I don't think I actually ever introduced myself

[Unclebananahead]

In accordance with the principle of 'better late than never,' I figured that I'd create an 'introductory' thread here for myself, even though I might already be known to some degree.

About myself: Marxist *and Leninist* but not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist. I'm still trying figure certain things out, but I think it's safe to say I'm not an anti-revisionist/Stalin upholder, and moreover I believe myself to have Trotskyist leanings, but I haven't committed myself completely to either the ideology of Trotskyism or to any Trotskyist party.

I'd say that I'm interested in becoming affiliated to a party more interested in raising class consciousness and building socialism over indulging sectarian posturing and trashing the name of other Marxist groups or tendencies. I for one, think it would be nice as well as productive if we could 'all get along' ("can't we all just get along?") and focus on our common goals and objectives, instead of just constantly bickering amongst ourselves, and further contributing to the splintering of the left. Call me naïeve if you want, but I think this is a worthy objective. Imagine what we could accomplish if we could only work together. I mean, wouldn't it be swell if instead of just talking about changing things in society, we actually collaborated together to actually realize this change, and who knows, maybe even within our lifetimes? So yeah, sectarianism is a bit of a thorn in my side.

I still have many questions and uncertainties. I like to think of myself as maintaining a certain Socratic attitude about it, in not presuming anything whatsoever, and asking as many questions as it takes to gain proper understanding. Socrates was known for the wisdom of: 'the greatest knowledge is in the recognition that you are lacking knowledge.' So I admit, and I think wisely, that there are a number of things I still need to learn.

[ellipsis]

Thanks for taking the time for a proper intro!

And we are all here to learn.

[Q]

What theredson said ;)


I'd say that I'm interested in becoming affiliated to a party more interested in raising class consciousness and building socialism over indulging sectarian posturing and trashing the name of other Marxist groups or tendencies. I for one, think it would be nice as well as productive if we could 'all get along' ("can't we all just get along?") and focus on our common goals and objectives, instead of just constantly bickering amongst ourselves, and further contributing to the splintering of the left.

I don't see such objectives necessarily contradict. Here is my view on the subject of "bickering" from another perspective (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1950280&postcount=3):


There is a fundamental different method for establishing the "correct" political line that is really at debate here. One method, for example used by the Bolsheviks back in the day, focuses on debate. After all, in concrete debates dealing with tactical, strategical, programmatical or theoretical issues, your ideas get tested in the class struggle, "on the streets" so to speak. The experiences of these get feeded back in the running debate. Only this dialectical method, in which viewpoints and experiences can clash, can establish a scientifically "correct" political line.

In these circumstances any dissenting view is objectively progressive, as it helps to strengthen the party. Such a party can unite vast layers of the class around a common programme and is consequently a genuine class party.

Rees' method for establishing the "correct" line contrasts like day and night. He bases himself on a certain set of fixed ideas, a set of "pure" formulas. Naturally the leadership around Rees is the most familiar with these fixed formulas and so they act as an "educative dictatorship" as Lewis phrases it, towards the rest of the membership. The organisation as a whole, in its turn, acts as a "bastion of clarity" towards the rest of the class.

In these circumstances any dissenting view is objectively reactionary, as it is undermining the activity and views of the party. Such an organisation will promote a sense of splits over what appear to be semantical issues at best to the outside observer, maybe even a split over a clash of personalities (as was the case with the SWP-Counterfire split). Such an organisation can never be a leading force of the class and will always remain a sect (which doesn't necessarily says anything about size).

That said, I agree with you that merely attacking other groups, dismissing them as "the sects", etc., is indeed harmful and feeding a sectarian mentality.

What do you think about this view?

[Unclebananahead]

@ Q
I tend to think I'm in agreement with you in wanting freedom of debate amongst ourselves so as to ask important questions and thereby 'fuel the engine' of dialectic learning to arrive at a correct understanding. That's a reasonable position to take, and I'm not certain I could feasibly imagine that someone could raise a legitimate objection to this.

I guess what I'm wondering is why Marxist groups don't form 'coalitions' more frequently. Sure there may be disagreements among us, but certainly more similarity than with us and the Democratic party and the Republican party.