Left Unity: Positive or Negative?

[Soviet dude]

In my experience, while the call for Left Unity is mostly a naïve idea, it is quite powerful and the idea of a unified Left captures the imagination of a lot of people on the Left. Lots of new, younger, and inexperienced people can't understand why the Left is divided. Some groups have even formed with the explicit concept of seeking Left Unity in some fashion. In America, the two most well known groups are Solidarity and FRSO (Left Refoundationist).

In my experience dealing with people on the Left who are interested in Left Unity, it essentially comes in two broad groups. I like to call them “Positive Unity” and “Negative Unity.”

Positive Unity, is in essence, a broad acceptance of many different socialist and radical figures and traditions. Ideological figures that were essentially in conflict with one another (Mao and Hoxha, for instance) are both accepted, usually one to a greater extent than another, but neither are rejected and both seen as positive in some sense. The only example of Positive Unity that has been largely successful than I am aware of is within the Marxist-Leninist current. This used to be a current that was essentially 4 different tendencies (pro-Cuba, pro-USSR, pro-Albania, and pro-China) though it seems more and more that basically these tendencies are being consolidated into one. Many of the major Marxist-Leninist groups of the world today belong to the International Community Seminar and share a common analysis regarding the history of 20th century socialism.

Negative Unity, on the other hand, seems to be based on rejecting radical figures and traditions. Non-acceptance of most of the historical traditions of the Left is the norm. FRSO (Left Refoundationist) for instance, comes out of a Maoist tradition, but explicitly sees unity as a need to reject the USSR and even abandon much of Maoism. Solidarity, which has its origins in Trotskyism, does not explicitly even uphold Trotsky or Lenin. It appears to join these organizations, all you need is an orientation against capitalism, and you ideologically qualify for membership.

What is interesting to me, is that groups that propose unity on a Negative basis seem not to be going anywhere. Solidarity and FRSO (Left Refoundationist) can not even merge together, yet unity around the new all-encompassing Marxism-Leninism seems to be the fastest growing radical trend, and is certainly the most visible in the world today, with the KKE in Greece and the Maoists in Nepal.

It seems to me that those pushing for a Negative Unity do so on mostly an opportunist basis, without actually trying to relate to what is good and worth keeping, while positive unity seeks to identify and find basis around what is good and worth modeling ourselves after in other traditions. If there is ever going to be anymore serious mergers of political groups in America, it will come out of a spirit of positive unity, not negative unity.

[Raúl Duke]

Unity or disunity of the left itself perhaps means nothing on whether there will be a revolution or not, if the working class are the revolutionary class than it's they who will make revolution irrespective of ideology. I doubt unity will be a "solution," much less an ultimate solution, to the left's problems per se. Disunity on key issues/praxis is just the nature of anti-capitalist ideologies. This doesn't mean that I don't imagine there a bit of unity (i.e. of the most ad-hoc ephemeral type, like 2 organization's members happening to show up to the same protest, strike, etc and deciding to temporarily help each other) happening from time to time but compete unity between leftist ideologies mostly impossible.

All that I could imagine ideology effecting in this revolutionary process is on the issue of praxis, but even than I imagine the working class to tend towards certain forms of practice, etc more than others.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

To sum up my view on the subject, the question should not be "unity or disunity?". We unquestionably need to unite all who can be united for revolution. Therefore, the question should instead be "unity toward what objectives?". Too many people think of broad unity as something that, to be effective, must be based on "setting aside differences". I disagree. Real, meaningful, sustainable unity is only achieved when and to the degree that it is based on a common political line. Hence wrangling over the road to take is a crucial aspect of successfully building a broad, revolutionary united front.

[Soviet dude]

Whether or not we accept the call to unity, it is still worth considering the broader types of 'Left Unity' being proposed. The unity of Marxist-Leninist parties that is proposed by the Workers Party of Belgium and many other groups is definitely an example of positive unity. To quote Ludo Martens:



For the unity of marxist-leninist Parties

Following deep political and ideological differences and often bitter political struggle, the international communist movement split after 1956.
During the last thirty-five years, we have witnessed the creation of a so-called " pro-chinese" tendency, which itself divided into several sub-tendencies after the death of Mao Zedong. The "pro-USSR", majority, tendency, split into numerous tendencies after the complete restoration of capitalism under Gorbatchev. The "pro-Albanese" tendency divided following the downfall of socialism in Albania. Since the sixties, a "pro-cuban" tendency has appeared in Latin America. Some parties maintained an "independent" position regarding all of these tendencies.
Whatever opinion one may uphold concerning the validity or even the necessity of these splits at a given moment in history, the necessity and the possibility to overcome them exists today.

This overcoming is on the basis of acceptance of all this traditions, because what divides them today is very, very little. To quote a member of the CMKP:


"Yes but unlike the Maoists and Hoxhaists, we do not subscribe to the view that a communist leader has to be correct on every single question every single time in order for us to consider him/her a Marxist-Leninist. Lenin’s attitude towards Rosa Luxemberg is very instructive on this issue. Lenin wrote about Rosa"

"Lenin upheld that Rosa was an “Eagle” (that is a great Marxist leader) because despite her mistakes her overall contributions were great and perhaps most importantly because she fought and gave her life against the most important question of her time: The World War. On this crucial question Rosa and Karl Liebnecht struggled against the opportunism of the second international that supported imperialism under the slogan of “defence of the fatherland”."

"Similarly, we uphold that Fidel Castro is a great Marxist Leninist because despite his mistaken position on Stalin and Gorbachev he defended and even advanced socialism in\ Cuba and Latin America at a time when the entire socialist block disintegrated from the corrosive influence of revisionism. Despite all the difficulties around him, he successfully steered Cuba against the longest standing embargo in history by the largest military and economic power in history in a period of complete international isolation. He fulfilled the promise he made in 1962 that he would remain a Marxist-Leninist until the day he died. Is that not true? Despite the enormous historical defeat of socialism is he not defending the essential ideas of socialism till his very last breath?"

"Both Maoism and Hoxhaism uphold that when the “leadership” of a socialist state falls into the hands of revisionists the socialist state becomes a capitalist state. That was the basis upon which it was asserted that the Soviet Union was capitalist after the death of Stalin. Similarly, it was the basis upon which it was asserted that China was capitalist after the death of Mao (or the defeat of the so- called Gang of Four and Lin Piao). I wouldn’t be surprised if after Hoxha came to the conclusion that Mao was a revisionist he pronounced China a capitalist country."

"What matters is not who holds these views but whether they can be corroborated by facts. If a thesis cannot be proven by facts, we would reject it even if it was held by Karl Marx. The thesis about “Soviet Social Imperialism” opened the door within the anti-revisionist movement to opportunist and revisionist tendencies of all shapes and stripes."

"I do not agree with the Maoist assessment of Hoxha nor with the Hoxhaism assessment of Mao! They both seem to have lost the wood for the trees in my opinion. I simultaneously reject the “Three World’s Theory” which in my opinion was never a serious theory of revolution but merely China’s foreign policy touted as a theory."

"I also bitterly criticize the support that the Communist Party of China gave to Afghan Mujahideen, Pinochet, and UNITA. This was a disastrous policy decision."

"In the final analysis what we must take from Mao and Hoxha are their critiques of modern revisionism while rejecting their ultra-leftist errors or the ultra-leftist errors made in their name (especially those arising from the ridiculous theory of Soviet Social Imperialism)."

"The pro-Soviet parties have to wake up and realize that the Soviet Union was destroyed because of the opportunist policies undertaken under the rhetoric of de-Stalinization. The anti-revisionists have to get over their ultra-leftist errors. Only by correcting both revisionism as well as ultra-leftism can a Marxist-Leninist party be built up that can lead the world proletariat to victory."

I don't know of any other examples of a push toward a "Positive Unity" in other trends (anarchism, Trotskyism, etc), but if anyone does, I would be happy to read about it.

[chegitz guevara]

Why unity would be useful:

* Efficiency, instead of having thirty different monthly newspapers, we could have a daily.
* Numbers, it's easier to engage in political tasks when you have more than ten people in your local.
* Visibility, instead of being a zillion tiny sects, whom the media can ignore, we'd be one tiny sect whom the media would still ignore

[Wolf Larson]

this site if full of reformists and non revoloutionary socialists. if you point that out you get banned. fuck unity with them. spreading proper class awrness is key, not utopian bunkum.

[Soviet dude]

this site if full of reformists and non revoloutionary socialists. if you point that out you get banned. fuck unity with them. spreading proper class awrness is key, not utopian bunkum.

Maybe that is true, but it is beside the point of what sorts of "unity" are being proposed. Obviously people who have a fundamentally hostile orientation toward the socialist countries would never go for "Positive Unity" with people who do, hence why groups like Solidarity and FRSO (Left Refoundationist) approach unity in a Negative fashion: it is based on the rejection of most (or all) socialist traditions, rather than an acceptance of them.

While I do not see any serious non-Marxist-Leninist approaches of "Positive Unity" out there, there could be a positive unity around Trotskyism and anarchism, for instance. While I do not think this would be possible, considering the nature of Trotskyism, it seems to me there isn't a lot that practically separates Trotskyist groups. If you hate the USSR, what does it matter if it is "State Capitalist" or "Bureaucratic Collectivist" or whatever.

I would say further that there could probably not be any such thing as a "Positive Unity" between trends (except for maybe Marcyism with Marxism-Leninism). "Negative Unity" seems to be mostly an attempt to unite non-Marxist-Leninist trends together around a rejection basically everything to do with 20th century socialism. It seems in principle an attempt build a social-democratic formation in the US.


Why unity would be useful:

* Efficiency, instead of having thirty different monthly newspapers, we could have a daily.
* Numbers, it's easier to engage in political tasks when you have more than ten people in your local.
* Visibility, instead of being a zillion tiny sects, whom the media can ignore, we'd be one tiny sect whom the media would still ignore

On the basis of "Negative Unity," I would say this project would essentially be a social-democratic one, and that in reality it would be harder to advance the struggle toward revolution with such a formation.

[Ele'ill]

I like this thread.

What can people in the United States organize and do in the United States that would help Greece. What can people in Nepal do to help people in the United States. What can people in England do to help people in Mexico- so and and so on.

There has to be a cross borders global tactic that someone can come up with- Yes it's going to be specific and it will have a deadline etc.

There has to be a way to unite leftists around the world through solidarity actions that actually make an impact and aren't just occupations or street demos.

Even if it is tried and fails a hundred times that's a hundred times of experience that the left can adapt from.

[Lolshevik]

I think the United National Antiwar Conference (http://nationalpeaceconference.org/Home_Page.html) is a good example of positive unity, a united-front-type event that has the backing of the Maoists (RCP-USA), Workers' World, the Trotskyist Socialist Action, some faith based organizations etc. Unity on the basis of what is concretely needed to advance the working class movement today: a focus on mass action as opposed to lobbying capitalist parties, recognition of the need to transcend simple "war is wrong!" moralistic stuff and link the antiwar movement to anti-imperialist demands abroad and pro-worker demands at home. These are issues that communists of almost any persuasion can rally around.

[Serge's Fist]

Unity is essential if we are to build the mass communist organisations that are needed for us to intervene effectively in the workers movement and spread socialist consciousness.

For unity to work there needs to be an acceptance of different ideas and traditions within a party, and that different factions and tendencies can publicly and freely operate without restriction. The most important prelude to unity is programmatic unity, that is not agreeing with every dot and comma but having a programme that is accepted by the majority of members.

It cannot be done with simply ignoring differences, I would have great difficulty entering into any kind of unity with people who would defend Stalin, the Soviet Union or mass murder in China. The KKE is not a revolutionary organisation, the KKE has held back working class struggles with Greece with the union bureaucracy alongside PASOK and other social democratic organisations. If it comes to a decisive battle over the existence of the capitalist state in Greece, the KKE will play a similar to what the PCF did in 1968.