Will we ever come together?

[MrCharizma]

The trouble for me, with the Left, is that we are far too separated.
We may have the same goals, but the final 'state' that we all see fit for ourselves is largely different, for so many.
My question is; will we ever unite? As one?
For too long I've just thought that there are so many people out there who just don't have a clue, and those who do continually disagree; are always sceptical.
Maybe i'm just having a rant...

[The Idler]

No, the best we can hope for in the short term is three or four organisations with a few million members strong.

[MrCharizma]

No, the best we can hope for in the short term is three or four organisations with a few million members strong.

Yeah I understand that part.
But what about the long term?

[Magón]

Probably not. You'll probably just get what we have now, and have always had, which is one of the many ideologies taking it's place in various nations, and working out of there, and supporting any other group(s) that are the same as it. Such as the Anarchists in Greece supporting/being supported by fellow Anarchists outside of Greece. Maoists in Nepal being supported by Maoist nations.

Of course, if you're talking about the Revolution, and how it could all come to be, then this is how I see it. Left ideologies spread out across the world taking different places, doing their own thing. Kind of like a world wide autonomous commune in the end.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The trouble for me, with the Left, is that we are far too separated.
We may have the same goals, but the final 'state' that we all see fit for ourselves is largely different, for so many.
My question is; will we ever unite? As one?
For too long I've just thought that there are so many people out there who just don't have a clue, and those who do continually disagree; are always sceptical.
Maybe i'm just having a rant...

As a Marxist I would support an anarchist revolution. However, I don't see it as a workable revolution, as counter-revolution will occur. How do you defend against that outside of the state? Then there's the issue of economic organization and planning.

I would hope anarchists would fight alongside communists in a communist revolution.

So far as uniting every tendency in the radical left uniting outside of a revolution, or outside of being against common enemy...have fun. Marxists are divided internally on many issues, anarchists as well.

[Soseloshvili]

I agree, the problem with the left is our divisiveness. For some reason leftists continue to uphold personal arguments (such as the Marx-Bakunin split, a 140 year old personal spat that people still argue about :() that really stopped being relevant decades (or even centuries) ago.

I face this problem here in this country, Canada, where Socialists are divided into 4 main camps: Communist, Marxist-Leninist, Québécois Left-wing Nationalist and Trotskyite.

The biggest two factions are the Communist (embodied by the Communist Party of Canada) and the Marxist-Leninists (embodied by the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada). Really there's no difference in their policies, however the Marxist-Leninists still refuse to work with the other groups. Then there's the Trotskyites, who practice entryism into the NDP (or Québec Solidaire, the Québec equivalent of the NDP). They never make up a major force, and they're just as divided amongst themselves as the parties are against each other. And the Québécois Nationalists, lead by the Parti Communiste du Québec. They object to the other parties on the grounds that they don't support Québec's independance.

That's not even mentioning Anarchists... It's a really sticky situation. Marx had a word for what you're talking about, sectarianism. It's something that's destroying this movement, I think we just have to push for unification of Communist parties everywhere and, well, hope for the best.

[bricolage]

I hope not.

[EvilRedGuy]

Lets hope sectarianism will wither away.

[punisa]

I like a good tendency debate just as the other person.
But seriously... come on, we look damn ridiculous.

You may say this is a dumb comparison, but here it goes:
1) youtube video on Communist manifesto (good lecture): 74,080 views
2) youtube video on Justin Bieber (song "Baby"): 357,632,956 views

This is a small glimpse into a world we live in. It is not time to fight each other, we have a very long road ahead of us if we want to educate the working class people as to why they are oppressed and what is the alternative.

I consider myself a Marxist, but also view all anarchists, Maoists, Juche (praise dear leader) lovers, Guevarists or Marxist-Leninists as my brothers and sisters in struggle.

[VeganLiz]

People on the left tend to be great thinkers, so it's not that surprising to me that we're a hard group to round up.

However, there are times when it is very important that we do come together to fight against fascism and speak up for equality, despite the different ideas we have.

[Q]

I point to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/splits-and-fusion-t143323/index.html) as it cites an article giving an historical example of a leftist get together and forming a relevant political formation for the next 71 years.

[Zanthorus]

However, there are times when it is very important that we do come together to fight against fascism

No.


I point to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/splits-and-fusion-t143323/index.html) as it cites an article giving an historical example of a leftist get together and forming a relevant political formation for the next 71 years.

You're offering us the Official Communist party as an example? Come on, I think you can do better than that.

[VeganLiz]

No.

No?

Mind filling me in?

[RED DAVE]

I think that, in the long run, there can be no unity because the fundamental attitudes towards socialism and the role of the working class in revolution are fundamentally different.

The true test of unity is not ideological rants on a website but practice. As the tempo of class struggle increases, and groups work with, in or against the working class, we'll see what happens. I could make predictions, but I don't want this to turn into a sectarian grab-ass.

RED DAVE

[Q]

You're offering us the Official Communist party as an example? Come on, I think you can do better than that.

I was offering it as it is a running thread. Besides, you can disagree a lot with its policies throughout its existence (I certainly do), but the 1920 formation is an example of what could be achieved: a party that actually matters for the whole class.

[Zanthorus]

No?

Mind filling me in?

Left-Communists don't agree with the tactic of forming frontist organisations (Wether 'united' or 'popular') to fight against fascism. The idea that fascism is an abberation to be fought against is related to liberal views of fascism which saw it as a scar on the otherwise continuous ethical tradition running from the enlightenment to the early 20th century. In reality, fascism was the result of the failure of the working-class to seize power in the immediate post-war (revolutionary) situation and the failure of the labour and social-democratic parties to manage capital effectively. It's ideology sprang quite naturally from the grounds of several cultural trends already prevalent in pre-World War One including eugenicism, social-darwninism, nationalism (Which had already revealed it's poisonous nature in the 1848 european revolutions) and class-collaborationism. To destroy fascism, it is necessary to destroy capitalism, rather than defending a more 'democratic' version of capitalism against it, or calling on the bourgeois state and it's liberal and democratic elements to defend against fascism, which is inevitably what most of these frontist organisations do.


I was offering it as it is a running thread. Besides, you can disagree a lot with its policies throughout its existence (I certainly do), but the 1920 formation is an example of what could be achieved: a party that actually matters for the whole class.

I'm not in a position to argue this so I'll concede the point.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lets hope sectarianism will wither away.
i see what you did there.

i bet you want non-sectarianism by the instantaneous uniting of the masses of party and org members?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Actually, I can't see how certain opposing factions in the left can ever really truly merge. Of course some differences are just petty and we can work towards a common goal and then squabble later about our differences but some of the seperate factions have huge differences.

For instance Marxists and anarchists are both from the libertarian branch of socialism but they can never (in my opinion) work together, at least not during the revolution. After a stateless society has been established I believe that they can but until that...nope, no way.

[Triple A]

I think anarchy and state communism are opposites and will never merge:(
but we can unite against the righties

[Soseloshvili]

I think anarchy and state communism are opposites and will never merge:(
but we can unite against the righties

The only true difference I've ever noted is that Anarchists don't believe that a Socialist state is possible, whereas Communists believe it is necessary to transition to Communism (or Statelessness, in Anarchist lingo)

That and the the majority of Anarchists tend to focus on Libertarianism and the majority of Communists tend to focus on efficiency. Really in many historical cases Communists and Anarchists have had the same policies (like the POUM and Friends of Durruti in Spain).

Really, where's the major difference? Why can't we unite?

[ContrarianLemming]

will we ever unite? As one?


I seriously hope not, it's something of a fantasy that - as I always say - ends in either guns or gulags

[ContrarianLemming]

I like a good tendency debate just as the other person.
But seriously... come on, we look damn ridiculous.

You may say this is a dumb comparison, but here it goes:
1) youtube video on Communist manifesto (good lecture): 74,080 views
2) youtube video on Justin Bieber (song "Baby"): 357,632,956 views



I am one of those millions who saw that Beiber thing, and I never saw that lecture, yet I'm a communist
it says nothing.

Most of the Beiber video watchs are clearly haters: look at the ratings for it, it says nothing about how good the kid is.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm not sure where to respond with this, but I guess I'll place it here...


Why do so many groups expect me to agree with their shibboleth theory? Why can't the SPEW merge with the SWP (or add in the Morning Star's CPB for that matter) based on a programmatic acceptance as a basis for common action? Why can't members or groups of members openly disagree with the party majority and their arguments be published in the party publications for all to see and learn from?

I see one major difficulty hidden within the questions you've proposed - which is, you are asking Revolutionary Leftists to actually practice what they preach... Because the way I see it, the points you are trying to bring up are the essential components of a functioning democracy... Because the problem with currently existing 'Parties' is they lack two key elements: democracy and civic culture.

The first is essential, because it's the only way to develop a 'civic culture' (which is the establishment of a social climate where disagreement is accepted). Without a 'sense of power' over the affairs of the Party, there can never be unity among factions within it. For example (in a currently existing Revolutionary Party...), if a Party Leader takes a course of action which I don't agree with, what can I do besides create another Party, which actually represents my idealogical stances. In other words, why would the party minority subject itself to the majority, if it feels it has no say/control in the affairs of the Party.

This is why I suspect that a successful Revolutionary Party will not be made up of "Professional Revolutionaries", "Party Leaders" or nonsense of that sort - but will instead, be led by the Party Majority themselves... I have no reason to doubt, that a Revolutionary Party can be composed of all revolutionary-leftists, from Anarchists to Stalinists, so long as their is a 'sense' of "I may not agree with this decision, but I will willingly accept it, for I perceive that I have the power/ability to reverse it, by persuasion and communication".

Definition of Civic Culture: "based on communication and persuasion, a culture of consensus and diversity, a culture that [permits] change but [moderates] it"

[Diello]

I think we'll come together...

Right now...

Over me.

(Sorry; couldn't help myself.)

[Triple A]

The only true difference I've ever noted is that Anarchists don't believe that a Socialist state is possible, whereas Communists believe it is necessary to transition to Communism (or Statelessness, in Anarchist lingo)

That and the the majority of Anarchists tend to focus on Libertarianism and the majority of Communists tend to focus on efficiency. Really in many historical cases Communists and Anarchists have had the same policies (like the POUM and Friends of Durruti in Spain).

Really, where's the major difference? Why can't we unite?


I know but communists believe in a strong government and anarchists in no government

Also Durruti and Makhno had anarchist toughts but werent true anarchists

[bricolage]

Really, where's the major difference? Why can't we unite?
Well for starters you think Libya is socialist.

Which I think is really indicative of why 'we' (I don't actually think the various 'left' tendencies represent a 'we', I am certainly not in a 'we' with most people here) can't unite: fundamentally opposing conceptions of what we are actually fighting for.

[Soseloshvili]

Well for starters you think Libya is socialist.

Which I think is really indicative of why 'we' (I don't actually think the various 'left' tendencies represent a 'we', I am certainly not in a 'we' with most people here) can't unite: fundamentally opposing conceptions of what we are actually fighting for.

That's it? You think that you and I could never possibly exist in the same organization because I support Libya? That's really pointless, that you'd be so sectarian over an argument on a minor issue that really doesn't affect the entire working class.

I think we qualify as a "we" because almost all Leftists share in common the basic principles of opposition to Capitalism and Fascism by the working class. Everything else to me really doesn't matter that much.


I know but communists believe in a strong government and anarchists in no government

Also Durruti and Makhno had anarchist toughts but werent true anarchists

Not all Communists believe that, but yes, that was what I was getting at with efficiency vs. Libertarianism. But even Communists are divided on that issue. Council Communists tend to be very Libertarian instead of pro-State.

How were Durruti and Makhno not real Anarchists, they led Anarchist movements with Anarchist principles. Really, explain.

[The Grey Blur]

when the masses move, all the sectarians will be left behind. those groups who orientate towards the mass of the working class, who make a serious study of history and revolution from a dialectical materialist position, will have influence in the worker's movement and the sectarians will either join us or disappear.

[bricolage]

That's it? You think that you and I could never possibly exist in the same organization because I support Libya?
I said that was one reason that is in itself representative of a much wider issue.
But yes if we want to look at this on a micro-level I wouldn't be in an organisation with someone who supports Libya as 'socialist'. This isn't just because I disagree with that characterisation but that if Libya is socialist and you are a socialist I can only assume the socialism you have in mind is similar to that of Libya. I am not interested in fighting for more Libyas.

Of course Libya here is a metaphor more than anything else.

Also I think I've written Libya far too many times.


I think we qualify as a "we" because almost all Leftists share in common the basic principles of opposition to Capitalism and Fascism by the working class. Everything else to me really doesn't matter that much.Well that's just the thing. I don't think you are actually opposed to capitalism. I mean I'm sure you are in a theoretical and philosophical sense, we all are. What I mean is that what you propose as 'anti-capitalism' is in fact just a different form of capitalism.

[Pretty Flaco]

I'm always willing to work with anybody to help bring about the end of capitalism. :redstar2000:

That is, if they're legitimate in their goals of course.

[Soseloshvili]

I said that was one reason that is in itself representative of a much wider issue.

But yes if we want to look at this on a micro-level I wouldn't be in an organisation with someone who supports Libya as 'socialist'. This isn't just because I disagree with that characterisation but that if Libya is socialist and you are a socialist I can only assume the socialism you have in mind is similar to that of Libya. I am not interested in fighting for more Libyas.

Of course Libya here is a metaphor more than anything else.

I see what you are getting at, but I can't say that I agree. You must realize that I don't support Libya as the ideal form of Socialism. I just support it because it is anti-imperialist, Socialist (I recognize it as such, even if it slightly degenerated) and anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic.

My ideal form of Socialism is not based off of the example of any nation, I believe all revolutions are unique and the exact ideas of any revolution cannot be re-advocated. I advocate Socialism as I think it will be best for my country, people of my sexuality as well as others.


Well that's just the thing. I don't think you are actually opposed to capitalism. I mean I'm sure you are in a theoretical and philosophical sense, we all are. What I mean is that what you propose as 'anti-capitalism' is in fact just a different form of capitalism.

Like I said, I don't advocate Libyan Socialism. I just advocate for Libya, based on the testimonies of the Libyans I have spoken with as well as the works of Muammar Qaddafi that I have read.

I am thoroughly anti-Capitalist, in thought and action. I would never permit the existence of a market economy, if it was within my power. And believe me, the moment I see anything proving Libya is turning Capitalist (which it may be right now, I haven't seen enough to prove this though) I will be among its fiercest critics.

[punisa]

I am one of those millions who saw that Beiber thing, and I never saw that lecture, yet I'm a communist
it says nothing.

Most of the Beiber video watchs are clearly haters: look at the ratings for it, it says nothing about how good the kid is.

Actually my point had nothing to do with the particular young gentleman, but a more general one :)
Point is that people generally deal with trivial while missing the more important things.
Eventually they will hit reality and blame themselves for getting fired, going bankrupt, becoming sick etc.
This is why the left must be strong and united - we should be there loud and vocal and be able to explain how things work under capitalism.

[bricolage]

I just support it because it is anti-imperialist, Socialist (I recognize it as such, even if it slightly degenerated)

And believe me, the moment I see anything proving Libya is turning Capitalist (which it may be right now, I haven't seen enough to prove this though) I will be among its fiercest critics.
The problem is that the Libyan state is and has always been capitalist. I think it speaks volumes that despite the support of many on this forum for supposed 'workers states' such as China or Cuba you are the only one I believe to apply this to Libya.

This is getting off topic a bit the point being 'unity' amongst those that have these completely differing conceptions of socialism is a fantasy at best and a tragedy at worst.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

well we will both have to be in the mood, start at the same time, and say when we came to clarify

im feeling pretty good now actually

[Soseloshvili]

The problem is that the Libyan state is and has always been capitalist. I think it speaks volumes that despite the support of many on this forum for supposed 'workers states' such as China or Cuba you are the only one I believe to apply this to Libya.

This is getting off topic a bit the point being 'unity' amongst those that have these completely differing conceptions of socialism is a fantasy at best and a tragedy at worst.

Apparently I'm not the only one to defend Libya, there's a group which I didn't create called "Hands of Libya!" which openly says it defends Libya, with 35 members. Check it out for yourself: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=165

I do not defend China, but I do defend Cuba. I see a lot of evidence that China has become Capitalist, but very little that Cuba or Libya have done so. Until such evidence is presented to me, I will continue to support them.

Anyway, yes. Back to the topic. I beg to differ, I think unity would be extraordinarily helpful for Socialists, despite the argument which would inevitably result from this. Our voice is louder together. The only reason it could possibly not succeed is because of people like you who reject others on minor issues.

For example, I do not shun Trotskyites, even though I disagree with a lot of Trotsky's analysis. I do not disagree with Anarchists even though I disagree with a lot of Anarchism's position on the existance of parties, I actually work with an Anarcho-Queer group out of Guelph, here in Ontario. I do not shun Maoists Third Worldists even though I do not agree that there is no revolutionary potential in the first world. The point is that all of these groups uphold the basic idea of the workers vs. Capitalism and Fascism. Other than that, who cares? I'll let you condemn Libya, that doesn't mean I'll stop supporting the Libyan cause, or that I disagree with you entirely.

[RED DAVE]

Don't worry, comrades, it's all going to work out in practice. Once the working class begins to move

(1) your tendency

(2) my tendency

(3) our tendency

(4) their tendency

(5) none of the above

will prove itself to be the true

(1) champions

(2) leaders

(3) repesentatives in the soviets

(4) ass-lickers of the bureaucracy

(5) none of the above

of the

(1) vanguard of the working class

(2) working class

(3) petit-bourgeoisie

(4) block of four classes

(5) none of the above.

RED DAVE

[Red Monroy]

I'm not sure where to respond with this, but I guess I'll place it here...



I see one major difficulty hidden within the questions you've proposed - which is, you are asking Revolutionary Leftists to actually practice what they preach... Because the way I see it, the points you are trying to bring up are the essential components of a functioning democracy... Because the problem with currently existing 'Parties' is they lack two key elements: democracy and civic culture.

The first is essential, because it's the only way to develop a 'civic culture' (which is the establishment of a social climate where disagreement is accepted). Without a 'sense of power' over the affairs of the Party, there can never be unity among factions within it. For example (in a currently existing Revolutionary Party...), if a Party Leader takes a course of action which I don't agree with, what can I do besides create another Party, which actually represents my idealogical stances. In other words, why would the party minority subject itself to the majority, if it feels it has no say/control in the affairs of the Party.

This is why I suspect that a successful Revolutionary Party will not be made up of "Professional Revolutionaries", "Party Leaders" or nonsense of that sort - but will instead, be led by the Party Majority themselves... I have no reason to doubt, that a Revolutionary Party can be composed of all revolutionary-leftists, from Anarchists to Stalinists, so long as their is a 'sense' of "I may not agree with this decision, but I will willingly accept it, for I perceive that I have the power/ability to reverse it, by persuasion and communication".

Definition of Civic Culture: "based on communication and persuasion, a culture of consensus and diversity, a culture that [permits] change but [moderates] it"
You bring up many good points. Yes, I am asking for the left to start practising what they preach. What was that again about "united we stand strong"?

Your point on democracy is spot on. We need a culture in which there is not only disagreement possible, but where the minority can actually make their case to convince a majority. Again, the party's publication(s) play a vital role in this functioning of party democracy.

About your third point, I see where you're coming from and certainly agree to an extent. However I think we shouldn't go too far in this sentiment and be against any kind of leadership. This would make a party non-functioning. What we need though is a leadership that sees its role largely confined in three aspects:

1. An administrative role (keeping the party's money, printing leaflets, keeping the website up to date, etc. etc).
2. That it is consciously striving for an educated membership, both in politics as in tactics and experience. Only an educated membership can play a role of political leadership.
3. Only in the most urgent of matters should the responsibility of taking political decisions be transferred to the central leadership. And these actions should be held accountable to the membership at the earliest convenience (for example in the party's publication(s), where a debate may occur).

I think point 2 largely runs parallel to your point of creating a "civic culture".


That's it? You think that you and I could never possibly exist in the same organization because I support Libya? That's really pointless, that you'd be so sectarian over an argument on a minor issue that really doesn't affect the entire working class.
The basic question that underlies this problem is, I think, this: What is the purpose of our organisation? If it is to be a group of people who happen to agree with each other, then yes, I couldn't be in the same organisation as you as I also disagree on the issue of Libya.

If the goal however is to bring together the most forward elements of the proletariat, its "grassroots leaders", to try and organise the whole class. Then yes, I could certainly be in the same organisation with you. I still disagree with you on Libya and when the matter arises (for example when Libya gets in the news again over some affair) will question you in the party's publication(s). No doubt we will have a fruitful debate.

That is how we should stand in this, in my view.

However we do need some basis of agreement, what purpose is there to unite with people who do not believe in the need for revolution, for example? In other words (and ironically enough, this is a common phrase in the left), we need a principled unity. In my view, and this is the reason why I support the CPGB, we should base our unity on:
- Internationalism, as we cannot fight for the overthrow of capitalism within the UK or any other single country. We need at the very least a continental scale revolution and Europe is of pivotal importance given its position in the capitalist state system.
- Working class independence, as we cannot fight for our class interests if we do not reject organising ourselves through the existing state or collaborating with the bosses (that is not to say we can't run for elections for example as a tactic, but again, this should be a debate). The working class needs to stand independent and on a global scale as our class is a global one.
- Democracy, both on a party level and for the entire society. The place of democracy within the party should by now be noted ;) But on a social scale we need to emphasise that the working class needs to fight for extreme democracy as that brings our class to power. Only if we take political power as a class can we start our social transition towards communism and let the real history of humanity begin.

[Soseloshvili]

The basic question that underlies this problem is, I think, this: What is the purpose of our organisation? If it is to be a group of people who happen to agree with each other, then yes, I couldn't be in the same organisation as you as I also disagree on the issue of Libya.

If the goal however is to bring together the most forward elements of the proletariat, its "grassroots leaders", to try and organise the whole class. Then yes, I could certainly be in the same organisation with you. I still disagree with you on Libya and when the matter arises (for example when Libya gets in the news again over some affair) will question you in the party's publication(s). No doubt we will have a fruitful debate.

That is how we should stand in this, in my view.

However we do need some basis of agreement, what purpose is there to unite with people who do not believe in the need for revolution, for example? In other words (and ironically enough, this is a common phrase in the left), we need a principled unity. In my view, and this is the reason why I support the CPGB, we should base our unity on:
- Internationalism, as we cannot fight for the overthrow of capitalism within the UK or any other single country. We need at the very least a continental scale revolution and Europe is of pivotal importance given its position in the capitalist state system.
- Working class independence, as we cannot fight for our class interests if we do not reject organising ourselves through the existing state or collaborating with the bosses (that is not to say we can't run for elections for example as a tactic, but again, this should be a debate). The working class needs to stand independent and on a global scale as our class is a global one.
- Democracy, both on a party level and for the entire society. The place of democracy within the party should by now be noted ;) But on a social scale we need to emphasise that the working class needs to fight for extreme democracy as that brings our class to power. Only if we take political power as a class can we start our social transition towards communism and let the real history of humanity begin.

You basically put my thoughts into a more structured form. I basically agree with everything you said. Organizations shouldn't be ideologically purist, they should just advocate for the working class.

We can only hope though. This will never happen within the next few years, or ever unless we have a change in ideas.

Hrm. Change in ideas. That's a bad religion song. I'm gonna go listen to that now. :)

[Red Monroy]

You basically put my thoughts into a more structured form. I basically agree with everything you said. Organizations shouldn't be ideologically purist, they should just advocate for the working class.

We can only hope though. This will never happen within the next few years, or ever unless we have a change in ideas.
There are historical precedents in which unity can occur. Q already pointed to my thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/splits-and-fusion-t143323/index.html) that deals with the foundation of the CPGB in 1920 (not the same organisation as the current CPGB, though they are closely linked), which consisted of quite a few organisations. Two factors I think should be noted in this particular unification:
- The impetus for this unification project was the Russian revolution and the founding of the Comintern that actively called upon the creation of communist parties across the world (but mainly in Europe at this early stage).
- The successful unification was mainly a result of the desire of the rank and file of the concerning organisations. The then SLP for example knew a split on this matter in which the emergent Communist Unity Group represented the majority of the SLP members. The South Wales Socialist Society practically dissolved over this matter and a new grouping called the South Wales Communist Council was established on a pro-unity basis.

I think these experiences largely correlate with our tasks today:
- We need a motivator, something that inspires the entire left and large layers of our class with the need for a united alternative. This does not have to be a revolution. A rise in class struggle would certainly help. A unity convention in one of the existent "new party" projects (such as the CNWP in the UK) could also serve as opening. As a small group of Marxist partisans such as the CPGB though, the immediate task is to campaign for such a party as best as we can.
- We need to recognise that the existing bureaucratic cliques of the various "partlets" need to go. Many of them have a leadership that has been there for decades (I was recently notified that SPEW's Peter Taaffe for example will celebrate his 50th year as a fulltimer in 2014!). These people have a vested interest in keeping the job and consequently will fight any real unity initiative every inch of the way. We need to appeal to the rank and file of organisations such as the SPEW, SWP, Morning Star's CPB and other groups to fight for such unity themselves.

[WeAreReborn]

I know but communists believe in a strong government and anarchists in no government

Also Durruti and Makhno had anarchist toughts but werent true anarchists
Then why is there Anarcho-Communism? Anarchist and Communist ideals do not clash. At least if you are looking at Communism in the non Leninist-Stalinist light.

Anyways the left will not unite because ideologies clash. Anarchists will never get a long with Leninists (and probably rightfully so). Sure some Left ideologies can like Marxists (without Lenin) and Anarcho-Communists can get along. But that is the beauty of the human race. We are so diverse but all of us want to further the rights and freedom of one another it is just the method and outcome that differs, at least when talking about the left fuck the right http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif:p. We should embrace it instead of discard it, at least imo.

[Summerspeaker]

A multiplicity of mutually supportive autonomist rebellions strikes me as the most plausible revolutionary scenario.

[Martin Blank]

In answer to the OP, I would say that uniting the broader movement of self-described socialists and communists (I don't really like using the term "left") into a single organization would be completely wrong. A workers' republic, the transition from capitalism to communism, needs the same diversity of opinion that we see in the working class itself. Obviously, the range of that opinion is different today than it will be after the revolution, but the principle is still valid. We should have what amounts to an anarchist "black bloc" in a congress of workers' councils and assemblies. We should have communists in one organization (or several, working together as a united front) and proletarian socialists in another. Hell, if they still have a significant following, even the petty-bourgeois socialists should have their own organization. As long the organizations and movements are not trying to restore capitalism, they should have all of the same rights afforded to each of them.


I think that, in the long run, there can be no unity because the fundamental attitudes towards socialism and the role of the working class in revolution are fundamentally different.

The true test of unity is not ideological rants on a website but practice. As the tempo of class struggle increases, and groups work with, in or against the working class, we'll see what happens. I could make predictions, but I don't want this to turn into a sectarian grab-ass.

Agreed. Those organizations that advocate real workers' control of production based on workplace committees and working people taking power as a class through workers' councils and assemblies will draw closer together, the more that their activity toward that end coincides.


I think anarchy and state communism are opposites and will never merge :(

There is no such thing as "state communism". There is petty-bourgeois bureaucratic socialism, which called itself "Communist" in places like Russia, China, etc., in the past. Communism itself is a stateless society, because the material basis for the state will have vanished.


I see one major difficulty hidden within the questions you've proposed - which is, you are asking Revolutionary Leftists to actually practice what they preach... Because the way I see it, the points you are trying to bring up are the essential components of a functioning democracy... Because the problem with currently existing 'Parties' is they lack two key elements: democracy and civic culture.

Based on the definitions you use below, I would say there are organizations that do match your description of a functioning democracy. Mine is an example; I'm sure there are others out there. For example:


The first is essential, because it's the only way to develop a 'civic culture' (which is the establishment of a social climate where disagreement is accepted). Without a 'sense of power' over the affairs of the Party, there can never be unity among factions within it. For example (in a currently existing Revolutionary Party...), if a Party Leader takes a course of action which I don't agree with, what can I do besides create another Party, which actually represents my idealogical stances. In other words, why would the party minority subject itself to the majority, if it feels it has no say/control in the affairs of the Party.

In our organization, if you have a disagreement, you not only have the right to have your views circulated among all members, you also have the right to speak with any of them, individually or collectively, about your views. If that's not enough, the National Office can schedule regional meetings where the issue can be openly discussed among members. If it develops into a full factional division, opposition members have the right to create its own avenues of communication with the membership, including internal circulars produced and edited by them (and circulated by the National Office and the opposition) and even a public factional journal. When you have an organization where an organized political minority has the constitutional right to become a majority, you need these kind of things.


This is why I suspect that a successful Revolutionary Party will not be made up of "Professional Revolutionaries", "Party Leaders" or nonsense of that sort - but will instead, be led by the Party Majority themselves... I have no reason to doubt, that a Revolutionary Party can be composed of all revolutionary-leftists, from Anarchists to Stalinists, so long as their is a 'sense' of "I may not agree with this decision, but I will willingly accept it, for I perceive that I have the power/ability to reverse it, by persuasion and communication".

That last portion of this paragraph is the theoretical definition of democratic centralism. Actually, we're even a little looser than that; those who disagree are encouraged to participate in democratically-decided actions, but not required. If some comrades oppose an action, they can choose to not participate, and even criticize it openly, but they cannot openly work against the action.

Oh, and the definition of "professional revolutionary" continues to be seriously misunderstood. A "professional revolutionary" is a revolutionary that does his or her work in a professional (as opposed to amateurish) manner. It has nothing to do with paid staff members, permanent leadership groupings, etc.


Definition of Civic Culture: "based on communication and persuasion, a culture of consensus and diversity, a culture that [permits] change but [moderates] it"

That, I agree, is sorely lacking.


Not all Communists believe that, but yes, that was what I was getting at with efficiency vs. Libertarianism. But even Communists are divided on that issue. Council Communists tend to be very Libertarian instead of pro-State.

One should not equate improving efficiency with a stronger state or political government. The whole point of workers' control is for working people themselves to be able to reconstruct and revolutionize the means and instruments of production, without the need for state managers or bureaucratic officials. That's not "council communist", that's communist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In reality, fascism was the result of the failure of the working-class to seize power in the immediate post-war (revolutionary) situation and the failure of the labour and social-democratic parties to manage capital effectively.

Ah, you like Gilles Dauve too.

[RED DAVE]

Seriously, comrades, it will work itself out in practice.

All this stuff about Maoism, Stalinism, Trotskyism (of various flavors), Anarchism, etc. (sorry if I missed your tendency), will manifest itself in strategy and tactics.

The ideologies of the tendencies will show themselves meaningfully not in debate on the Internet but in their ability to provide leadership for the working class.

And Maoists will be Maoists, Stalinists will be Stalnists, Trotskyists (of various flavors) will be Trotskyists (of various flavors) and Anarchists will be Anarchists. And we will see which tendency the working class chooses as crisis after crisis builds towards revolution.

Screw your ideology and mine. See you in the workplaces, in the unions, in the communities, maybe even in the countryside, etc.

RED DAVE

[bricolage]

Apparently I'm not the only one to defend Libya, there's a group which I didn't create called "Hands of Libya!" which openly says it defends Libya, with 35 members. Check it out for yourself: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=165
Dear god...


Anyway, yes. Back to the topic. I beg to differ, I think unity would be extraordinarily helpful for Socialists, despite the argument which would inevitably result from this. Our voice is louder together.
Our voice would probably be even louder if we joined the Labour Party or something. Populism is pointless.


The only reason it could possibly not succeed is because of people like you who reject others on minor issues.
It is not minor issue. I have nothing in common with your politics.
I'm not interested in 'uniting' with those who would lead me to a fate of, as someone said earlier, 'guns or gulags'.

[L.A.P.]

Well think about it, the divide among us really isn't that bad, we are all divided by ideology but at least we're not like the right who are divided by race, religion, and class. How well do you think they get along with each other?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well think about it, the divide among us really isn't that bad, we are all divided by ideology but at least we're not like the right who are divided by race, religion, and class. How well do you think they get along with each other?

There is also a lot of divisions along the lines of race, culture, gender and sexuality on the left.

Don't for one second have an utopian view about the supposed "unity" of the socialist camp. Because it simply doesn't exist.

[WeAreReborn]

Well think about it, the divide among us really isn't that bad, we are all divided by ideology but at least we're not like the right who are divided by race, religion, and class. How well do you think they get along with each other?
That isn't true. The divide between Anarchists and Leninists are quite large. One rejects the state for the freedom of individuals and one thinks the state is necessary. In the most basic sense they are opposite. Sure they aren't Capitalists but it is still opposing interests. Also I left out Anarchist tendencies because I'm too lazy to compare all of them.

[Soseloshvili]

Dear god...

Wow, it's a miracle that an opinion that contradicts yours could actually gain people's support. Have you ever even read the Green Book, or any of Qaddafi's works?



Our voice would probably be even louder if we joined the Labour Party or something. Populism is pointless.

Actually it wouldn't, our voice would be drowned out by the voices of the Bourgeois left. Point in fact: the NDP (the left wing party in this country) has a caucus in it called the Socialist Caucus, a Communist camp within the party. No one knows who they are, their voice means nothing, and their opinions have never changed anything.

By being in a united Communist party we could, however, have a stronger voice.


It is not minor issue. I have nothing in common with your politics.
I'm not interested in 'uniting' with those who would lead me to a fate of, as someone said earlier, 'guns or gulags'.

How do we share nothing in common. Your politics and mine are both anti-Capitalist, revolutionary and pro-Worker. I see no major differences, no matter your tendency.

[Amphictyonis]

As far as petty online squabbles we should invite the mises.com people over for 'debate'. RevLeft will 'unite' pretty quick. Is a common enemy needed for unity? Maybe if there were fascists running the streets in large numbers we would unite? We need a left wing Hitler and some scape goats to get us going! No, no not really. That joke was in bad taste.

[WeAreReborn]

As far as petty online squabbles we should invite the mises.com people over for 'debate'. RevLeft will 'unite' pretty quick. Is a common enemy needed for unity? Maybe if there were fascists running the streets in large numbers we would unite? We need a left wing Hitler and some scape goats to get us going! No, no not really. That joke was in bad taste.
I found it amusing :) but in all reality you are definitely right, our small fundamental differences pale in comparison to our differences in terms of Fascism.

[Amphictyonis]

I found it amusing :) but in all reality you are definitely right, our small fundamental differences pale in comparison to our differences in terms of Fascism.

Well the thank my post. The only reason I post here is for reputation! (jk)

A serious question to all in the thread- would you support the use of techniques derived from men such as Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter? Essentially, subversive communist propaganda?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Trotter


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon