Do we divide ourselves too much?

[esanders]

As I was talking to someone and arguing about things like women's lib and affirmative action, they hit me with something that actually set my thinking gears in motion. They said (to paraphrase):

"[...] you split yourselves up into liberation for this, liberation for that... liberate x type of people from type y. But wouldn't it be better to just be cohesive -- stick together on what you believe? Isn't what you and I believe in simply equality for all? I think most people agree with that, and I do too... [and] your message can be lost on them when you make it about a specific group. If you think about it, women's liberation, anti-racism and things like affirmative action (consider groups like NAACP) and homosexual liberation all have the same exact point: ALL discrimination, hatred and unfair policy is wrong. Is your ultimate goal not, as you see it, the liberation of humanity from capitalism and materialism -- which means equality must exist without consideration for sex, race, sexual orientation or what have you? It just seems like, I think... all of these go hand in hand. Why aren't they seen as, or literally formed into, a broader movement for total equality? You see, I think we lose big time and let ourselves be cheated out of the merits of this..."

This is the best quotation of it I can make. The person who said this is a friend of mine who's a public figure and politician on the local level, and it was said during a telephone conversation. She asked to remain anonymous due to her job, so I must respect that. The original point was made much better, but I got her to sort of reiterate it for me to copy down. But this is a quite good approximation of it.

What she was saying isn't that things like the women's liberation movement are wrong and that the goals are "bad". But that the point of our goals may very well be lost on many folks because they're all chopped up into separate movements. I kind of see a good point here. What has also happened is that some movements have either been taken over (or perceived in this way) by special interest groups and individuals. She mentioned that she thinks it's awful that the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are viewed by the public as representing the true racial equality and anti-discrimination movement and that those two seem more racist themselves than what they let on. I've never even thought about that. For the record, she is a very moderate socialist and leans on the American Democratic party (registered Independent).

But as I'm thinking about this, I want to hear you either attack or support this. I'd like to find out what the consensus is on the matter.

Thanks and best regards,

[Manic Impressive]

I agree we are far too divided and we can only overcome our oppression through class unity. Racism, sexism/patriarchy and LGBT discrimination are bi-products of an exploitative system. As MLK said our destinies and our freedom are inextricably linked. None of us are free while one of us remains oppressed, the problem with as i like to call it "playing identity politics" where you identify yourself with social constructs like race, gender and sexuality you end up only focusing on your own oppression and almost competing against others to be considered the most oppressed this also can have a negative effect on an isolated group which can develop a victim mentality. This ends up being self defeating and alienating to others who are not of the same political identity as you. Where as if we put aside our differences and stopped using them as a weapon against each other then class unity could be achieved, we could recognize our similarities and our common oppression and then united take on each others problems. It's the only way to win.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I agree with you and it's something I think about a lot. The day we realized that it's between those that have and those that don't is the day we earn our freedom. Until then, we'll keep being victims of divide and conquer. Our biggest enemy is ourselves. The few wealthy people cannot control us unless we let them.


Sorry for the short post, but I'm cooking fricase de pollo for some visitors :)

Still, I find this thread highly interesting! :thumbup1:

[Impulse97]

I agree. We as the left need to unite. Pust aside our diferneces for a bit, build strength and takeover part or all of the US. If we can to that, we weaken the largest Capitalist nation and if we get a large enough chunk of it in the war we can create a power rival that of the US and dislodge it from it's perch.

I do not think if a revolt occurred in the US we'd be able to conquer the whole nation. Too many Christian militia's and people to join them.:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yes but not between schools of thought, rather, between parties. Where I live there is only one party which has a legitimate claim to the "anti-revisionist label", and I am a member, this is not the case in many other countries though. Here there are more Trot groups, I honestly don't know how many Trot groups we have but there's more than a few and I believe they divide themselves based over some pretty petty differences, I'm not complaining because it's bad for the Trots and I don't mind that but my point is that in terms of parties, yes, the left divides itself far too much. Most differences are small enough to be ironed out, in a country which has say, 10 Marxist-Leninist groups, I bet with a bit of discussion that number could easily be chopped in half or more. Some differences however, simply can not be resolved, Trots and Marxist-Leninists are divided, and that is the way it should be, our thinking is far too different and it is better for everyone that we rarely mix.

So, yes....and no.

[Bombay]

I used to be an anarchist more or less and I never voted. But if you look back at Germany before Hitler, maybe the socialists should have supported the social democrats more than they did. Nowadays I would probably even vote for Chavez if I lived in Venezuela. It's the best chance they have right now. If there wasn't Chavez there would be a neoliberal/fascist government. Why wait for the perfect moment? Let's take the chances we got to get rid of capitalism.

I will fight for a libertarian revolution till I die but when it's time to join forces I'm not going to hesitate anymore:cool:

[Fulanito de Tal]

rqbr5a0WgCQ

[Fulanito de Tal]

This is in my living room

It says,"We are one."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/weareone.jpg

[9]

I think, really, the relevant question is whether you view revolution and socialism as something that's made by the working class, or whether you view it as something that's made by 'a cohesive left'.
If you believe the latter, then certainly, "left unity" is a pressing issue. I would disagree and say that revolution and socialism can only be made by the working class, and so the crucial issue isn't the state of 'the left', but the state of the working class. Although I do think sometimes there are 'left' groups that are divided over silly things that aren't 'real' political issues and are more the result of personality clashes etc. from years ago.

But ultimately, I think the basic reason why communist politics are as marginal as they are in much of 'the West', and left groups are as tiny as they are, is because the working class is relatively weak (although clearly its gaining strength on an international level, and I think has been in recent years, albeit gradually so), and this is particularly true in the US. And as long as the working class is weak, 'the left' can do whatever you can imagine, and it won't bring the world a single step closer to revolution, because it isn't 'the left' that makes revolution, its the working class. However, I would take that even further and say that a lot of times a lot of the 'left' groups - rather than aiding the struggles of workers - end up doing the opposite by siding with 'left' politicians and 'left' union bosses who help to carry out and defend attacks on workers.


For the record, she is a very moderate socialist and leans on the American Democratic party (registered Independent).To be honest, I don't think someone involved in electoral politics who "leans on the Democratic Party" no less, can accurately be described as a "socialist" at all.

[Manic Impressive]

The OP doesn't say anything about the division of the left. Minority groups do not represent the left and they do not represent class. We support these groups but many in these groups do not support us. Someone like Jesse Jackson does not explicitly talk about capitalism AFAIK. The leadership of many mainstream minority groups are actuallly wealthy individuals whose class interests do not lie in overturning an exploitative system. Instead these groups distract people away from the thing that can unite enough people to actually change things for the better.

[9]

The OP doesn't say anything about the division of the left.
It's certainly my impression that that's what's being referred to, both from the title of the thread, and from statements such as this:


Originally Posted by OP
But that the point of our goals may very well be lost on many folks because they're all chopped up into separate movements.I assumed here, when he/she said "our", he/she was referring broadly to 'leftists'. Maybe I have misunderstood.


We support these groups but many in these groups do not support us.Well, here again there's this talk of "we" and "us"; who are you referring to here?



Someone like Jesse Jackson does not explicitly talk about capitalism AFAIK.
The leadership of many mainstream minority groups are actuallly wealthy individuals whose class interests do not lie in overturning an exploitative system. Instead these groups distract people away from the thing that can unite enough people to actually change things for the better.You're certainly right that groups based around 'identity' rather than class tend to represent the interests of the ruling class elements of whatever 'identity' group is in question. I don't think that that means that special oppression should just be ignored, but that it needs to be understood in the context of capitalism and opposed through class struggle rather than identity politics.
I know that the OP's question was specifically regarding questions of special oppression and left responses to them, but it struck me that the underlying premise had more to do with the reason "we" are so marginal and the idea that there is something desirable about leftist unity; maybe I have misunderstood, though, in which case I apologize.

[Manic Impressive]

Well when I said we & us meaning the broad left communists and anarchists.


But that the point of our goals may very well be lost on many folks because they're all chopped up into separate movements. I kind of see a good point here. What has also happened is that some movements have either been taken over (or perceived in this way) by special interest groups and individuals. She mentioned that she thinks it's awful that the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are viewed by the public as representing the true racial equality and anti-discrimination movement
But reading it again I do see your point and the division in the broad left communists and anarchists to be part of it as well.

[kragura]

I think, really, the relevant question is whether you view revolution and socialism as something that's made by the working class, or whether you view it as something that's made by 'a cohesive left'.
If you believe the latter, then certainly, "left unity" is a pressing issue. I would disagree and say that revolution and socialism can only be made by the working class, and so the crucial issue isn't the state of 'the left', but the state of the working class. Although I do think sometimes there are 'left' groups that are divided over silly things that aren't 'real' political issues and are more the result of personality clashes etc. from years ago.

But ultimately, I think the basic reason why communist politics are as marginal as they are in much of 'the West', and left groups are as tiny as they are, is because the working class is relatively weak (although clearly its gaining strength on an international level, and I think has been in recent years, albeit gradually so), and this is particularly true in the US. And as long as the working class is weak, 'the left' can do whatever you can imagine, and it won't bring the world a single step closer to revolution, because it isn't 'the left' that makes revolution, its the working class. However, I would take that even further and say that a lot of times a lot of the 'left' groups - rather than aiding the struggles of workers - end up doing the opposite by siding with 'left' politicians and 'left' union bosses who help to carry out and defend attacks on workers.

To be honest, I don't think someone involved in electoral politics who "leans on the Democratic Party" no less, can accurately be described as a "socialist" at all.

It's been said that leftists, instead of being the birth givers of revolution, are merely midwife's easing it along when it inevetivly comes, and although I agree with this statement wholeheartedly I still think leftist groups should be working together towards leftist unity. because for lack of a better analogy we cant be very good midwives if were arguing over what brand of talcum powder to use.

[9]

It's been said that leftists, instead of being the birth givers of revolution, are merely midwife's easing it along when it inevetivly comes, and although I agree with this statement wholeheartedly I still think leftist groups should be working together towards leftist unity. because for lack of a better analogy we cant be very good midwives if were arguing over what brand of talcum powder to use.

but this assumes that if 'we' all decided to gloss over all 'our' disagreements and "unite", that it would mark a step in the direction of an actual working class revolution, and my point is that I don't think it would in any way.

[kragura]

I don't think that glossing over our arguments will help either, but splitting up into separate groups and refusing to discuss whether or not our tendency's are correct or not is arguably just as bad.

[Thirsty Crow]

But if you look back at Germany before Hitler, maybe the socialists should have supported the social democrats more than they did.
You mean, the remaining revolutionaries should have supported the people responsible for the suffocation of revolution in Germany and the preservation of capitalism (and the consequences of the Great Depression, which was the originaal social situation in which Hitler's rise must be situated)?
That's some weird logic.

[Lyev]

An important distinction we need to make is between divisive sectarian, and on the other hand, simply criticising the actions of other left groups. The line between these is blurred all too often and when valid criticism, which is tantamount to healthy, open and democratic discussion, the party being criticised veils their shortcomings, or sidelines the issue at hand, by saying their criticizer is 'sectarian'.

Furthermore, especially with a lot smaller organisations, the way they are administrated is quite rigid, bureaucratic and top-down. Therefore if a big enough disagreement occurs within that group, the dissenting section cannot form a caucus or opposition whilst staying within that same group - they must split and form their own little grouplet. This happens all the time. (I think this is why you'll see at least some communists these days calling for programmatic unity as a basis for party-building, as opposed to strictly theoretical unity.)

Lastly, most divisions on the left can be accounted for by those pesky Trot splitters.

[Dimentio]

As I was talking to someone and arguing about things like women's lib and affirmative action, they hit me with something that actually set my thinking gears in motion. They said (to paraphrase):

"[...] you split yourselves up into liberation for this, liberation for that... liberate x type of people from type y. But wouldn't it be better to just be cohesive -- stick together on what you believe? Isn't what you and I believe in simply equality for all? I think most people agree with that, and I do too... [and] your message can be lost on them when you make it about a specific group. If you think about it, women's liberation, anti-racism and things like affirmative action (consider groups like NAACP) and homosexual liberation all have the same exact point: ALL discrimination, hatred and unfair policy is wrong. Is your ultimate goal not, as you see it, the liberation of humanity from capitalism and materialism -- which means equality must exist without consideration for sex, race, sexual orientation or what have you? It just seems like, I think... all of these go hand in hand. Why aren't they seen as, or literally formed into, a broader movement for total equality? You see, I think we lose big time and let ourselves be cheated out of the merits of this..."

This is the best quotation of it I can make. The person who said this is a friend of mine who's a public figure and politician on the local level, and it was said during a telephone conversation. She asked to remain anonymous due to her job, so I must respect that. The original point was made much better, but I got her to sort of reiterate it for me to copy down. But this is a quite good approximation of it.

What she was saying isn't that things like the women's liberation movement are wrong and that the goals are "bad". But that the point of our goals may very well be lost on many folks because they're all chopped up into separate movements. I kind of see a good point here. What has also happened is that some movements have either been taken over (or perceived in this way) by special interest groups and individuals. She mentioned that she thinks it's awful that the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are viewed by the public as representing the true racial equality and anti-discrimination movement and that those two seem more racist themselves than what they let on. I've never even thought about that. For the record, she is a very moderate socialist and leans on the American Democratic party (registered Independent).

But as I'm thinking about this, I want to hear you either attack or support this. I'd like to find out what the consensus is on the matter.

Thanks and best regards,

There is nothing wrong in splits. The problem is why there is no civil debate between splitters and why they often are seeing one another as heretics. Splits could actually give valuable experiences on what is working and what isn't.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The idea is not bad but it is overly idealistic and naive none the less. The major problem is that some marginalized groups will fall through the cracks as the groups that are more accepted on a societal level will gain recognition and such. This has already shown as many mainstream gay and lesbian groups fucked over the trans community in order to gain societal acceptance.

"One of our main goals now is to destroy the Human Rights Campaign, because I'm tired of sitting on the back of the bumper. It's not even the back of the bus anymore — it's the back of the bumper. The ***** on wheels is back."
~Sylvia Rivera

[mattb62]

Interest groups, and disagreements between them, divide the movement, The focus must be on capitalism and wealth inequality. All the rest should be there, but not take away from the main focus. The inability of the left to communicate with the vast lower-middle class (I was born into that class) is probably in large part due to talking so far past them on cultural issues. It's the economic system, stupid, to paraphrase a successful capitalist politiican.

When people have a taste of economic freedom, their minds will open to all the other possibilities, they will become more generous and less prejudiced. But throw in you can't eat meat, you can't hunt, can't believe in God, abortion, gay rights into the mix and you lose many of the regular people right away.

[RATM-Eubie]

Yes of course we are. We need to unite under one party.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes of course we are. We need to unite under one party.
And how would that advance the struggle of the working class?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

And how would that advance the struggle of the working class?

Because Capitalism can only be overthrown by the working class united.

[Thirsty Crow]

Because Capitalism can only be overthrown by the working class united.

And how does the "unity" of various political groups equate with a united, militant working class?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

And how does the "unity" of various political groups equate with a united, militant working class?

Because if we're all trying to sabotage and one-up the other, we look silly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God I hate this koombaya-we-all-need-to-unite crap. Fact of the matter is that some leftist sects will never agree on anything. This was true during the First International, and it's going to remain true until capitalism collapses from it's own contradictions into a smoldering pile of irrelevance. Part of the reason that I think my views are correct is because some of the ideas associated w/ other sectors of what is colloquially known as the "left" strike me as absolutely atrocious!

Luckily I don't rely on the unity & fortitude of current organizations of "professional revolutionaries", or else I'd probably write off any chance for revolutionary change as a doomed possibility.

[revolution inaction]

God I hate this koombaya-we-all-need-to-unite crap. Fact of the matter is that some leftist sects will never agree on anything. This was true during the First International, and it's going to remain true until capitalism collapses from it's own contradictions into a smoldering pile of irrelevance. Part of the reason that I think my views are correct is because some of the ideas associated w/ other sectors of what is colloquially known as the "left" strike me as absolutely atrocious!

Luckily I don't rely on the unity & fortitude of current organizations of "professional revolutionaries", or else I'd probably write off any chance for revolutionary change as a doomed possibility.

I don't see how capitalism will ever "capitalism collapse from it's own contradictions" unless you mean the contradiction between the interests of the workers and the bosses, but apart form that agree with you.
I think that the people who advocate left unity fundamentally fail to understand the differences between different ideologies on "the left", the nature of revolution and the function of a revolutionary organisation.

[Zanthorus]

One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for "unity." Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger, for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.- Engels to Bebel, 20th June 1873

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see how capitalism will ever "capitalism collapse from it's own contradictions" unless you mean the contradiction between the interests of the workers and the bosses, but apart form that agree with you.

What I mean by "collapsing from contradictions" is simply that capital will only be defeated once commodified beings recognize what they are and refuse to exist as commodites anymore, "thus exploding the logic of capitalism." (Gilles Dauve) So yeah, in essence the conflicting interests of labor vs. capital.

[Property Is Robbery]

Fuck yes we do. We have like 6 or 7 socialist parties.