Why the age of bureaucratic centralism and the confessional left sect needs to end

[Red Monroy]

A panel discussion with Mike Macnair (CPGB); Moshe Machover (Israeli socialist) and Hillel Ticktin (editor of Critique) held at Communist University 2010 on the one million dollar question around which Revleft seems to spin. Enjoy the watch.

15021585

[Q]

So far just saw Macnair's contribution, but what he says at the end is striking: The only way to overcome the age of the sect is to confront the underlying ideas of them and fight for a genuine marxist party (by which he means a unified party of all kinds of organisations and currents to form a class party).

I couldn't have said it much better myself. Nice video.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So, Q, would you be happy to join forces with Socialists (revolutionaries!) of all creeds, in order to advance Socialism in the UK? I mean, by this, those left-communists and libertarian socialists, as well as those from the more pragmatic, less utopian side of the revolutionary spectrum - the Marxist-Leninists and, ultimately, those of us who are non-doctrinaire in our Socialism.

[Devrim]

So, Q, would you be happy to join forces with Socialists (revolutionaries!) of all creeds, in order to advance Socialism in the UK? I mean, by this, those left-communists and libertarian socialists, as well as those from the more pragmatic, less utopian side of the revolutionary spectrum - the Marxist-Leninists and, ultimately, those of us who are non-doctrinaire in our Socialism.

Of course left communists and libertarian socialists would not join with any party that advocated electorialism.


So far just saw Macnair's contribution, but what he says at the end is striking: The only way to overcome the age of the sect is to confront the underlying ideas of them and fight for a genuine marxist party (by which he means a unified party of all kinds of organisations and currents to form a class party).

To me it just comes across as a line to promote his own 'confessional left sect'.

Devrim

[ContrarianLemming]

I mean, by this, those left-communists and libertarian socialists, as well as those from the more pragmatic, less utopian side of the revolutionary spectrum - the Marxist-Leninists and, ultimately, those of us who are non-doctrinaire in our Socialism.

this is so typical and explanatory as to a big problem, this really is a not so implicit sectarianism, those "other" guys are idealists and..naturaly, my guys are pragmatic and realistic and such.

[∞]

Bureaucracy is an inexplicable factor when the left intermingles with statism.

[Q]

So, Q, would you be happy to join forces with Socialists (revolutionaries!) of all creeds, in order to advance Socialism in the UK? I mean, by this, those left-communists and libertarian socialists, as well as those from the more pragmatic, less utopian side of the revolutionary spectrum - the Marxist-Leninists and, ultimately, those of us who are non-doctrinaire in our Socialism.

I would be happy if we overcame our petty divides, build a class party of the working class vanguard, established principled and programmatic unity and have an open atmosphere of disagreement. "Unity" on the basis of the lowest common denominator and in which disagreements are hidden from public view is unprincipled, opportunist and a recipe for disaster or splits.

That said, it remains to be seen if Marxists-Leninists would allow principled factions and open disagreement, if left-communists will accept a minority position without splitting again to preserve a "pure line", if many of the groups' leaderships will accept not being in full organisational control, etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Aye, well done Q.

The discrepancy between Qs honest and thoughtful answer and the pettiness of some of the other contributions really go a long way to highlight the problems we have.

People are always willing to say the words 'unity', but, just like when our politicians use words such as 'fairness', 'equality' and so on, in reality they are empty words, empty promises.

Most (I say most because there are always people like Q who are genuine in their quest for unity, rather than just the hegemony of their own tendency over the rest of the fractured far-left) tendencies, it seems, are simply unwilling to work with others on a long-term, equal-in-power basis. That is what, in large part, is holding the left back from taking on the Capitalists.

But then, i'm sure you all know the above. I'm stating the fairly obvious. Many of you just don't want to, or are unable to, do anything about the present malaise.

[Martin Blank]

Macnair's approach is all wrong. It's not about having the biggest slum building in the leftist ghetto. It's about doing what we are all supposed to do in the class struggle. If we do things right, then "regroupment" ("left refoundation", "rapprochement", etc.) is nothing to worry about, since those honest and principled elements in the other organizations -- and within the working class -- will be able to make an informed decision based on facts and concrete experience, not expedience or opportunism. If we don't do it right, then history will exact cruel justice ... and we wouldn't be worthy of anything.

[ContrarianLemming]

People in power shoot people not in power
in leftist revolution, that's a constant, Leninist revolutions have always worked to execute anarchists, that's a decent enough demonstration that leaders shoot counter leaders, and anarchists shoot capitalists when there in power, I want to explain that it's inevitable and two way I think we can fix that

it's not an ideological thing, they didn't hate anarchists in 1920's Russia, but anarchists were most certainly anti leninist (not counter revolutionary) and they were not in power (for a cavalcade of reasons) for the most part, their inevitable anti leninism was reacted to in an inevitable way: guns and gulags - which might be better then the anarchist idea of just guns.

In a revolutionary situation where there are two revolutionary factions, if there is a power inbalance then one is going to get rid of the other because they are - inherently - opposed to eachother.

You can either have a conscious effort to prevent dominance of one revolutionary group, which seems unlikely since people arn't going to just say "us half will go with group A, you's go with group B, just to be fair"

Or you can go with the Trotsky idea, who suggested that the minority in the Russian case (Machno) can get his own terrirtory with his buddies, and they can just stay out of the reds way.
again, that seems unlikely, because the minority - as was shown - is not complacent with this, since that's basically calling for anarchism on one country

OR, as has always been the case: guns and gulags.

I don't see the first two being likely at all at this point, I'm very pessimistic about the whole thing.

[Delenda Carthago]

fuck unity

[Zanthorus]

Macnair does have a point that a good deal of the divisions in the left today are simply pointless. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to at least cut down on the number of sects by those whose differences can only be viewed through a very powerful microscope joining together. But the differences between some groups are simply too large to join together on a supposed 'class' basis. Of course, some groups would not even agree what constitutes a 'class' basis. DNZ as one of his three points for the creation of a 'PNNC' often cites the formation of the working-class into a class-for-itself. But this has traditionally been interpreted by Left-Communists to mean rejection of the subjection of the proletariat's interests to the national or 'progressive' bourgeoisie and the forces of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois democracy. Clearly this interpretation is incompatible with the politics of most Stalinist and Trotskyist groups. Even if you don't agree with Left-Communism, the point is that Left-Communists have a reason not to join with other 'left' groups that doesn't just amount to 'sectarianism'. As ContrarianLemming pointed out further, the unison of anarchists and various brands of 'authoritarian' socialism is also something of a fantasy.

To be perfectly honest, I am very skeptical about talk of sectarianism. Most of the time it seems to act as a cover for groups to avoid criticism.


if left-communists will accept a minority position without splitting again to preserve a "pure line"

Excuse me, but the KAPD was ousted from the KPD by Paul Levi, and the Italian Left was expelled from the Comintern for 'Trotskyism' after Bordiga upset Stalin at the 6th enlarged executive of the Comintern by questioning his commmitment to internationalism. Prior to that the Italian left had accepted every one of the twists and turns in Comintern line and put them into practice, even while critiquing them. Ironic how 'anti-sectarians' suddenly come over all sectarian when talking about people not in favour of their own particular hobby horse.


People are always willing to say the words 'unity'

I have never talked about, nor will I ever advocate, unity between 'left' groups.

[bricolage]

Aside from the fact that you can't 'unite' the 'left' (if we take the range of opinions on this board as representative of the left), as we are not dealing with 'sectarian' issues here, rather diametrically opposed political ideas, the whole idea of left unity is the cart before the horse. You could unite every left group around, it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if there is no actual struggle for it to relate to. 'Unity', the 'Party', whatever, will evolve as a result of struggle; action precedes organisation. When that happens I imagine every current left group around will be swept into history rendering any present 'unity' irrelevant and void.

[Widerstand]

I'm amazed over the arrogance displayed by MLs in this thread. For some reason, they seem to be the ones most complaining about 'sectarianism' and are first to call for 'unity', yet to them, anyone disagreeing with their ideology is 'sectarian', and 'unity' isn't so much unity based on disagreement, much less on agreement, but rather 'unity' based on getting people to join and support their party.
A unity of disagreement seems far more likely to happen between Left Communists (including Luxemburgists), Council Communists and Anarchists, than between anyone and MLs. The reason for this is that MLs don't want unity. They want people to follow their principles, which they constantly portray in a "chosen path" manner.

[Wanted Man]

That said, it remains to be seen if Marxists-Leninists would allow principled factions and open disagreement, if left-communists will accept a minority position without splitting again to preserve a "pure line", if many of the groups' leaderships will accept not being in full organisational control, etc.

This is a bit odd. This is still the basic attitude of: "Yeah, I want unity, but I don't know if these other guys are willing to play by certain (my) rules. If not, well, then I don't know if it will work." In that case, why bother?


I'm amazed over the arrogance displayed by MLs in this thread. For some reason, they seem to be the ones most complaining about 'sectarianism' and are first to call for 'unity', yet to them, anyone disagreeing with their ideology is 'sectarian', and 'unity' isn't so much unity based on disagreement, much less on agreement, but rather 'unity' based on getting people to join and support their party.
A unity of disagreement seems far more likely to happen between Left Communists (including Luxemburgists), Council Communists and Anarchists, than between anyone and MLs. The reason for this is that MLs don't want unity. They want people to follow their principles, which they constantly portray in a "chosen path" manner.

No MLs have posted in this thread so far. I'm the first.

Anyway, if the people you've mentioned want "unity" with each other without the phantom arrogant MLs in this thread, then obviously that's fine, and they are welcome to try. People in this thread are just giving their opinions on things they don't have much influence over anyway. There are so many people who want to build all kinds of "unity" between different groups, so why don't they make any initiatives? They just talk about it and then scold anyone who shows any disagreement with their ideas of "unity". In all these discussions, nobody ever makes any concrete initiatives; there's just a whole bunch of guilt-tripping of anyone who shows any kind of dissent.

[Devrim]

No MLs have posted in this thread so far. I'm the first.

I think the confusion comes about from two different definitions of ML. There is the one that you and I might use, and then there is the one that some anarchists use meaning anybody who is in the tradition of Marx and Lenin, which of course would include Trotskyists.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Aside from the fact that you can't 'unite' the 'left' (if we take the range of opinions on this board as representative of the left), as we are not dealing with 'sectarian' issues here, rather diametrically opposed political ideas, the whole idea of left unity is the cart before the horse. You could unite every left group around, it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if there is no actual struggle for it to relate to. 'Unity', the 'Party', whatever, will evolve as a result of struggle;

This is the key point. Intensification in class struggle will make sweeping changes in the political landscape of the left. Just as at times the Bolshevik party found that the class was well in advance of the party, the political groups of today will discover the same thing. Groups will merge and split, appear and disappear. Some of the groups of today may find themselves playing an important role, some will remain insignificant, some will disappear, and some will end up siding with reaction.

That doesn't mean that communists today mustn't look towards joint work, discussions and unity, but it must be unity based around principles, and clarity.


I would be happy if we overcame our petty divides, build a class party of the working class vanguard, established principled and programmatic unity and have an open atmosphere of disagreement. "Unity" on the basis of the lowest common denominator and in which disagreements are hidden from public view is unprincipled, opportunist and a recipe for disaster or splits.

But what is the suggested "principled and programmatic unity" here based around? As far as I can see nothing.


That said, it remains to be seen if Marxists-Leninists would allow principled factions and open disagreement, if left-communists will accept a minority position without splitting again to preserve a "pure line", if many of the groups' leaderships will accept not being in full organisational control, etc.

We wouldn't 'split again' because no left communist would join a party not based around what we consider to be communist principles.


The discrepancy between Qs honest and thoughtful answer and the pettiness of some of the other contributions really go a long way to highlight the problems we have.

I don't doubt Q's honesty, but nor do I think that it is 'petty' to insist on political principles.


Most (I say most because there are always people like Q who are genuine in their quest for unity, rather than just the hegemony of their own tendency over the rest of the fractured far-left) tendencies, it seems, are simply unwilling to work with others on a long-term, equal-in-power basis. That is what, in large part, is holding the left back from taking on the Capitalists.

It is not the left that will take on the capitalists, but the working class.

When I look at MacNair's proposals here to me they don't have a chance in hell of being adopted by the two groups who could build the 'unity' that he desires. The SWP and the SPEW. Does anybody think that either of these groups will suddenly drop their own politics and merge on the basis of the CPGB's programme? That said all it seems to be is an argument designed to recruit disenting members of those groups to his own 'confessional left wing sect'.

Devrim

[Widerstand]

No MLs have posted in this thread so far. I'm the first.

Red Monroy is a "Supporter of the CPGB", which is as far as I'm aware a Marxist-Leninist party.

I assumed that El Granma was Marxist-Leninist because of his post displaying all other tendencies as utopian. However his profile seems to indicate that he disapproves of both Vanguards and Lenin.

Q is a Trot as far as I'm aware? Although, Trots and MLs have a lot of similar opinions in these matters.



Anyway, if the people you've mentioned want "unity" with each other without the phantom arrogant MLs in this thread, then obviously that's fine, and they are welcome to try.

Where did I say they want unity? I pretty much agree with bricolage on the matter of unity:


Aside from the fact that you can't 'unite' the 'left' (if we take the range of opinions on this board as representative of the left), as we are not dealing with 'sectarian' issues here, rather diametrically opposed political ideas, the whole idea of left unity is the cart before the horse. You could unite every left group around, it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if there is no actual struggle for it to relate to. 'Unity', the 'Party', whatever, will evolve as a result of struggle; action precedes organisation. When that happens I imagine every current left group around will be swept into history rendering any present 'unity' irrelevant and void.

[ContrarianLemming]

Trots are ML's

and, like the man said, fuck unity, I don' wanna get gulaged.

[ContrarianLemming]

As ContrarianLemming pointed out further, the unison of anarchists and various brands of 'authoritarian' socialism is also something of a fantasy.


I think any situation where there are two revolutionary factions is going to end badly if either succeed. They are diametrically opposed, that's why theirs two, people don't make seperate organizations for biscuits and cake rescipes, theirs a clear difference, and that differenc is enough for counter revolution and repression.

So, to reinterate: If theirs two seperate revolutionary groups fighting a state - andone is almost certainly going to be a minority - then it's basically a race to who gets in power first, and then all bets are off, the second minority group is utterly fucked, we see that again and again.
Take for example the FARC and ELN, sure, they're allied now, but I find it unlikely they're going to share power, one of them is not going in power (hypotetically assuming they won) and then voile, the race is over and the ones who disagree with on clear basis and now in power: what do revolutionary groups do to the poerful whom they disagree with? guns and gulag, and the cycle starts again, with the minority faction getting the gulag bit.

That's the thing about revolutionary groups, they're fighting for a cause, power is a very unfortunate side effect that gives the group the ability to kill the guys opposed to there cause, and we start all over again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course left communists and libertarian socialists would not join with any party that advocated electorialism.

Translation: would not join with any party that advocated anything other than abstentions (including those into spoilage campaigns). :rolleyes:


But the differences between some groups are simply too large to join together on a supposed 'class' basis. Of course, some groups would not even agree what constitutes a 'class' basis. DNZ as one of his three points for the creation of a 'PNNC' often cites the formation of the working-class into a class-for-itself. But this has traditionally been interpreted by Left-Communists to mean rejection of the subjection of the proletariat's interests to the national or 'progressive' bourgeoisie and the forces of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois democracy.

The left-coms whom you speak of conflate the first point for the creation of a Proletarian (proletarian-not-necessarily-communist) with the second: establishment of proletarian hegemony at the expense of bourgeois and all other non-worker hegemony.


Macnair's approach is all wrong. It's not about having the biggest slum building in the leftist ghetto. It's about doing what we are all supposed to do in the class struggle. If we do things right, then "regroupment" ("left refoundation", "rapprochement", etc.) is nothing to worry about, since those honest and principled elements in the other organizations -- and within the working class -- will be able to make an informed decision based on facts and concrete experience, not expedience or opportunism. If we don't do it right, then history will exact cruel justice ... and we wouldn't be worthy of anything.

You might want to clarify about "what we are all supposed to do in the class struggle," because at first it sounds like you and Devrim are in agreement, when in fact both of you have different definitions of class struggle (political vs. economic).

[Zanthorus]

Red Monroy is a "Supporter of the CPGB", which is as far as I'm aware a Marxist-Leninist party.

You may have the new CPGB confused with the old CPGB. The old CPGB was a 'Marxist-Leninist' group, but it dissolved in 1992 with the fall of the Soviet Union. The Leninist fraction refused to let their party by taken away by what they saw as a revisionist leadership, so they refounded the party as the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). In the mid-90's they decided that the Soviet Union was actually not the glorious socialist fatherland but a form of 'bueracratic socialism', however they have never adopted Trotskyist politics either, preferring to go for a non-aligned 'Leninist Marxism'.


Q is a Trot as far as I'm aware? Although, Trots and MLs have a lot of similar opinions in these matters.

lol, not really. Trotskyists are infamous for continually splitting from each other and forming new groups.


Trots are ML's

No, no they aren't. The standard usage of 'Marxist-Leninism' is to refer to the ideology promoted by the Soviet Union after Lenin's death, and promoted internationally by the Communist International. Trotskyists usually refer to themselves as Bolshevik-Leninists.


The left-coms whom you speak of conflate the first point for the creation of a Proletarian (proletarian-not-necessarily-communist) with the second: establishment of proletarian hegemony at the expense of bourgeois and all other non-worker hegemony.

First of all, by left-coms, I was also including myself. Second of all, no, no we aren't. The subjection of the interests of the working-class to the national and 'progressive' bourgeoisie has nothing to do with proletarian ideological hegemony.

[Devrim]

You might want to clarify about "what we are all supposed to do in the class struggle," because at first it sounds like you and Devrim are in agreement, when in fact both of you have different definitions of class struggle (political vs. economic).

I am pretty sure that I would agree with Miles. However, the basic idea that a class party is formed by class struggle and not by calls to 'unite the left' is pretty obvious to anyone with any vague sense.

Now I don't think that MacNair is stupid, and he obviously realises this. Therefore it is pretty difficult not to be cynical and see all this 'unity' talk for what it is.


Translation: would not join with any party that advocated anything other than abstentions (including those into spoilage campaigns). :rolleyes:

Yes, I don't think I have tried to disguise this. We wouldn't join any 'party' which advocated participation in bourgeois elections. It is called political principle. As for 'spoilage campaigns', I don't think that they are particular against any principle, just absurd.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

UN - I am not a M-L.

In reality, I must say that the differences between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists seem to be more motivated by historical political grudges than by veritable policy differences. Of course, by now, the dislike for each others' tendencies has grown so that there is certainly breathing space, possibly even irreconcilable, between the two tendencies. However, I do feel that it's a separation that could have been sorted out, if the likes of Stalin and Trotsky in particular had engaged in sensible politics in the 1920s, rather than seeking to eliminate each other for their own political/personal gain.

This will be controversial and i'll get ripped for the above paragraph, but it's something that needs to be said. It certainly seems a logical conclusion to me, someone who is outside of both tendencies and has no vested interest in the success or failure of either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all, by left-coms, I was also including myself. Second of all, no, no we aren't. The subjection of the interests of the working-class to the national and 'progressive' bourgeoisie has nothing to do with proletarian ideological hegemony.

It has to do with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois hegemony, though.

Formation into a class-for-itself is a partial overcoming of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois hegemony. The proletarian proto-hegemony is established within the class.


I am pretty sure that I would agree with Miles.

Not really. Your approach is one of growing political struggles out of economic ones. His approach is different.


However, the basic idea that a class party is formed by class struggle and not by calls to 'unite the left' is pretty obvious to anyone with any vague sense.

So what about the volunteers who formed the ADAV in Germany or the PO in France?


Yes, I don't think I have tried to disguise this. We wouldn't join any 'party' which advocated participation in bourgeois elections. It is called political principle. As for 'spoilage campaigns', I don't think that they are particular against any principle, just absurd.

So you still wouldn't unite with a group that mandates participation in spoilage campaigns?

[Widerstand]

You may have the new CPGB confused with the old CPGB. The old CPGB was a 'Marxist-Leninist' group, but it dissolved in 1992 with the fall of the Soviet Union. The Leninist fraction refused to let their party by taken away by what they saw as a revisionist leadership, so they refounded the party as the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). In the mid-90's they decided that the Soviet Union was actually not the glorious socialist fatherland but a form of 'bueracratic socialism', however they have never adopted Trotskyist politics either, preferring to go for a non-aligned 'Leninist Marxism'.

So what exactly is the new CPGB?



lol, not really. Trotskyists are infamous for continually splitting from each other and forming new groups.

Doesn't mean they can't hold similar views as those groups they split from.


UN - I am not a M-L.

You sound like one nonetheless :|



In reality, I must say that the differences between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists seem to be more motivated by historical political grudges than by veritable policy differences. Of course, by now, the dislike for each others' tendencies has grown so that there is certainly breathing space, possibly even irreconcilable, between the two tendencies. However, I do feel that it's a separation that could have been sorted out, if the likes of Stalin and Trotsky in particular had engaged in sensible politics in the 1920s, rather than seeking to eliminate each other for their own political/personal gain.

This will be controversial and i'll get ripped for the above paragraph, but it's something that needs to be said. It certainly seems a logical conclusion to me, someone who is outside of both tendencies and has no vested interest in the success or failure of either.

I tend to agree.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what exactly is the new CPGB?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/

[Devrim]

Not really. Your approach is one of growing political struggles out of economic ones. His approach is different.

Yes, his approach is very different. What I was talking about was the idea that building the party is connected to the class struggle.



However, the basic idea that a class party is formed by class struggle and not by calls to 'unite the left' is pretty obvious to anyone with any vague sense. So what about the volunteers who formed the ADAV in Germany or the PO in France?

I find it quite difficult to comprehend how somebody who has obviously read so much and uses so many big words, albeit many of them of his own invention, can have such a lack of understanding of the basic concepts and history of the workers movement.


So you still wouldn't unite with a group that mandates participation in spoilage campaigns?

Are there any groups that advocate this? To be honest I don't see why anybody should take your absurd individual positions seriously.

Devrim

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I can't get into this subject matter at all. What makes any of us think that any working class people will be interested in any of these specific arguments? All of our parties serve themselves in the sense that they all crave the influence in working class politics that makes a qualitative change. What we all desire is to be the party standing victorious when this change occurs, so the Trotskyists, or the Stalinists, or the third-worldists can say 'we told you so!'.

The fact is, there is a large vacuum that exists because those parties that aim to liberate the working class disagree over abstract arguments that aren't usually relevant anyway, so nothing gets done. Who will fill this vacuum? Will it be one of the many small parties that call themselves socialist, or will it be either the big party that has trade-union backing or the big party that has millionaire backing, rendering them both financially and political powerful (I'm referring to UK politics here)?

In Britain, whilst we all argue over what happened in the Soviet Union, the workers vote between 2 neoliberal parties, and they will continue to do so until there is a general worker's party. The popular consensus of any mass revolutionary struggle will never be realised if there is no mass party to put forward socialist ideas, the only choice workers will see is the choice between their 'democratic' representatives, as the powerful media and the powerful politicians tell them this, and they are who the workers listen to, not the sects that are busy arguing over who's more revolutionary than who.

Whilst this need for a working class party exists, the vacuum will continue to exist, and the huge opportunities that are in our hands as revolutionaries will be wasted. We need a mass party that adheres to a constitution that has the working class in mind, the party should be independent of any existing socialist sect and it should be as democratic as it can possibly be. One problem already arises, and that is that many working class kids are joining Labour now, and I am fearful that they will adopt the neoliberal agenda as a radical agenda.

/rant

[Martin Blank]

You might want to clarify about "what we are all supposed to do in the class struggle," because at first it sounds like you and Devrim are in agreement, when in fact both of you have different definitions of class struggle (political vs. economic).

I'm not really sure how different our views are on this question. Economically, we want working people to organize themselves into workplace committees, workers' assemblies and councils, and workers' congresses so they can take control of the economy, abolish private property and begin the transition to the communist mode of production. Politically, we want the defeat and overthrow of capitalist rule, the break-up and atomization of the forces of the old capitalist state, and the establishment of the political transition toward communism ("dictatorship of the proletariat" -- we prefer the term workers' republic) based on the workers' councils. We may differ on approach and style, but those are, in the final analysis, tactical and strategic differences, not ones of principle.

[Obs]

fuck unity
And then there was never a revolution, ever.

[Martin Blank]

Are there any groups that advocate this? To be honest I don't see why anybody should take your absurd individual positions seriously.

That is a ridiculous approach to take, and you know it. Mass spoilage is a legitimate tactic under the correct conditions. It shouldn't be poo-pooed just because the current configuration among nearly all self-described socialists and communists is a straight dichotomy between unserious electoralism and unserious anti-electoralism. Moreover, if the absurdity of a position was inversely proportional to the amount of popular support it has, then why the hell would any of us be revolutionaries in this day and age?

[Devrim]

That is a ridiculous approach to take, and you know it. Mass spoilage is a legitimate tactic under the correct conditions. It shouldn't be poo-pooed just because the current configuration among nearly all self-described socialists and communists is a straight dichotomy between unserious electoralism and unserious anti-electoralism. Moreover, if the absurdity of a position was inversely proportional to the amount of popular support it has, then why the hell would any of us be revolutionaries in this day and age?

I don't think that it is a ridiculous approach to take. He asked what approach we would take towards an organisation with this position, and I asked if there were any.

Most left groups base their positions on a collectively developed historical analysis of the working class struggle. Given the wide variety of leftist politics on offer don't you think that it is quite telling that nobody except one person holds this position?

One may as well ask what somebody's approach would be to a group that said working class revolutions can only happen in October.

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

I don't think that it is a ridiculous approach to take. He asked what approach we would take towards an organisation with this position, and I asked if there were any.

Most left groups base their positions on a collectively developed historical analysis of the working class struggle. Given the wide variety of leftist politics on offer don't you think that it is quite telling that nobody except one person holds this position?

One may as well ask what somebody's approach would be to a group that said working class revolutions can only happen in October.

You know that's not my point, Dev. My point was about you dismissing DNZ's view and saying, "I don't see why anybody should take your absurd individual positions seriously". The fact is that he is suggesting a legitimate tactic, something worth considering under the right circumstances. We're considering something like this for the coming elections in November. We have yet to make a final decision, but it is on the table and being discussed. But, yes, it is telling that the only views considered "acceptable" among most self-described socialists and communists are unserious electoralism and unserious anti-electoralism, and that there's no willingness to consider any other tactics. It's quite ... ossified, if you ask me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You know that's not my point, Dev. My point was about you dismissing DNZ's view and saying, "I don't see why anybody should take your absurd individual positions seriously". The fact is that he is suggesting a legitimate tactic, something worth considering under the right circumstances. We're considering something like this for the coming elections in November. We have yet to make a final decision, but it is on the table and being discussed. But, yes, it is telling that the only views considered "acceptable" among most self-described socialists and communists are unserious electoralism and unserious anti-electoralism, and that there's no willingness to consider any other tactics. It's quite ... ossified, if you ask me.

Comrade, what about the simultaneous combination of "serious electoralism" and "serious anti-electoralism"? This is where where a political organization combines candidates on a very short leash (anti-"ministerialism" and other anti-opportunism) with spoilage campaigns, perhaps even in the same electoral district.

[Although spoiled ballots can be traced to individual voters, they can't be used as evidence to prosecute spoilage. The only approach NOT "worth considering" under any circumstance is abstention, IMO. "If you abstain, you can't complain!" rhymes better than the "don't vote" saying. :D ]

[el_chavista]

I think the confusion comes about from two different definitions of ML. There is the one that you and I might use, and then there is the one that some anarchists use meaning anybody who is in the tradition of Marx and Lenin, which of course would include Trotskyists.

DevrimAnd that definition is more generally used world wide than yours.

Communists are vanguardists by definition. All Marx wanted was that we merge with the broad worker movement as the most aware activists of them.
At present, real and exclusively labor parties are not a common place. So if we want to deal with minority, LGBT or feminist rights we would do better in a mass front, a left populist party.

[Dimentio]

In short, the age of parties as long-term organisations are over. In any extent parties with specific goals, other from administrating the status quo, should establish, they should in reality be front organisations of broader movements.

[Martin Blank]

Comrade, what about the simultaneous combination of "serious electoralism" and "serious anti-electoralism"? This is where where a political organization combines candidates on a very short leash (anti-"ministerialism" and other anti-opportunism) with spoilage campaigns, perhaps even in the same electoral district.

If we ever did decide to run slates of Workers Party candidates, that would probably be the combination. However, the problem with doing it in the same districts is that if you were to vote for a candidate, then spoil the rest of the ballot, they would most likely count it all as a spoil and not count it. The smarter option in those areas would be "undervoting" -- i.e., not voting for anyone other than the candidate his or herself.


[Although spoiled ballots can be traced to individual voters, they can't be used as evidence to prosecute spoilage. The only approach NOT "worth considering" under any circumstance is abstention, IMO. "If you abstain, you can't complain!" rhymes better than the "don't vote" saying. :D ]

There are, of course, others NOT worth considering, such as triangular or targeted voting of "left" candidates of bourgeois parties, blind "third partyism" (this is more of a U.S. phenomenon), "fusion" voting (voting for bourgeois candidates running on "left" party slates, which we see with the Working Families Parties, and sometimes the Peace and Freedom Party ticket in California), and "second-preference" voting, where you cast your first vote for a "left" or "third party", then vote for a bourgeois "liberal" candidate as a second choice.

[Devrim]

And that definition is more generally used world wide than yours.

Do you know what my definition is even?

Devrim

[Devrim]

You know that's not my point, Dev. My point was about you dismissing DNZ's view and saying, "I don't see why anybody should take your absurd individual positions seriously". The fact is that he is suggesting a legitimate tactic, something worth considering under the right circumstances. We're considering something like this for the coming elections in November. We have yet to make a final decision, but it is on the table and being discussed. But, yes, it is telling that the only views considered "acceptable" among most self-described socialists and communists are unserious electoralism and unserious anti-electoralism, and that there's no willingness to consider any other tactics. It's quite ... ossified, if you ask me.

Don't you think it is telling that there is no organised political group that holds this strategy?

I am not sure what you mean by 'unserious anti-electoralism'. For us, and, I think, the majority of serious anarchists, elections are not something that we even try to organise around. Yes, we might run an article in the paper explaining why we think that none of the bourgeois parties will do anything for the working class. Yes, of course there are some anarchists who run 'don't vote' campaigns, but I don't think that any of the organised ones do really.

This does not mean that there are not times to actually run a boycott campaign. At its best a boycott campaign can be a startling reminder of the levels of support for certain ideas.

A few weeks ago in a referendum in this country, Kurdish nationalists ran a boycott campaign. It was not because they are abstentionists.
They are not. They participate generally in electoral politics, but in this case they couldn't bring themselves to back either side. Anyway, in the ten South Eastern provinces, nowhere had over a 50% turn-out, and one of the had a turnout of 6.4% (Also bear in mind that in Turkey it is illegal not to vote).

However, to spend energy now organising a boycott campaign, which nobody will take any notice of is worthless.

The same thing applies to your decision about the upcoming elections. Basically what is the point of advocating something that nobody will even notice?

The problem behind the whole idea of a campaign of spoiling ballots is that it in no way relates to anybody. Increasingly many workers don't vote. Not because anarchists or left communists tell them not to, but because they obviously feel that the minimal effort involved is not something that will do anything for them. Now it is true that many of the people this applies to are disillusioned about politics in general, but what should the message that we try to put across to these people be? I don't think that telling them to go and spoil their ballots has anything positive to ask at all. Certainly the job of communists is not to increase illusions that the electoral process has anything to offer the working class. If somebody says that they are all the same, should socialists really be trying to convince them that spoiling their ballot will lead to something different? Especially when they know it won't.

It isn't a question of tactics being 'ossified'. It is a question of understanding that elections have nothing to offer the working class, and that silly little stunts won't in anyway change this.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

If we ever did decide to run slates of Workers Party candidates, that would probably be the combination. However, the problem with doing it in the same districts is that if you were to vote for a candidate, then spoil the rest of the ballot, they would most likely count it all as a spoil and not count it. The smarter option in those areas would be "undervoting" -- i.e., not voting for anyone other than the candidate his or herself.

The ideal basically goes like this: if you're not gonna vote for our candidate, at least spoil your ballot.

This does raise the problem of Popular Front antics (not United Front or Communitarian Populist Front tactics), since there are "progressive" non-worker elements who are quite disillusioned with the system and who are willing to spoil ballots. An independent spoilage campaign should definitely exist where there is no established spoilage campaign, but what if there were already an established spoilage campaign?


There are, of course, others NOT worth considering, such as triangular or targeted voting of "left" candidates of bourgeois parties, blind "third partyism" (this is more of a U.S. phenomenon), "fusion" voting (voting for bourgeois candidates running on "left" party slates, which we see with the Working Families Parties, and sometimes the Peace and Freedom Party ticket in California), and "second-preference" voting, where you cast your first vote for a "left" or "third party", then vote for a bourgeois "liberal" candidate as a second choice.

I was merely directing my polemic against those advocating mass abstentions. Blind "third partyism" isn't just a US phenomenon, since there are Green parties, IP reform "Pirate" parties, Marijuana parties, and blatant joke parties.

If I'm not mistaken, "fusion" voting is just another manifestation of the pathetic Reform Coalition Strategy.

The last part on second preferences: I almost advocated STV or AV as something to go with the one-quarter of seats in a given legislature that is district-based (the rest being closed-list PR), but then Moshe Machover himself told me the best option for any existing district-based seats would produce a Cordocet winner (the winner being more popular than each of his competitors on a one-on-one matchup).

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem behind the whole idea of a campaign of spoiling ballots is that it in no way relates to anybody. Increasingly many workers don't vote.

Political inaction (i.e., abstentions) doesn't work.


Not because anarchists or left communists tell them not to, but because they obviously feel that the minimal effort involved is not something that will do anything for them. Now it is true that many of the people this applies to are disillusioned about politics in general, but what should the message that we try to put across to these people be?

Disillusionment with the system should be openly expressed, not mixed in with people who are in fact too lazy to vote.


I don't think that telling them to go and spoil their ballots has anything positive to ask at all. Certainly the job of communists is not to increase illusions that the electoral process has anything to offer the working class.

It's called "political action." Certainly the job of communists is to increase disillusionment in the electoral process, but more importantly channel such disillusionment into mass political action.

[Devrim]

Political inaction (i.e., abstentions) doesn't work.

Once again you miss the point completely. It is not supposed to 'work'.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Yes, of course there are some anarchists who run 'don't vote' campaigns, but I don't think that any of the organised ones do really.
At the last UK general election 'The Other Campaign', based on the ever so original slogan 'Don't Vote, Organise' was initiated by the Liverpool branch of Solidarity Federation. The Anarchist Federation produced a lot of 'don't vote' stickers, but I don't know if it went beyond that.

[Martin Blank]

Don't you think it is telling that there is no organised political group that holds this strategy?

It is telling, yes. But again, what it tells you and what it tells me are two different things. For example, it exposes the existence of a consensus among revolutionary left organizations. Certain groups are expected to say and do certain things that are supposed to make them "unique", but in reality there is little or nothing "unique". Politically, the bulk of the revolutionary left is in a pragmatic rut, living vicariously though their predecessors. Honestly, if I wanted more of that kind of perspective, I'd go back to Civil War re-enacting. The fact that there are really only two "unique" positions in the revolutionary left considered acceptable -- either "educational" (run-to-lose) electoralism or "educational" (stay-home-do-nothing) anti-electoralism -- I see as evidence of a poverty of philosophy when it comes to applying a materialist analysis.

This is not to say that I don't agree with you about the value of electoralism. More and more, I am becoming convinced that it is no longer possible to view the electoral arena as a means of having a relatively peaceful test of strength with the exploiting and oppressing classes. But that doesn't have anything in common with those who try to prove how "unique" they are by advocating one of two consensus positions.


I am not sure what you mean by 'unserious anti-electoralism'. For us, and, I think, the majority of serious anarchists, elections are not something that we even try to organise around. Yes, we might run an article in the paper explaining why we think that none of the bourgeois parties will do anything for the working class. Yes, of course there are some anarchists who run 'don't vote' campaigns, but I don't think that any of the organised ones do really.

But do you do any kind of organizing coinciding with an upcoming election? That's what I mean about "unserious anti-electoralism". You oppose the charade that is a bourgeois election. Fair enough. But do you bother to use the atmosphere created in a bourgeois election cycle to aid workers in organizing for their own interests -- in advancing the class struggle?


This does not mean that there are not times to actually run a boycott campaign. At its best a boycott campaign can be a startling reminder of the levels of support for certain ideas.

A few weeks ago in a referendum in this country, Kurdish nationalists ran a boycott campaign. It was not because they are abstentionists. They are not. They participate generally in electoral politics, but in this case they couldn't bring themselves to back either side. Anyway, in the ten South Eastern provinces, nowhere had over a 50% turn-out, and one of the had a turnout of 6.4% (Also bear in mind that in Turkey it is illegal not to vote).

However, to spend energy now organising a boycott campaign, which nobody will take any notice of, is worthless.

And telling working people to stay home and do nothing is not? That only reinforces the atomization of the working class perpetuated by the exploiting and oppressing classes. What's the difference between an apolitical worker and one supporting the ICC's line on election day? Practically speaking, virtually nothing. There is not a dime's worth of difference between apathy and abstention; the only discernible difference is that the apathetic didn't have to think up a rationale for doing nothing.


The same thing applies to your decision about the upcoming elections. Basically what is the point of advocating something that nobody will even notice?

(NB: The Workers Party has not made its decision on our stance toward the November 2, 2010, elections. Saying this should be enough to show the initial skeleton of a strawman being built by Devrim. Anyway,...)

I'd ask you the same question. In many countries, no one would really notice a disorganized abstentionism; it would simply blend in with the apathetic and apolitically contented. Doing it in a country where voting is mandatory necessitates a level of organization to maintain the effort, or else you have part of your membership quietly and opportunistically voting for the so-called "lesser evil", and another part quietly hiding in their homes.

In certain countries, such as the United States, the struggle for civil rights (and, importantly, voting rights) is still fresh in some people's memories, and the thought of abstention from voting is seen as offensive. And, no, it's not a screen for voting Democratic. I've lost count of how many times I heard statements about voting that go like this: "You don't want to vote for politicians? That's fine. Don't vote for them, then. But go vote on taxes and ballot measures. You don't want to do that? Then at least go down there and read the damn ballot. Don't waste what your (my, our) granddaddy (granddaddies) fought for."

Given the material conditions here, it makes more sense to consider either an organized spoilage campaign or a "Your 'Candidates', Not Ours!" campaign of organized, public boycott of voting for bourgeois candidates. Both of these can give a revolutionary organization a platform as well, and, thinking about it more, can be seen as a relatively peaceful test of strength just as effective as (or, increasingly, more effective than) running a candidate. And, yes, some will take notice. Whether the media wants to publicize such a campaign or not is up to them. They might, but that's really not the kind of "notice" we should be concerned about. Those workers who do take notice of such a campaign are now open to talking about broader political questions, beginning with the questions of how communists see bourgeois elections, the role of "third parties" and bourgeois socialist (social-democratic, so-called "labor") parties, etc. It may not make the front page of the New York Times, but it will turn some workers' heads. Maybe only a few for now, but done over a few cycles it could become a means for workers dissatisfied with the bourgeois political arrangement to organize and empower themselves.


The problem behind the whole idea of a campaign of spoiling ballots is that it in no way relates to anybody. Increasingly many workers don't vote. Not because anarchists or left communists tell them not to, but because they obviously feel that the minimal effort involved is not something that will do anything for them. Now it is true that many of the people this applies to are disillusioned about politics in general, but what should the message that we try to put across to these people be? I don't think that telling them to go and spoil their ballots has anything positive to ask at all. Certainly the job of communists is not to increase illusions that the electoral process has anything to offer the working class. If somebody says that they are all the same, should socialists really be trying to convince them that spoiling their ballot will lead to something different? Especially when they know it won't.

Do they know that? You said yourself "that there is no organised political group that holds this strategy". I'd venture a little farther in stating my suspicion that such a thing hasn't really been used in recent history (at least, not since the end of the Second World War). If this is the case, then how can workers really know it won't work? How do you know? Do you have concrete experience and evidence, or is it all wishful thinking? Seriously, if you have concrete evidence and experience of more than one instance of this, and the subsequent entry of the lessons of this experience into the consciousness of the working class, I'd really like to hear or read about it.

Incidentally, I favor doing the organized boycott tactic over spoilage, based on the current political situation.


It isn't a question of tactics being 'ossified'. It is a question of understanding that elections have nothing to offer the working class, and that silly little stunts won't in anyway change this.

I'm not so sure that what you sneeringly call "silly little stunts" (BTW, they called the early sit-downs strikes "silly little stunts", too) won't change anything, but I am sure that sitting at home on your ass doesn't do anything to advance class struggle or workers' self-organization. Quite the contrary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is the key point. Intensification in class struggle will make sweeping changes in the political landscape of the left. Just as at times the Bolshevik party found that the class was well in advance of the party, the political groups of today will discover the same thing. Groups will merge and split, appear and disappear. Some of the groups of today may find themselves playing an important role, some will remain insignificant, some will disappear, and some will end up siding with reaction.

I think this is an important point. Maybe I missed it in other posts, but it seems like one thing that's missing from the discussion is the question of "why there are all these different groups in the first place". Really in my view it comes from unresolved questions for the most part - some long-term and historical, others more immediate, but because of the state of the worker's struggle being more or less stagnant in Europe and in decline in the US over the last 30 years, resolving these questions in action has been difficult if not impossible.

For example, while I largely agree with, for example, syndicalists on most things, I disagree that rank and file movements within the trade-unions are useless and that radical unions alone are necessary - I think that syndicalism can play a leading role in helping build working class militancy, but that rank and file movements also need to be built inside the mainstream unions. So we disagree on this, but until there is an upsurge in strikes and the labor movement, there is no real way to test which ideas are more valid right now.

So in my view, the thing "we all need to be doing" is trying to build up labor militancy and a radical left movement in general, because a larger and more vibrant movement is really what is going to produce the atmosphere where debates can be done in a much healthier and less sectarian way - if only because there would be no need to try and poach other groups or sabotage them where there are hundreds of other people radicalizing and wanting to get involved in the movement (although I'm sure it would continue to happen to some degree). A small and stagnant or shrinking movement amplifies all the infighting and bullshit that happens. But more importantly, increased militancy and radicalization will provide that opportunity to potentially see what politics and tactics really work and what is useless.

[Devrim]

But do you do any kind of organizing coinciding with an upcoming election? That's what I mean about "unserious anti-electoralism". You oppose the charade that is a bourgeois election. Fair enough. But do you bother to use the atmosphere created in a bourgeois election cycle to aid workers in organizing for their own interests -- in advancing the class struggle?

I don't think that the atmosphere created by elections is really one that is useful for communists. In fact I think the entire thing is an assault on the idea that you ordinary working class people can do anything to change their own lives, and it reinforces the idea that the only way to change things is to elect politicians to do it.

Given the limited resources of communist groups today, I would say that basically time and effort spent organising around elections, being a tiny minority whisper in a hurricane of bourgeois propaganda, could be better spent elsewhere.


(NB: The Workers Party has not made its decision on our stance toward the November 2, 2010, elections. Saying this should be enough to show the initial skeleton of a strawman being built by Devrim. Anyway,...)

That is why I wrote 'decision about', not 'decision to'. It implies that the decision hasn't been made.


I'd ask you the same question. In many countries, no one would really notice a disorganized abstentionism;

No they wouldn't. I know that, and you have missed the point to the same extent as Jacob.

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

I don't think that the atmosphere created by elections is really one that is useful for communists. In fact I think the entire thing is an assault on the idea that you ordinary working class people can do anything to change their own lives, and it reinforces the idea that the only way to change things is to elect politicians to do it.

Of course, bourgeois elections reinforce the view that the only "peaceful", "civilized" and "democratic" way to change things is to choose one of their politicians to "represent" workers. That's what they're meant to do. But that's also not the point. The point is, how do you use the relatively heightened level of political interest generated by an election cycle to raise revolutionary politics? Sitting at home and saying the whole period is useless is not a way to do it. That definitely "reinforces the idea that the only way to change things is to elect politicians to do it", since it offers no concrete alternative to the act of voting.


Given the limited resources of communist groups today, I would say that basically time and effort spent organising around elections, being a tiny minority whisper in a hurricane of bourgeois propaganda, could be better spent elsewhere.

Doing what, exactly? More to the point: Doing what, exactly, that isn't itself just another "tiny minority whisper in a hurricane of bourgeois propaganda"?


That is why I wrote 'decision about', not 'decision to'. It implies that the decision hasn't been made.

No. Actually, it implies the same thing as "decision to". If you were trying to say "proposal about", then it would make more sense.


No they wouldn't. I know that, and you have missed the point to the same extent as Jacob.

Actually, I don't think either of us have missed your point at all.

Yes, many workers have chosen to withdraw from participating in the electoral cycle and see nothing in there worth their time or effort, but most of these workers do so because of their apathy or apolitical contentment, not because they are consciously rejecting bourgeois politics. That's the point here; the overwhelming majority of these elements are not doing so out of some rudimentary class consciousness, but because they have "better things to do" -- "things" that have nothing to do with politics at all. You appear to be choosing to orient to these apathetic, apolitical, unconscious (i.e., rearguard) workers, not those who are thinking and acting politically (even if their consciousness and actions are dominated by bourgeois ideology).

Spoilage in and of itself may not "lead to something different", but spoilage or boycott, combined with political education, agitation and organization, can strengthen the workers' movement. It's never a case of a tactic in isolation. No tactic used in isolation is really effective. At best, you might make a splash in the media, but that's about it. At worst, it will backfire. That's why you don't engage in tactical actions in isolation, but rather combine them with other tactics, and, most importantly, with political education, agitation and organization. Through this kind of combined action, you can turn a tactic like spoilage or boycott into a means of expanding the fledgling revolutionary workers' movement. And that, I believe, would not only relate to working people, it would also provide workers with ideas of how they can really change things.

[Devrim]

Actually, I don't think either of us have missed your point at all.

Reading your replies it seems pretty clear to me that you both have. Never mind.

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

Reading your replies it seems pretty clear to me that you both have. Never mind.

At first, I was going to chide you for withdrawing from this discussion, but, having thought about it, I agree with you that it's probably best if you do turn around and walk away.

[Robocommie]

ITT: People arguing over why the Left can't get along

[Q]

ITT: People arguing over why the Left can't get along

What does "ITT" mean anyway?

[zimmerwald1915]

What does "ITT" mean anyway?
In This Thread

[revolution inaction]

At the last UK general election 'The Other Campaign', based on the ever so original slogan 'Don't Vote, Organise' was initiated by the Liverpool branch of Solidarity Federation. The Anarchist Federation produced a lot of 'don't vote' stickers, but I don't know if it went beyond that.

i think we produced a leaflet to.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The ideal basically goes like this: if you're not gonna vote for our candidate, at least spoil your ballot.



"Yo comrade, voting in elections is pointless cause they never listen to our voices anyway, but scribbling on this ballot is going to send one hell of a fucking message!"