Could the Far Left Ever Unite Under a Single Banner?

[Adil3tr]

Could the far left ever work together as one to get our voices heard or neutralize the tea party? I think there is a lot of potential.

[Catillina]

I'm optimistic to the Unification :) If the time of revolution comes, we'll all unite

[GreenCommunism]

so what compromise is possible between anarchists and communist?

[Raúl Duke]

No

[GreenCommunism]

raul duke says no, it's all over guys, close the light and pack your shit up.

[Raúl Duke]

raul duke says no, it's all over guys, close the light and pack your shit up.

lol

The thing is, if it were possible, it would've probably happen anyway.

But if one looks at history, unity has proven to be fraught with difficulties and in the end break-apart.

Plus, history has left its mark on the left. It's unlikely that anarchist groups will ever trust M-Leninists in position of power.

There may be some unity but only in certain circumstances/situations/occasions, very ad-hoc (and/or temporary), sometimes "spontaneously" (2 different groups show up at the same demo) , and quite fragile.

Also, unity is not a precursor to revolution. It's not ideologists who make revolution but classes, in this case the working class.

[pranabjyoti]

If they are really left and representative of proletariat, they can. If they are just a bunch of petty-bourgeoisie individualist identity seekers, they can not.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Our tactics and strategies are so different that a "united left" group could not function in practice. Also, different tendancies would have to dumb down their political ideas to be able to work in the group, which would obviously be detremental to any group.

[Soviet dude]

I would suggest you actually get involved with an anarchist group, a Trotskyist group, and a Marxist-Leninist group, and then you will understand why the answer to your question is a categorical "No."

[A.R.Amistad]

Could the far left ever work together as one to get our voices heard or neutralize the tea party? I think there is a lot of potential.


Far left? Lol far from what?

I think the same thing every time I look at a map of Middle Earth. There is the "evil" land of Harad south of Mordor, and it is divided into "Near Harad" and "Far Harad." I always think "well, if I lived in Gondor, Far Harad would surely be far away, but if I lived in Far Harad it just wouldn't be so far!" Sorry, I'm a bit of a Tolkein freak as I'm sure you all have figured out.

But seriosuly, what do people have against United Fronts? Really, there are plenty of examples of such fronts where groups of differing ideologies work toward a common goal. Argument can be contructive, and is even necessary for revolutionary success. Why are we trying to avoid argument?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Doubtful.

Many of the little sects will die out. Many of them, to all intents and purposes, already have and i'm not all that sad about it.

Socialism will triumph, I believe, with or without those who fight in Trotsky's, Lenin's, Stalin's, Mao's or whoevers name.

[chegitz guevara]

I am optimistic. I think most of us realize our sectarianism and dogmatism are hurting our ability to do what needs to be done. Here and there, over the past several years, around the globe, elements of the far left are reaching out to each other, figuring out ways to work together.

The main cause of our state is our separation from the masses of the worker class. Without a way to test our ideas in practice, debate and critique is our only method of testing them, and that doesn't work very well. Like Aristotle declaring that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, on the basis of pure reason alone, most of our theological differences are also on the basis of pure reason. Once our ideas are translated into material reality, those that work will continue, those that don't will be discarded, and the groups which upheld them will dissolve into the groups that are succeeding.

[Volcanicity]

Impossible it would turn into an all out wrestling match.

[this is an invasion]

Don't think it's possible nor am I interested in trying.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What I find depressing is not that it may not happen, but that many people belonging to various tendencies seem to actually prefer a dis-united left in which they can keep their ideological purity, rather than an arguably stronger, united workers' movement where there is an inclination towards compromise, rather than a bunch of ideologues practising their intellectual snobbery.

[GreenCommunism]

Don't think it's possible nor am I interested in trying.


At the same time, we have to recognize RAAN at its base as an alliance between "anti-state" communists and anarchists of various self definitions - including various affiliates who reject personal labels but nevertheless feel a degree of affinity to these currents.

remove the RAAN from your sig fool.

i think full cooperation is impossible, mainly because i doubt anarchist would agree with democratic centralism. but there are some bits we can do, one start would be anarchist and communist distributing each other's paper instead of only their own.

[NecroCommie]

There might not be unity between movements, but there might be a time when all the leftists "convert" to one single movement. This has happened in smaller scale numerous times.

[Widerstand]

There is a need to unite, certainly. I find it unlikely though, unless all sides would be willing to make major compromises. Which, I think, is only realistic if they were to unite against a common enemy. But even in that case, history has shown that MLs have a tendency to turn on Anarchists (Spanish Revolution).

[Soviet dude]

What I find depressing is not that it may not happen, but that many people belonging to various tendencies seem to actually prefer a dis-united left in which they can keep their ideological purity, rather than an arguably stronger, united workers' movement where there is an inclination towards compromise, rather than a bunch of ideologues practising their intellectual snobbery.

In my experience, only naive people who have little experience with different groups think this is the case. There are real, practical differences about how you simply do everything that separates the groups.

Granted, the differences that separate most Trotskyist groups are pretty petty. Anarchist groups are simply too disorganized to be united. There are only a few genuine Marxist-Leninist groups in America, but they seem to get along reasonable well. But the broader tendencies are vastly different from one another.

And in any case, the entire Left in America that belongs to a "far-Left" party is, at best, 5,000 people. That includes every single little Trotskyist splinter group, every autonomous anarchist collective, etc. Unity wouldn't mean much.

[chegitz guevara]

I've been in the movement twenty years, now. I've seen more attempts in the last few years to overcome our separation than in the previous eighteen. I'm organizing commies and anarchists together, commies of different tendencies. It's starting to happen. Something is in the air.

[Soviet dude]

From what I understand of your organizing in Florida, it is you basically in vicious internal squabbles in the SP-USA, and sometimes the PSL does stuff with you, like when you got in a fight with some Teabaggers.

What would give you the impression about anything you do that is leading toward broader Left unity?

[Crux]

From what I understand of your organizing in Florida, it is you basically in vicious internal squabbles in the SP-USA
You're talking about Brian Moore and Atlee here? Surely you're not interested in their kind of unity?

[Soviet dude]

I would further add, that groups that preach "Left Unity" like Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL, are in fact, lead by extreme anti-communist opportunists, who use the cover of "Left Unity" to attack other groups. Their "Left Unity" is a lowest common denominator politics of social-democracy and rapprochement to bourgeois anti-communism and imperialism.

[Soviet dude]

You're talking about Brian Moore and Atlee here? Surely you're not interested in their kind of unity?

Of course not. That doesn't mean I'm interested in unity with most of the "Left" either. I see no point in unity with people who are basically involved in a music-fashion scene (anarchism), in a political cult (most Trotskyist groups), or whose politics are basically social-democratic and anti-communist.

[Wanted Man]

How would the thread starter define "unite" in the first place? It can mean all sorts of shit. We've already seen millions of failed electoral fronts, united fronts, etc., but also very fruitful cooperation in certain areas, without any particular kind of organisational unity. I'd say the latter is more important than all kinds of self-important "united fronts" that either serve one organisation's interests, or are simply abject failures (or both).

[Q]

You're talking about Brian Moore and Atlee here? Surely you're not interested in their kind of unity?

In all groups there are going to be bad apples. This is no argument against unity.

Also, I don't know a terrible lot about the Workers' Party in New Zealand, but it is the result from a unity project of groups from Trotskyist and Maoist background. While of course the New Zealand leftwing scene isn't exactly huge, it does show the real potential that exists. We however need to show political will to step over our own shadow. This is difficult and only works sometimes, but when it does, we all win.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

No, don't think so. The problem is this, these socialist parties ALL want to be the 'vangard", not the people, no , no, the party. These socialist groups couldn't lead a one man parade. The ONLY way there will be a revolution is not through these socialist groups, it is by the workers becoming revolutionary by undoing his"workerness",the same goes for the farmer, the cleark, the student, the soldier, the bureaucrat, the professional and, yes, the Marxist. His workerness is a disease, a social affliction. he begins to become a revolutionary when he undoes his Workerness, when he sheds exactly those features which the marxist most prize in him-his work ethic. his character-structure taken from industrial discipline, his respect for hierarchy, his obedience to leaders, his consumerism, his vestiges of puritanism.he needs to shed his class status and achieve an un-class consciousness. and by doing this he is shedding the class shackles that bind him to all systems of domination. he abandons those very class interests that enslave him to consumerism, suburbia and a bookkeeping conception of life. for a revolution to happen, it needs to have the support of people that feel the burden of exploitation, poverty, racism, imperialism, those whose lives are frustrated by comsumerism, suburbia, the mass media, the traditional family, school, the supermarket shopper existence. it needs to detest, despise, and hate everything about this system, it's rules, it's laws, it's culture, it's hierarchy, it's boss, all forms of domination. untill then, it won't happen. but these socialist groups will not advocate this, why? because the discipline that has been inculcated by the factory, the workplace, the socialist groups will use. they will use the workers respect for industrial hierarchy and wed the worker to the party hierarchy and a handful of all-knowing leaders. all this does is turn the worker into an imitation of his masters. so go on socialist, continue to babble about "cadres",a "vanguard party", "democratic centralism" and the proletarian dictatorship.this is sheer counterrevolution, because the only dictatorship the people will wound up with is one of the party, not the people.

[Magón]

I think one of, if not the most major, problem to unification of leftist groups/ideologies, is that they're unable to be flexible with one another. Unable to say, "Hey, maybe your right Commie guy, maybe Communism would work best for our trading sector of things. And maybe you're right Anarchist guy, for how we should handle peoples freedoms and abilities to do what they want and don't want to do. And you know, maybe Trotskyist guy, you're not so bad with some ideas you have."

I think if major organizers took the time to sit down with each other, talk with each other, figure out a way where all the parties and groups can work best at, then the left will be unified as a strong force like the Right has become through horrible coup's, assassinations, dictatorships, etc. Of course, being leftists, we have to talk and be even more flexible than we already are. Which for some of us, it would turn us into water. :thumbup1:

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

If you believe the Far Left is/was Robert Mugabe, Jawaharlal Nehru and other great anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie politicians, as well as the socalled progressive petit-bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat as well as the peasant classes, then yes obviously the whole Far Left could unite under one banner as long as it followed the biggest power.

For those that believe the progressive 'Far Left' is only embodied in those that directly struggle as and for the working-class, it is a little different. Yes we want a world communist party, yes we want it centralised, but that 'Far Left' definition is entirely subjective.

[revolution inaction]

Could the far left ever work together as one to get our voices heard or neutralize the tea party? I think there is a lot of potential.
i don't see why this would be a good thing, it's been tried in hte past and the results don' really make me what to try it again.

[Soviet dude]

I can tell you right now, any "Broad Left" group that was created, that openly took a hostile stance toward the DPRK, even if they limp-wristedly supported them against US imperialism, I would never join. Any group that was anti-Chavez, I would never join. Any group that backed counter-revolution in places like Iran and Zimbabwe, I would never join. And these are just a few current international things, never mind talking about actual strategy and tactics for revolution in America.

Now, I would assume someone interested in "Left Unity" would basically be like "Well, fuck you then." That's because such a project is fundamentally anti-communist and social-democratic. The people who imagine "Lefty Unity" is going to help us win anything basically are imagining some kind of electoral contest against the Democrats and Republicans. They are imagining "revolution" is going to happen through electoral means, so of course they want "Left Unity" for this purpose. Do you think Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL want "Left Unity" so they can have more troops to start the People's War in America?

This goes back to my thread on Positive and Negative Unity. The "Left Unity" promoted by groups like Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL is a Negative Unity: a "unity" based on the common rejection of pretty much everything. This an opportunistic and shallow "unity" only fit for a social-democratic project.

[Nachie]

As long as people keep asking this question, I will keep giving the same answer:

A more than temporary unity among revolutionary factions can only occur given an outright rejection of Leninism and an open hostility to the established activist, professional "Left".

With that single hurdle surmounted, it is not only possible but completely natural for anarchists and true communists to work together not just on individual projects, but as a single integrated organization. This is exactly what RAAN has agitated towards.

Beyond the ideological unity, the functioning of such an organization will be based on five principles:


1. Individual Empowerment

The backbone of the network is each individual RAANista. Affiliates choose their own level of involvement and through action determine their contributions to the tendency and the direction it is going in. This direct form of meritocracy, where diverse individuals can tailor the overall project to their personal needs, is unique to autonomism.

2. Mutual Aid

The unity in action provided by RAAN allows for cross-ideological bonds to be built, and within the new categories affiliation, all resources become common property and can be shared according to need and/or strategy.

3. Collective Credibility

The secret to RAAN is that it is an army of ants consciously choosing to attack as an overwhelming beast. The power of the individual to assert themselves within the network, the psychological benefits of coordinated action and common culture, as well as their value as weapons, all depends on our shared identification. Together we can truly rock the boat. However, if projects and actions cannot be easily identified as RAAN projects or actions, they cannot benefit from or contribute to the collective credibility.

4. Diversity of Tactics

We live amidst a historic failure by both clandestine and above-ground revolutionaries to support each other. By choosing a common banner and hoping to use it as a tool in struggles across the board, we have also made a commitment to bridge that gap by uniting into a recognizable, though undefinable, culture of resistance.

5. Autonomy

Autonomy refers to the complete decentralization of RAAN; the idea that groups and individuals should be to make decisions and act independently of any overhead coordination; that individuals must be given the space and resources to tackle the issues they are finding most relevant, in the process autonomously determining network policy from moment to moment.

[Soviet dude]

Looks like a basis for a "guerrilla gardening" group to me.

[Raúl Duke]

remove the RAAN from your sig fool. I think RAAN takes a left communist approach. They talk about unity among "real communists" but not unity with Leninists.


rather than an arguably stronger, united workers' movementUnity of leftist ideological organizations/unity of leftist activists =/= strong united worker's movement

The activist left is not the "worker's movement." A "unity" in the activist left has nothing or little to do, at this time, with working class unity and militancy.

Also the right is not united, as many would say. The right seems strong because they have backing from the elites while the actual revolutionary left does not.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

No, don't think so. The problem is this, these socialist parties ALL want to be the 'vangard", not the people, no , no, the party. These socialist groups couldn't lead a one man parade. The ONLY way there will be a revolution is not through these socialist groups, it is by the workers becoming revolutionary by undoing his"workerness",the same goes for the farmer, the cleark, the student, the soldier, the bureaucrat, the professional and, yes, the Marxist. His workerness is a disease, a social affliction. he begins to become a revolutionary when he undoes his Workerness, when he sheds exactly those features which the marxist most prize in him-his work ethic. his character-structure taken from industrial discipline, his respect for hierarchy, his obedience to leaders, his consumerism, his vestiges of puritanism.he needs to shed his class status and achieve an un-class consciousness. and by doing this he is shedding the class shackles that bind him to all systems of domination. he abandons those very class interests that enslave him to consumerism, suburbia and a bookkeeping conception of life. for a revolution to happen, it needs to have the support of people that feel the burden of exploitation, poverty, racism, imperialism, those whose lives are frustrated by comsumerism, suburbia, the mass media, the traditional family, school, the supermarket shopper existence. it needs to detest, despise, and hate everything about this system, it's rules, it's laws, it's culture, it's hierarchy, it's boss, all forms of domination. untill then, it won't happen. but these socialist groups will not advocate this, why? because the discipline that has been inculcated by the factory, the workplace, the socialist groups will use. they will use the workers respect for industrial hierarchy and wed the worker to the party hierarchy and a handful of all-knowing leaders. all this does is turn the worker into an imitation of his masters. so go on socialist, continue to babble about "cadres",a "vanguard party", "democratic centralism" and the proletarian dictatorship.this is sheer counterrevolution, because the only dictatorship the people will wound up with is one of the party, not the people.


As trotsky said about these power hungry groups," they are the syphilis of the radical youth today, and for syphilis there is only one treatment-an antibiotic, not an argument.

[Nachie]

Looks like a basis for a "guerrilla gardening" group to me.

We actually had one in Canada!

Food is awesome.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think it could happen as a temporary thing if all of us were united in a single goal. However, once that goal is accomplished, we'd probably split again. However, I don't think we would split into our original groups. I think ideollogies that are similar to one another would merge together and in turn result in more unification than there was in the beginning. And, if a new government were setup in a land, and after the merging there were only a few large groups, I think that to some extent, they could coexist as political parties do here in the US and work to get the people on there side... this of course has a lot of nasty possibilities linked to it, but there are probably a few good things too.

[Wanted Man]

As long as people keep asking this question, I will keep giving the same answer:

A more than temporary unity among revolutionary factions can only occur given an outright rejection of Leninism and an open hostility to the established activist, professional "Left".

With that single hurdle surmounted, it is not only possible but completely natural for anarchists and true communists to work together not just on individual projects, but as a single integrated organization. This is exactly what RAAN has agitated towards.

Beyond the ideological unity, the functioning of such an organization will be based on five principles:

Unfortunately, even most of what you call "true communists" don't seem to care much about your "demands".

[Kuppo Shakur]

I say it's a better idea for all of us not to be under the same banner, at least at the start. If we just keep presenting our different opinions as to what would work best, then a majority consensus can eventually be reached. It will of course be a bumpy road, but it can and will work out.

The way I see it, we need the more Leninist or even Maoist types to actually get shit done, but we also need a strong anarchist/libertarian socialist attitude to keep the state in check. Eh?

[chegitz guevara]

As long as people keep asking this question, I will keep giving the same answer:

A more than temporary unity among revolutionary factions can only occur given an outright rejection of Leninism and an open hostility to the established activist, professional "Left".

This sectarian bullshit is the chief obstacle to even a loose umbrella: the need for some groups to say to others, "abandon your politics and adopt ours, and we can have unity."

Well, fuck, we could all have unity if we did the same thing and joined the CPUSA or the RCP or any other single group.

The trick is how to work together without demanding comrades abandon their politics.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

hmm... how about we pool our similarities, present it to the people and gain power and then create a collective based upon similarities. And then leave the little details and the technicalities to debate among the different groups, and wherever the people stand, we go?

[Ovi]

If they are really left and representative of proletariat, they can. If they are just a bunch of petty-bourgeoisie individualist identity seekers, they can not.
We don't intend to represent the proletariat, that's what the bourgeois does (or says it does) through politics.
Here's a quote I found today

I say work with the Anarchists during the revolution, but afterwards keep a close eye on them and if they dare try to mess with our Marxist Society, crush the intruders.From one of our marxist comrades (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1821636) . And we're supposed to work together? For what? For the next leninist state? For the next betrayal as soon as the bourgeois is weakened by our common actions? These unity threads are very common but nobody told me yet how both the anarchist goal of a classless stateless society and the leninist goal of centralized state can be achieved at the same time.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

We don't intend to represent the proletariat, that's what the bourgeois does (or says it does) through politics.
Here's a quote I found today
From one of our marxist comrades (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1821636) . And we're supposed to work together? For what? For the next leninist state? For the next betrayal as soon as the bourgeois is weakened by our common actions? These unity threads are very common yet nobody told me yet how both the anarchist goal of a classless stateless society and the leninist goal of centralized state can be achieved at the same time.

I think both can be accomplished through true democracy, ie something like what the greeks had, state agnosticism and with the use of a constitution or a mutual agreement protecting the rights of the minorities be they religious or race.

[Wanted Man]

Well, fuck, we could all have unity if we did the same thing and joined the CPUSA or the RCP or any other single group.

"We can only unite if we all back the Democrats in elections and uphold the wise leadership of Bob Avakian."

[Nachie]

This sectarian bullshit is the chief obstacle to even a loose umbrella: the need for some groups to say to others, "abandon your politics and adopt ours, and we can have unity."

Well, fuck, we could all have unity if we did the same thing and joined the CPUSA or the RCP or any other single group.

The trick is how to work together without demanding comrades abandon their politics.

We're actually not demanding that anyone abandon their politics, simply saying that they should not expect "unity" from us in the future, as we do not recruit Leninists.

People in RAAN actually have all kinds of different self-definitions, but Bolshevik is not one of them. You and anyone else are of course free to disagree with this position, but we view it as rather fundamentally important in terms of creating an atmosphere where the different tendencies can respect each other and work together. This isn't about pimping out our organization, just drawing attention to a pretty key element of what it takes to actually get people to work together across ideological lines.

This question gets asked constantly on revleft and the answers always range from "no way can we ever work together, all the ideologies are incompatible" to "yeah we can all put our differences aside and just work together" but as with most things worth analyzing, there is much more nuance to it: some of the ideologies are PERFECTLY compatible and screaming to be united, but some are not.

Why should those of us who are perfectly capable of working together under a common framework be continually expected to stumble and fail over a perceived need to be inclusive towards elements who are in all honesty quite heinous?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I'm just curious... where do you think liberal progressivism will take this America? Reason I ask is because it seems as though Anarchy and Marxism is influencing it more than ever. Is this just media BS or is this true, and if it is true, will it work or are the progressives only interested in using it to lure people so that they have help?

[Widerstand]

The trick is how to work together without demanding comrades abandon their politics.

And how do we work together towards different, non-shared, sometimes even opposing goals?

[chegitz guevara]

We unite on what can be united on. Where we oppose each other, so be it. Perhaps we should rely on, oh, I dunno, debate and democratic votes?

[Raúl Duke]

The left already works together, but this is by no means that they're "united."

Just that they work together in an ad-hoc sort of way.

All sorts of organizations, sometimes opposing ones, show up to support strikes, be a part of a demo, join in a rally, etc.

This is the "informal" unity of the left and it's something that is already occurring now.

When people call for unity they're usually talking about some formal unity or putting all the left in ONE BIG FEDERATION or whatever. I see nothing to gain in this kind of unity and to be frank this type of unity fails. You just can't put anarchists/left communists together in one organization with Leninists, Maoists, Trots.

Some people make it sound like this "formal unity" is required for the revolution to happen or whatever...but the thing is it's not the activist left that makes revolution but the working class. The activist left should only focus on agitating the working class from within.

[Agnapostate]

I have the same answer that I give every time the topic pops up again and again every hour: It's a matter of unity in anti-capitalism. For example, everyone here purports to hate the RCP. Yet no one would object to any facet of the anti-capitalist rhetoric in this publication (http://revcom.us/a/151/system-en.html), only the sectarian Maoism endorsed in is wake.


Far left? Lol far from what?

I think the same thing every time I look at a map of Middle Earth. There is the "evil" land of Harad south of Mordor, and it is divided into "Near Harad" and "Far Harad." I always think "well, if I lived in Gondor, Far Harad would surely be far away, but if I lived in Far Harad it just wouldn't be so far!" Sorry, I'm a bit of a Tolkein freak as I'm sure you all have figured out.

Far from a political spectrum that consensus has typically designated as the realm of acceptable ideas, or the area far from the Overton Window. We also have the "Near East" and the "Far East."

[Wanted Man]

Some people make it sound like this "formal unity" is required for the revolution to happen or whatever...but the thing is it's not the activist left that makes revolution but the working class. The activist left should only focus on agitating the working class from within.

Correct. Even in terms of temporary coalitions, you'd have to wonder what the use is.

For instance, in the latest Belgian elections, in the French-speaking part, 6 left-wing parties (incl. the old "official" CP, trotskyists, humanists, etc.) formed a "Left Front". The only left-wing party that didn't join in was the biggest one, the formerly maoist Workers' Party. Yet the latter got better results than any "united" formations, because they are more grounded in the working-class and have more name recognition. In fact, the Left Front got worse results than the 6 separate parties in the previous election when you combine their results.

Now, this is just about elections where none of these groups have a chance to earn a seat, but in that case, what's the point of sacrificing your own name and programme, when it seems that there aren't even any short-term electoral gains involved, never mind anything for the longer term? If you already have next to nothing to win in bourgeois elections, why make it even worse? Why get involved in coalitions where, inevitably, some completely ridiculous groups will simply try to make a name for themselves? Why would it be better when doing a similar thing in more important aspects than just bourgeois elections?

Moving away from electoral politics, it's also easy to point at all the different front organisations that were dissolved as soon as the party behind them got tired of them. Not to mention all the "Campaign for a New Workers/Marxist/Whatever Party" types, which usually turned out to be "Campaign for our New Party".

The thing is that formal attempts at unity are pretty worthless as long as you don't have anything to unite around except for varying degrees of opportunism (from "veiled" to "shameless"). Much better to have something concrete, with people who want to realise something instead of being dragged down in the left-wing crab bucket by all kinds of crackpots.

[Widerstand]

We unite on what can be united on. Where we oppose each other, so be it. Perhaps we should rely on, oh, I dunno, debate and democratic votes?

That sort of partial cooperation is not exactly what I'd call unity. And we already have that sort of cooperation, at least in Germany, where Unions, Anarchist, Marxist-Leninist and even Social-Democratic groups cooperate on a variety of issues. Okay, usually this cooperation is rather shallow, but I think at times it's as far as it can get without one group being forced into a major compromise.



Some people make it sound like this "formal unity" is required for the revolution to happen or whatever...but the thing is it's not the activist left that makes revolution but the working class. The activist left should only focus on agitating the working class from within.

This.

[Sendo]

most factions can participate in a limited united front during a crisis, but nothing would be permanent. The socialist state would have an anarchist opposition, and any anarchist areas would have Marxists try to establish a workers' state. I tried to word that as unbiasedly as possible.

[LaRiposte]

I'm a Trot in a town full of anarchists and not much else. We all get along perfectly fine, we organize together, we debate and then we get beers together afterwords. We've done a great deal of practical work together that is of great significance while maintaining our individual politics.

I think that's what the united front is all about. Strike together, march separately, that sort of thing. As long as an organization is proletarian and not outright reactionary, its worth supporting (though not uncritically). I would defend the DPRK against imperialism despite the fact that the ruling bureaucracy is disgusting. I would have defended the USSR against imperialism despite the same. I have testified on behalf of anarchists in court. I think they were stupid for doing the shit that they did but I still supported them, they're still my comrades. I would do it again.

When the revolution comes, 95 percent of the issues that we squabble over in episodes of sectarian mental-masturbation will be completely irrelevant anyway.

[Ovi]

When the revolution comes, 95 percent of the issues that we squabble over in episodes of sectarian mental-masturbation will be completely irrelevant anyway.
Actually, it's the opposite. It's after the revolution when these differences will come up. We can work together until then, but what about afterwards?

[howblackisyourflag]

I'm a Trot in a town full of anarchists and not much else. We all get along perfectly fine, we organize together, we debate and then we get beers together afterwords. We've done a great deal of practical work together that is of great significance while maintaining our individual politics.

I think that's what the united front is all about. Strike together, march separately, that sort of thing. As long as an organization is proletarian and not outright reactionary, its worth supporting (though not uncritically). I would defend the DPRK against imperialism despite the fact that the ruling bureaucracy is disgusting. I would have defended the USSR against imperialism despite the same. I have testified on behalf of anarchists in court. I think they were stupid for doing the shit that they did but I still supported them, they're still my comrades. I would do it again.

When the revolution comes, 95 percent of the issues that we squabble over in episodes of sectarian mental-masturbation will be completely irrelevant anyway.

I hear this phrase written with a lot of confidence quite frequently on Revleft, how confident are you all that there will be some sort of left wing revolution in the western world in the coming decades?

[Widerstand]

I hear this phrase written with a lot of confidence quite frequently on Revleft, how confident are you all that there will be some sort of left wing revolution in the western world in the coming decades?

I genuinely believe that my comrades and my efforts can bring about revolution. In fact, I think the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, but the outcome is ours to shape. There is a chance that it will not happen within my lifetime, in which case I hope our legacy has a positive impact and is helpful to future revolutionaries. Whatever success, I do think that a life dedicated to revolutionary struggle is preferable to one of conformity under capitalist and bourgeouise dogma, even if the only thing we should achieve is a little bit of excitement and a clean conscious - and I dare say there's far more in store.

[this is an invasion]

remove the RAAN from your sig fool.

i think full cooperation is impossible, mainly because i doubt anarchist would agree with democratic centralism. but there are some bits we can do, one start would be anarchist and communist distributing each other's paper instead of only their own.

In your hasty attempt to one-up me, you skipped the part that stated that RAAN is explicitly and militantly anti-Leninist.

You fail :(

Go straight to jail. Do not collect $200 if you pass Go.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I hear this phrase written with a lot of confidence quite frequently on Revleft, how confident are you all that there will be some sort of left wing revolution in the western world in the coming decades?


The "left " in American has no Idea what they are up against, or for that matter, why it is happening.

[28350]

Lol RAAN.

There are no eternal pillars of sectarian ideology.
Shit changes.
What and who is the left now will change.
I realize that I'm not phrasing this very well, it's only in my head for the moment.

Basically, not everyone will be "united." But yes, if a new movement arose, it might "unite" not through reconciling differences, but through mass support of ideology or goal.
We'll see.

Just keep doing your thing for now, even if that means selling newspapers or new synthesizing or attacking socialists.
Or not.
I don't know.
I'm so jet-lagged right now.

[Revolte_Wolf]

Here is the dealio. When I first started Anarchist Community one of the main goals was to get as many distant collectives to work together. After a while it became pretty obvious that the idea is rejected by too many for a complete union to take place, no matter the benifit to it. It makes people think there is a power to it like they one they are fighting, and they get it into their heads that it's no different then staying in the same system. Far to many have that thought on it and that makes it very unlikely that the far left, would ever unite towards the same goal, at least in that sense. People do prefer spontanious uprisings and overthrows after all, and you can't blame them. You can't take down the ALF because the ALF is just random people. You cant defeat something that doesnt exist, right?

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

No, don't think so. The problem is this, these socialist parties ALL want to be the 'vangard", not the people, no , no, the party. These socialist groups couldn't lead a one man parade. The ONLY way there will be a revolution is not through these socialist groups, it is by the workers becoming revolutionary by undoing his"workerness",the same goes for the farmer, the cleark, the student, the soldier, the bureaucrat, the professional and, yes, the Marxist. His workerness is a disease, a social affliction. he begins to become a revolutionary when he undoes his Workerness, when he sheds exactly those features which the marxist most prize in him-his work ethic. his character-structure taken from industrial discipline, his respect for hierarchy, his obedience to leaders, his consumerism, his vestiges of puritanism.he needs to shed his class status and achieve an un-class consciousness. and by doing this he is shedding the class shackles that bind him to all systems of domination. he abandons those very class interests that enslave him to consumerism, suburbia and a bookkeeping conception of life. for a revolution to happen, it needs to have the support of people that feel the burden of exploitation, poverty, racism, imperialism, those whose lives are frustrated by comsumerism, suburbia, the mass media, the traditional family, school, the supermarket shopper existence. it needs to detest, despise, and hate everything about this system, it's rules, it's laws, it's culture, it's hierarchy, it's boss, all forms of domination. untill then, it won't happen. but these socialist groups will not advocate this, why? because the discipline that has been inculcated by the factory, the workplace, the socialist groups will use. they will use the workers respect for industrial hierarchy and wed the worker to the party hierarchy and a handful of all-knowing leaders. all this does is turn the worker into an imitation of his masters. so go on socialist, continue to babble about "cadres",a "vanguard party", "democratic centralism" and the proletarian dictatorship.this is sheer counterrevolution, because the only dictatorship the people will wound up with is one of the party, not the people.


to continue,the reason I say that the left doesn't know what it is dealing with, is because the traditional class struggle ceases to have revolutionary implications because it reveals itself as the physiology of the prevailing society. in fact the traditional class struggle stabilizes capitalist society by correcting it's abuses in wages, hours, inflation, employment ect. the unions in capitalist society constitute themselves into a counter monopoly to the industrial monopolies and are incorporated into the statified economy as an estate. so the unions strengthen the system and servev to perpetuate it.

[Widerstand]

to continue,the reason I say that the left doesn't know what it is dealing with, is because the traditional class struggle ceases to have revolutionary implications because it reveals itself as the physiology of the prevailing society. in fact the traditional class struggle stabilizes capitalist society by correcting it's abuses in wages, hours, inflation, employment ect. the unions in capitalist society constitute themselves into a counter monopoly to the industrial monopolies and are incorporated into the statified economy as an estate. so the unions strengthen the system and servev to perpetuate it.

While I agree that this is true for the more mainstream, often solely reformist unions, I wouldn't say that unions per se perpetuate the system. Neither would I say that traditional class struggle does - it's only when the struggle get reduced to reformism.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

While I agree that this is true for the more mainstream, often solely reformist unions, I wouldn't say that unions per se perpetuate the system. Neither would I say that traditional class struggle does - it's only when the struggle get reduced to reformism.



All struggles within unions are reformist. what is the purpose of the unions? to relegate the struggle to wages, hours and benefits, that's it.to improve the workers existence within the existing system, not to transcend it.not to call into question the socio-economic system, not to call into question who should own and control the land, wealth and resources and most of all, not to expose the fact that techology should be used to free people from labor.that is true freedom.

[Widerstand]

All struggles within unions are reformist. what is the purpose of the unions? to relegate the struggle to wages, hours and benefits, that's it.to improve the workers existence within the existing system, not to transcend it.not to call into question the socio-economic system, not to call into question who should own and control the land, wealth and resources and most of all, not to expose the fact that techology should be used to free people from labor.that is true freedom.

All? What about anarcho-syndicalist unions, such as those united in the International Workers' Association? A German member union, the FAU/IAA, stated they support reform in a non-revolutionary environment, as it grants benefits to the working class, but dismiss it as a sole form of action, since it perpetuates the existing class relations.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

All? What about anarcho-syndicalist unions, such as those united in the International Workers' Association? A German member union, the FAU/IAA, stated they support reform in a non-revolutionary environment, as it grants benefits to the working class, but dismiss it as a sole form of action, since it perpetuates the existing class relations.



I think you made my arguement for me.

[Atlee]

so what compromise is possible between anarchists and communist?

Freewill to act together is the compromise action towards a common goal, the next level, so to speak.

[Atlee]

Could the far left ever work together as one to get our voices heard or neutralize the tea party? I think there is a lot of potential.

It would have to take a bold and very public counter to what they are doing and the willingness to actually be known for that stand. Socialism with a face (http://www.americansocialists.net/).

[Atlee]

that is true freedom.

I once heard that "true freedom" lasted one day and that was the day of liberation, then government set in.

[Widerstand]

I think you made my arguement for me.

I don't think I did, I gave examples of revolutionary unions. I'm not exactly familiar with the actual work of the IWA, but at least on paper they sound revolutionary. The FAU also has a big critique catalogue on German mainstream unions.

What I was trying to say, is that a union can support reformist struggle to some extent and still be revolutionary.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I once heard that "true freedom" lasted one day and that was the day of liberation, then government set in.


exactly, when the party takes power,and not the people, that is the end of freedom.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I don't think I did, I gave examples of revolutionary unions. I'm not exactly familiar with the actual work of the IWA, but at least on paper they sound revolutionary. The FAU also has a big critique catalogue on German mainstream unions.

What I was trying to say, is that a union can support reformist struggle to some extent and still be revolutionary.



I'm not talking about the IWW, I'm talking about the AFL, AFSME, The Teamsters etc.People forget how the CIO removed all leftists from their union.The point is, "struggle" is reduced to fighting for common, every day bread & butter issues. there is no true revolutionary education mixed within the union.They endorse Demo/publican whores for office, they give money to both parties campaigns. it's goal is to fight for a little piece of the pie within the existing system, which keeps people looking for answers within the existing system.in a whole, the unions serve to to perpetuate it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yeah this is all well and good, but, and I will probs get hated on here, but don't some of you people think that the policies of other groups are actually embarrsing? Like seriously, associating yourself with bob avarkian?

[Widerstand]

I'm not talking about the IWW, I'm talking about the AFL, AFSME, The Teamsters etc.People forget how the CIO removed all leftists from their union.The point is, "struggle" is reduced to fighting for common, every day bread & butter issues. there is no true revolutionary education mixed within the union.They endorse Demo/publican whores for office, they give money to both parties campaigns. it's goal is to fight for a little piece of the pie within the existing system, which keeps people looking for answers within the existing system.in a whole, the unions serve to to perpetuate it.

Ah, okay. I can agree with that. Well the AFL is exactly what I'd call a mainstream union, though I'm not much informed about US unions, I think they could be compared to the German DGB. It's pretty obvious that those unions, as they operate within and are deeply integrated in the capitalist system, serve to perpetuate it.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Yeah this is all well and good, but, and I will probs get hated on here, but don't some of you people think that the policies of other groups are actually embarrsing? Like seriously, associating yourself with bob avarkian?

I agree, and I address that, just go up on page 4. And by the way, don't EVER worry about being hated. I'm not on this board to be popular, I'm on here to give my opinion and have a discussion on how to further the struggle. If people don't like what I have to say, that's fine.I will sleep very well tonight.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

As long as people keep asking this question, I will keep giving the same answer:

A more than temporary unity among revolutionary factions can only occur given an outright rejection of Leninism and an open hostility to the established activist, professional "Left".

With that single hurdle surmounted, it is not only possible but completely natural for anarchists and true communists to work together not just on individual projects, but as a single integrated organization. This is exactly what RAAN has agitated towards.

Beyond the ideological unity, the functioning of such an organization will be based on five principles:

True communists?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
By issuing a blanket rejection of all Leninists groups, RAAN are the true sectarians. "True communists" realize that 1) Leninist ideology upholds the working class in its struggle and Leninist groups are made up of class conscious and politically aware members of the working class and 2) the state is an instrument of class rule and the only way to abolish it is through the triumph of the exploited class in its struggle to exert its rule over society.

[Coggeh]

By issuing a blanket rejection of all Leninists groups, RAAN are the true sectarians.
Like anyone would want to work with RAAN anyway? Ya lets go glue some parking meters ...

[Widerstand]

Leninist groups are made up of class conscious and politically aware members of the working class

Is this just "I say it is"-facts, or is there any actual basis for this claim?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Is this just "I say it is"-facts, or is there any actual basis for this claim?

Personal experience. Is there any basis for the idea that groups who advocate socialist revolution to put political power in the hands of the proletariat ("Leninists") are actually all liars, doing so for some secret motive and aren't who they say they are and don't really want to do what they say they want to do?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can tell you right now, any "Broad Left" group that was created, that openly took a hostile stance toward the DPRK, even if they limp-wristedly supported them against US imperialism, I would never join. Any group that was anti-Chavez, I would never join. Any group that backed counter-revolution in places like Iran and Zimbabwe, I would never join. And these are just a few current international things, never mind talking about actual strategy and tactics for revolution in America.

Now, I would assume someone interested in "Left Unity" would basically be like "Well, fuck you then." That's because such a project is fundamentally anti-communist and social-democratic. The people who imagine "Lefty Unity" is going to help us win anything basically are imagining some kind of electoral contest against the Democrats and Republicans. They are imagining "revolution" is going to happen through electoral means, so of course they want "Left Unity" for this purpose. Do you think Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL want "Left Unity" so they can have more troops to start the People's War in America?

This goes back to my thread on Positive and Negative Unity. The "Left Unity" promoted by groups like Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL is a Negative Unity: a "unity" based on the common rejection of pretty much everything. This an opportunistic and shallow "unity" only fit for a social-democratic project.

I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but this very post really does show the inflexibility that holds the left back.

Do you somehow think that your complete ideological rigidity is something to be honoured, or respected, or indeed helpful in any way to the left, to Socialism and to the working class?

Have you never heard of compromise? The fact that you'd not unite with a party/movement/group simply because they have a dfferent view to you on such reactionaries as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad or Robert Mugabe shows that you seem, in fact, to take pride in your ideological inflexibility, which is something I in fact find offensive.

You Marxist-Leninists talk a big talk, but at the end of the day you bully, name call and show disunity to the rest of the left, even those genuine Socialists such as myself who are for the revolution, for workers' democracy and ultimately for the working class, in every way. It is the way of the bully in the playground, to throw a tantrum simply because someone may have a slightly different opinion, or attitude, or policy, or personal preference.

Personally, i've never heard anything so disgusting, or seen something so vitriolic, as for you to say that you'd seek left dis-unity simply because somebody does not rally for the likes of Ahmedinajad and Mugabe. I oppose Social Democracy as much as I oppose the likes of the two reactionaries above. You simply cannot call me a Social Democrat or anti-Socialist because I oppose these two evil men. It is the most pathetic exercise in name calling one could ever wish to see.

[Coggeh]

I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but this very post really does show the inflexibility that holds the left back.

Do you somehow think that your complete ideological rigidity is something to be honoured, or respected, or indeed helpful in any way to the left, to Socialism and to the working class?

Have you never heard of compromise? The fact that you'd not unite with a party/movement/group simply because they have a dfferent view to you on such reactionaries as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad or Robert Mugabe shows that you seem, in fact, to take pride in your ideological inflexibility, which is something I in fact find offensive.

You Marxist-Leninists talk a big talk, but at the end of the day you bully, name call and show disunity to the rest of the left, even those genuine Socialists such as myself who are for the revolution, for workers' democracy and ultimately for the working class, in every way. It is the way of the bully in the playground, to throw a tantrum simply because someone may have a slightly different opinion, or attitude, or policy, or personal preference.

Personally, i've never heard anything so disgusting, or seen something so vitriolic, as for you to say that you'd seek left dis-unity simply because somebody does not rally for the likes of Ahmedinajad and Mugabe. I oppose Social Democracy as much as I oppose the likes of the two reactionaries above. You simply cannot call me a Social Democrat or anti-Socialist because I oppose these two evil men. It is the most pathetic exercise in name calling one could ever wish to see.
I don't think Soviet speaks for all M-L's, certainly I'd doubt they would rally around the reactionary leaders of Zimbabwe and Iran.
Anyway. I think people on this site are quite naive as to when it comes to left unity.Left unity isn't abstract it is not getting all the parties into one and working together and everyone will be happy and the revolution will come, because in reality that stuff doesn't float. Eventually differences will arise, people think that opposition between Trotskyists and Stalinists or visa versa with anarchists are just "petty" differences from the past, but differences from the past and the present in analysis etc make huge differences not just in what we want in the future (Workers State vs stateless) (Socialism in one country vs Permanent revolution) but differences in the here and now. On several different things, how to organise(mass party? independant party? no party ? entryism?) or Individual terrorism vs mass action, one big union or no, work within the trade unions or no, stand in elections or no, I could go on till the cows come home(and these are very slow cows let me tell you)

The differences in the left and why may leftist parties operate separately is not sectarian it is huge differences in policies, organisation and analysis. Especially analysis as this is what dictates how an organisation should operate.

Left unity however does operate on a loose type of unity, working together in campaigns etc for example the SP are involved with the WP, SWP, SF (not our idea, thank the swimmers and the WP for that) and the WSM here in Ireland and many other campaigns. The CWI call for a new mass workers party, but this in no way is just bringing the left together in one organisation actually quite different, its about involving the left with the workers movement (unions etc) and community organisations. It is to be expected that their will be a right/left split in this organisation but this is to be expected and this will give us the best workers the most class conscious and will eventually strengthen the left and put us in a better position to agitate and organise a true leftist movement.

[Wanted Man]

You Marxist-Leninists blah blah blah

Yeah, one person on Revleft totally represents the lot of us, and the post of one person on the internet tells us a lot about the state of the left in the real world. Brilliant.

Also, what makes you say that he cannot call you anything? He has just as much of a right to his opinion as you do. What are you, some kind of playground bully?

[REDSOX]

No chance in hell in the united kingdom. There were a few attempts a few years ago to try with RESPECT and The Scottish socialist party but after a while and some success they split over the usual rubbish like personality clashes, petty jealousies between people, egos, political differences, petty rows arguments,. Meanwhile in the real world......................................:)

[bricolage]

RESPECT and The Scottish socialist party
I think these are just more examples of the frantic rush of the 'left' in this country to the mystical idea of 'unity'. I can understand why, I mean we are all aware our lives are temporary and that we will die so people want to see things happen in the here and now and to see things happen in their lifetimes, they don't want to die thinking I tried as hard as I could but nothing happened. So they jump on quick fix solutions hoping they can instead die thinking I tried as hard as I could and I managed to unite the left into one communist party! Problem is it doesn't work like that and 'unity' will come about when we reach the apex of struggle. When a genuinely revolutionary moment washes over us we will see most of the organisations and ideologies that exist now swept into the history books, as the left communists say the party will be formed by struggle, the struggle will not be formed by the party (alter that as you wish to address the idea of a 'party'). So what I'm trying to say there is a role for organisations in the present (to interject ideas, to serve as a historical memory bank) but that most of them will cease to be relevant when the crunch comes. At that point the very forces of revolution itself will unify all those that are in favour of societal emancipation against those that are not and it won't matter how many left parties exist or don't exist right now.


but after a while and some success they split over the usual rubbish like personality clashes, petty jealousies between people, egos, political differences, petty rows arguments,.Of course they do because there is no mass movement or mass struggle to relate to and so these parties are forced to become even more and more insular and esoteric. If you want to ask me what we should be doing in there here and now, well we should be abandoning most of what we conceive to be 'political' or 'political action', we should be jettisoning most of our theories, ideologies and hang ups, and we should be taking a step back and retreating to our workplaces and communities to build solidarity and affinity and not trying to get n number of people to join party x or getting parties a, b and c to unite into party d. If ya get what I'm trying to say here.

[Charles Xavier]

Communists have united with other tendencies under a specific program or alliances, in the past, many of these alliances are temporary though. Its just the nature of such alliances, the job of communists is eventually take on the most class conscious sections of the working class and lead the working class to socialism. Some organizations we ally with do not have the same goals in mind, some might be on single issues, some might be for reformism alone, its the working class and its party alone that will cross the threshold of revolution.

Theres no point of watering down your politics to be a bigger organization, thats opportunist, and it may be temporarily a boost to your organization it can lead to problems later on being unable to implement decisive action. Adopt the correct line and implement it and then workers will join your ranks. There are parties out there that should merge and there are others who should remain separate, there are some that will fade into oblivion after a certain amount of time.

We want unity of the working class not necessarily unity of organizations.

[Soviet dude]

I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but this very post really does show the inflexibility that holds the left back.

Do you somehow think that your complete ideological rigidity is something to be honoured, or respected, or indeed helpful in any way to the left, to Socialism and to the working class?

Have you never heard of compromise? The fact that you'd not unite with a party/movement/group simply because they have a dfferent view to you on such reactionaries as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad or Robert Mugabe shows that you seem, in fact, to take pride in your ideological inflexibility, which is something I in fact find offensive.

You Marxist-Leninists talk a big talk, but at the end of the day you bully, name call and show disunity to the rest of the left, even those genuine Socialists such as myself who are for the revolution, for workers' democracy and ultimately for the working class, in every way. It is the way of the bully in the playground, to throw a tantrum simply because someone may have a slightly different opinion, or attitude, or policy, or personal preference.

Personally, i've never heard anything so disgusting, or seen something so vitriolic, as for you to say that you'd seek left dis-unity simply because somebody does not rally for the likes of Ahmedinajad and Mugabe. I oppose Social Democracy as much as I oppose the likes of the two reactionaries above. You simply cannot call me a Social Democrat or anti-Socialist because I oppose these two evil men. It is the most pathetic exercise in name calling one could ever wish to see.

This is an example of exactly what I have talked about here and elsewhere. This the "Well, fuck you then." response, which seeks to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and then uses this to attack other Leftists who don't have an opportunistic line towards Western imperialism. This is the real purpose of mainstream "Left Unity," to actually attack people who don't accept these sorts of politics as somehow being dogmatic and sectarian, when the exact oppose is the generally the case.

Why in the world should I be flexible on basically supporting Western imperialism? Why don't you be flexible on not supporting Western imperialism? Would you ever join a group that did not support counter-revolution in Iran and Zimbabwe (which is what I said, and that doesn't mean necessarily liking Ahmadinejad and Mugabe, but recognizing the movements against their governments are imperialist puppets and not mouthing the same bullshit as the imperialist press)? Would you join a group that didn't say the DPRK is evil?

Remember, again, we're talking about the "Left Unity" promoted by groups like Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL, who promote basically everyone getting in the same party together. This isn't simply about working with other Left groups and getting along with people. This is about forming a Leftist political party. This is about you and me being in the same organization together. I don't know why you think I "seek" dis-unity. In fact, I would guess if, for whatever reason, I ended up in this little group, you or someone like you would be leading the charge in having me expelled.

"Left Unity," as I said my thread Left Unity: Positive or Negative (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-unity-positive-t138753/index.html?p=1808663), has two aspects. The one promoted by you, and groups like Solidarity and FRSO/OSCL, is a "Negative" unity: that is, you want others to abandon their politics in favor of your constructed lowest-common-denominator. On the other hand, Marxist-Leninist parties all over the world have been uniting closer ideologically through a process of what I call "Positive" unity. That is, they are accepting other M-L groups and similar lines as completely legitimate stances. The Worker's Party of Belgium used to be a basically hardline Maoist group. Now they accept Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, etc. Fundamentally, this "Positive" unity is basically about acceptance of other groups and their history. This is contrasted with the "Negative" unity, which is fundamentally about a complete and total rejection of 20th century socialism in favor of something else. And that something else is most certainly social-democracy.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Judging from RevLeft and my own personal experiences, I would say that's a concrete "No"

[chegitz guevara]

This isn't simply about working with other Left groups and getting along with people. This is about forming a Leftist political party. This is about you and me being in the same organization together.

Not necessarily. I do not believe it is possible for us to be in the same party. There are significant differences of tactics, orientation, etc. I certainly do not want to be in the same organization as, say, the CP or the ISO right now.

What I do think is possible is having some kind of network or "council," where we can all come to each other and talk to each other, share ideas, maybe plan joint actions, etc. For example, I'm organizing with anarchists in my area, and I'm really enjoying it. We're developing respect for each other, moving past mutual distrust. No one's trying to force anything on each other. We unite on what we can unite on, and we part ways on what we can't.

[robbo203]

The organisation I belong to - World in Common http://www.worldincommon.org/ - is a kind of prototype model of the sort of organisational unity that might be required - except that such unity would not be possible among the Left as a whole. We in WIC specifically seek cooperation and collaboration among those in the non-market anti-statist revolutionary political sector. We do not, however, extend this to Leftist advocates of state capitalism, for example.

The distinguishing characteristic of WiC is that it is a kind of umbrella organisation that does not preclude individuals actively operating within their own organisations in our political sector. We try to emphasise the commonalities (hence the name, World in Common) that unite us without sweeping under the carpet those issues that divide us. Indeed we have a number of forums, the main one being a meeting place where socialists, communists and anarchists can come together to discuss such issues in a comparatively fraternal and friendly fashion.

WiC modeled itself from the start on the old Discussion Bulletin which was run by Frank Girard who died a few years ago. DB is still remembered with great affection and I am sure there must be other kinds of organisations or publications out there that perform a similar function.

However, they can only function on the basis of some kind of fundamental unity of purpose. This is simply not achievable for the Left as a whole, many of whom either reject the communist goal of a stateless non-market alternative to capitalism or (more usually) consign it to some remote future where it can be merely paid lip service while such Leftists busy themselves with recommending ways in which capitalism can be administered in the meantime.

[Wanted Man]

Judging from RevLeft and my own personal experiences, I would say that's a concrete "No"

It's kind of dumb to base serious political judgements off Revleft.

Speaking of which, searching through Revleft profiles, I've finally found evidence that the left can never be united:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=616&pictureid=5972
(ZyklonB)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=720&pictureid=6249
(LeninBalls)