries have been incorporated into the global capitalist economy. Farmers produce food for export based on what’s most profitable. Crops like corn, sugar, and wheat are now often produced for biofuels in advanced capitalist countries instead of for feeding people. Yet over a billion people on this planet suffer from hunger. In Haiti, food prices have risen by over 40 percent. People eat mudcakes, and dig through garbage dumps looking for food to survive, while mangoes and coffee are mass produced for export.


Should we rescue this?

http://revcom.us/i/151/HondurasGarbage.jpg

In Honduras, over one-third of the population live on one dollar per day. Two men look for scraps to eat at a garbage dump.

http://revcom.us/i/151/LAambulance.jpg

Patient taken from an ambulance and left on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, October 2006. More than a dozen hospitals have been accused of dumping patients on Skid Row.

In every sphere of society—from health care to education to culture to the environment and beyond—the capitalist system acts as a fetter on humanity. Capital twists and bends these arenas of human concern and endeavor to the rule of profit over all, to the requirement that capital continually expand itself…or die. As a result people suffer terribly and their lives are stunted in every dimension-—that is, when they are not outright blown away in some brutal war for empire, or snuffed out by some murdering enforcer for this capitalist system.

Should we rescue this?


NO! WE SHOULD GET RID OF IT!

There is tremendous productive power in the technology, resources and knowledge of the people of this planet. The basis exists to provide a decent life for all right now, and to lay the basis for a common abundance in the future for all of humanity, as part of the all-round transformation of society. But capitalism can only harness those productive powers if they can be used to expand capital; and labor can only be utilized within relations of exploitation for profit. Trapped within the confines and requirements of capitalism, people suffer from the kinds of horrors outlined on this page even in “normal times.” Now with two wars being carried out by U.S. imperialism, and many more raging elsewhere on the planet. . . and with a major economic crisis just beginning to be felt in every corner of the globe.…the monstrosity of this stands out all the more sharply.

That would be the "anti-capitalist" section of the article, which represents our commonly held views while we are united in the intermediate stage of political activism. The rest of the article is devoted to the specific path of the RCP, the "socialist" section.


http://revcom.us/i/151/rebel_02.jpg

From Youth by Zhang Songnan, 1972. This artwork depicts Red Guard youth making “big character posters.” During the Cultural Revolution in China, from 1966 to 1976, people put up these posters all over—on the walls of schools, factories, and neighborhoods. They were a way for the masses of people to engage in debate on a grand scale over key questions in society, including public criticism of leaders and policies.


But none of this is necessary! Humanity can embark on the road of eliminating the division into classes, uprooting the oppressive institutions and relations that grow out of and reinforce those divisions, and transforming people’s thinking. This is the road of communist revolution. The first step on that road is shattering the rule of capital through revolution. Such a revolution actually took place in the Soviet Union (Russia and other countries), and in China – and when revolution ruled those countries, the people were able to create amazing new societies that transformed everything, and met the basic needs of the people in a way never before seen.


This first stage of revolution was defeated by the remaining strength of imperialism, together with the new capitalist forces which arose within the new-born socialist societies. Today there are no socialist states. But Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, USA, has developed a new framework of understanding to blaze the trail for the next stage of revolution. Avakian has analyzed the lessons of the previous stage of revolution, studying both the achievements and the criticisms, from various quarters, and has developed a new synthesis of communist scientific theory. He has built on, and carried forward, the contributions of previous revolutionary communist thinkers, and gone further.

From the Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA


The socialist state would lead and support people in making radical transformations in every sphere of society. It would construct a socialist economic system, by first taking over the major means of production (factories, land and mines, machinery and other technology, etc.) that have been owned and controlled by the big capitalists as their private property—converting these into socialist state property and utilizing them to meet the needs of the people, while rendering support to revolutionary struggle throughout the world. The socialist state would play a decisive role in moving society, through various waves and stages of multi-faceted struggle and social transformations, toward the communist vision of ensuring a common abundance for the people as a whole and overcoming the age-old division between those who work with their minds and those who work with their hands (between mental and physical labor), as well as all other oppressive divisions among people. It would act to prevent the return of the former exploiters, and resist the attacks of imperialism. It would make possible a different kind of democracy, on a far greater scale and with a much more radical vision and practice of human freedom than anything today, in line with its final goal—a final goal in which democracy itself, as a form of state, is transcended and people together debate and decide the course of things without resort to any kind of apparatus of violent suppression. Finally, this new revolutionary socialist state would be built as a “base area” for the world revolution—a springboard and support base and beacon for revolutionary struggles in other countries, all working together to get to a world without exploitation and oppression. (page 6, online at http://revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html)

Now, my anarchist viewpoint is the basis for my judgment that the USSR and PRC were not socialist, but were authoritarian state capitalist countries that merely replicated the hierarchical structure of previously existing arrangements of governance and created a new form of proletarian alienation through their usage of command economies.

But that has no bearing on the fact that I and the RCP members are united in our anti-capitalism. And the images of the degradation that capitalism has caused, if not long, sophisticated argumentation (which should certainly not be abandoned, but for now, they have little place in populist appeals), and intense anger as a result, is an excellent foundation for the anti-capitalist movement.

I think it's a decent idea.


Here is another unity idea that I have been proposing for years. For some groups on the left who tend to argue against each other, get them to have a consultation, not necessarily to agree on any principles, but to see if they can agree on what is a fair wording of what their differences are. They can set the goal to draft a new pamphlet that says "Group 1 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 2 sees the disadvantages of that idea as .... Group 2 proposes ..., and sees its advantages as ..., but group 1 sees the disadvantages of that idea as ..... Readers, you are invited to contact both sides in this debate at their addresses listed below, and make an informed decision for yourself." I believe that step would be very productive. They haven't compromised their beliefs one inch, but now they have agreed on a definition of what their difference are. Just that step alone would be unprecedented. Such a project can only generate publicity, and all participants will benefit from publicity.

Yes, I've had that idea also, and I've been thinking of the "for and against" sections in voter guides' sections on referendums, in which the pros and cons of each by supporters and opponents are listed, with each group also commenting on their opponents' remarks. I can see an FAQ section incorporated with common concerns about "lack of incentives," the "totalitarian" angle, etc., and each participating tendency's response.


Here ya go, I've solved all your problems:

Ideological manifesto for a "united Left" (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html)

Manifesto for actions of a "united Left" (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/praxis/2/principlesofaction.html)

No, you didn't. Even as someone from your own tendency, it's obvious that those texts are explicitly sectarian.

[Nachie]

No, you didn't. Even as someone from your own tendency, it's obvious that those texts are explicitly sectarian.
If you count authoritarian state capitalists as "anti-capitalists" then yeah, I guess.

Guilty as charged.

[Agnapostate]

If you count authoritarian state capitalists as "anti-capitalists" then yeah, I guess.

Guilty as charged.

And the entire point was that the limited dimensions of political activism in politically stable countries render that irrelevant, since there is not a possibility for violent revolution to establish authoritarian state capitalism. If there was an unstable environment characterized by numerous warring tendencies in an insurrectionist atmosphere, I'd be obligated to support the anarchists.

[RED DAVE]

Comrades, Comrades, Comrades. We are never going to get any kind of manifesto for a united left in this period. Without going into details, there are tremendous differences among us, and those differences are real. They involve such fundamental questions as the nature of the working class, the class nature of revolution in third world countries, the nature of unions, etc.

What I think we can hope for in this period is united action. There are numerous occasions when we can work together in unions, mass movements, etc. In these actions, we will test each other's mettle, and, more important, the working class can see who is for real and who is for shit.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Agnapostate:
No, you didn't. Even as someone from your own tendency, it's obvious that those texts are explicitly sectarian.
Nachie:
If you count authoritarian state capitalists as "anti-capitalists" then yeah, I guess.

Guilty as charged.

No, your document even excludes most class struggle anarchists. Your position as an anti-democrat ensures that. You say you all have an "affinity for the platform" but the platform advocated democratic accountability of members in a revolutionary organization and the development of democratic mass organizations, as is evident in their support of syndicalism. so your position is even sectarian within the left-anarchist milieu.

Moreover, a member of my org says that RAAN passed out a leaflet suggested we should attack Trots at demos. He said a bunch of his community college students got the leaflet and because of it they want nothing whatever to do with anarchism.

where it may be possible for people to work together is in actions that have a sufficiently broad basis that there would be wide agreement on support for the particular campaign, struggle, activity. But i think even here differences are likely to emerge...because of different ideas about the way forward. i don't say that to discourage unification in practice. I'm just putting in a cautionary note as to the difficulties.

[Nachie]

Moreover, a member of my org says that RAAN passed out a leaflet suggested we should attack Trots at demos. He said a bunch of his community college students got the leaflet and because of it they want nothing whatever to do with anarchism.

Holy shit, that's amazing

[syndicat]

what was "amazing"? i find the students' reaction entirely predictable, based on my experience. threatening to beat people up because you disagree with their viewpoint is generally going to get a negative reaction...and should get a negative reaction.

[MarxSchmarx]

Give utopias another run.

Seriously. We should focus on articulating what we mean by a classless, stateless society. Maoists/trots/etc... and anarchists already talk about how they both agree on this final goal, but it is very nebulous in the minds of both factions, so they focus instead on bickering over how to get there. And denouncing capitalism.

The sentiment behind these ideas are well and good. At the end of the day, reading through these posts, I get the impression that doesn't this just amount to saying we all agree capitalism sucks?

Further, don't you all think the case against capitalism has been made pretty much to death? Every leftist organization I've known worth its salt publishes gobs and gobs of literature on why capitalism sucks, there are mainstream economists and historians documenting in painful detail why capitalism sucks, and quite a few films and magazine articles out there explaining why capitalism sucks.

Now, it is true that a majority of the population, esp. in the anglo-saxon countries, do not share this view and basically support capitalism. And perhaps some pooling of resources among the various leftist tendencies can make our anti-capitalist messaging better. Is this what you mean by a "manifesto"? However, what form should this take? A few catchy slogans strewn together? A pamphlet? A snazzy website? A wall of text and a few heart-string pulling images doesn't seem to get us any further than the stuff that are out there.

Worse, I think this exposes us to the persistent question of what it is we are for.

Relatedly, the right in the global south does denounce capitalism as well. However, remember that their alternative is basically a return to feudalism or subsistent agriculture or husbandry. A "unified" leftist anticapitalism, if it hopes to have relevance in places like Pakistan will have to supercede mere criticism of capitalism. It is all well and good to document the crimes of capitalism, but if people don't think there are serious, viable alternatives, they won't care. Certainly the experience of the Eastern bloc and the cold war does not help.

Michael Albert has a good line about this anti-capitalist focus. It's like documenting and protesting the horrors of aging. Of course aging sucks, and there are plenty of reasons why. There are also snazzy brochures, websites, and gobs and gobs of journal articles on why aging is horrible. Most people might even agree that someone should do something about it. But until we have a persuasive alternative, the majority of people would be inclined to accept aging as just the way things are, and support a few steps now and then to ameliorate its sucky consequences.

Although there are no serious critics of capitalism from the right anymore in the first world, it's important to remember that a criticism of capitalism isn't entirely what our movement is about. It is a key, integral part. But the other half of our movement is about a better world, and it is important to be constructive and give people a reason to oppose capitalism besides the fact that it sucks.


And indeed therein efforts like these have a hard time getting off the ground. But perhaps if we focus on what it is we really want for the long term, "after socialism", what we mean by communism, and move beyond vague phrases like "classless society".

Denouncing capitalism is easy. But until people think there is something better, they have no reason to struggle. The project of describing our utopian vision is going to be what animates people.

[dutch master]

The only people who believe in "Left Unity" are total morons and/or people who have never even tried to organize in their life.

[Atlee]

The only people who believe in "Left Unity" are total morons and/or people who have never even tried to organize in their life.

There is an inherent danger in organizing that requires strong resolve. Maybe a moron like myself can try and make some difference? I will more likely try until I cannot do so by death. Upon which I will add to my grave stone this new honorable title. :laugh:

[RED DAVE]

The only people who believe in "Left Unity" are total morons and/or people who have never even tried to organize in their life.I would tone it down a bit, but basically this is correct. While, say, Trotskyists and Maoists have more in common with each other than either group has with liberals, the differences between the two tendencies are enormous and, in my opinion, irreconcilable.


There is an inherent danger in organizing that requires strong resolve. Maybe a moron like myself can try and make some difference? I will more likely try until I cannot do so by death. Upon which I will add to my grave stone this new honorable title. :laugh:I'll take you seriously.

The problem with organizing for left unity goes far beyond resolve, Comrade. The differences, as I said above, are real. I advise you to go out and try doing some organizing. Go right to the working class, either in a union job, in a workplace that needs organizing or in support work for organizing or union struggles. Watch how the various tendencies operate. It ain't a pretty sight.

I also advise you to avoid community organizing without a labor connection and, at this point, mass work such as in the antiwar movement. Go to the root, do some reading, watch and keep posting.

RED DAVE

[Wolf Larson]

a good place to start is blending marxism with anarchism by focusing on direct democracy and less on a centralized state.

[syndicat]

as marxs. says nowadays we can't avoid talking about what we want, what our aim is. not after the failures of state socialism in the 20th century in its various forms. at the same time, i think it's also necessary to keep this connected to the concept of the self-emancipation of the oppressed, and a politics of self-emanicipation has to be rooted in working class struggles. for me the focus on worker self-organization is motivated in part because i can't see how else a socialist economy based on workers direct management of production would come about, other than through a radical grassroots labor movement.

[eclipse]

points i think relevant for a theoretical united left of the future. As long as they are not reached/ strived for, I`d rather be "sectarian".

- unity of opression and intersectionality (a critique of capitalism alone will fail)
The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence (Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction, 1843)

- no icons, dogmas, leaders or avantguard politics (also: scene, subculture, identity politics as means for themselves)
- integrating, educating and empowering people, not trying to manipulate them for their own good.
- consequent revolutionary perspective, reformative struggles only as rallying points and always connected with the greater goal. "Working in the system" only if there are greater loyalities to the cause and a revolutionary organization before those to the democratic electable party, the non-revolutionary union. These are conceptualized to work good inside the status quo. Abolishing these forms of organization as soon as possible.
- denial of alienating comrades with other theories, forms of actions. Searching dialogue and synthesis.
- finding forms of effective consensual decision making and collective property.
- having the goal in mind. Forms of transition from one society to another might be necessary, but they must not have a form that allows those who organise them to stop there.

[Agnapostate]

Everyone agrees only to disagree; no one will accept any sort of comprehensive platform or program. There can only be a united anti-capitalism and diverging recipes for change.

[eclipse]

Everyone agrees only to disagree; no one will accept any sort of comprehensive platform or program. There can only be a united anti-capitalism and diverging recipes for change.

At least some basic points and concepts will have to be fleshed out, or everything might end in ruins.

[Agnapostate]

At least some basic points and concepts will have to be fleshed out, or everything might end in ruins.

Yeah...anti-capitalism. And a rhetorical commitment to workers' ownership and control of the means of production, and diverging recipes for the nature of that program.

[eclipse]

Anti-sexism, anti-racism etc ... not?

[370H55V]

Anti-sexism, anti-racism etc ... not?

Everyone is sexist and racist to a certain degree, including everyone in this forum. There is nothing basic about this.

[eclipse]

And why do think that is?

[370H55V]

Because it is. Plain and simple. Even a blind man could see that. Duhhh

[Q]

Because it is. Plain and simple. Even a blind man could see that. Duhhh

Let's try this logic of yours with a different example: "everyone is communistic and capitalistic to a certain degree including everyone in this forum. Plain and simple. Even a blind man could see that. Duhhh"

Deep reasoning there.