Organisations of the world, unite!

[Geiseric]

Over time i've seen a multitude of people refusing to work with anybody over a few differences in method and vision of socialism, and some of these things were issues like ''we can't unify with north korea!'' or something along those lines which honestly isn't a demanding issue. I'm asking about why leftist groups, in your opinion, don't unify under a single flag and become an effective revolutionary force, fighting for what we all onsider important.

[Rêve Rouge]

United, the working class would prove to be a revolutionary force to be reckoned with. But it's the post-revolution situation that may lead to disaster. To utilize the state or not? That is the question that leaves us divided. With the state, we can prevent the capitalist from rising up again. Then again, if the state apparatus becomes infested with capitalists, society will go back into a relapse. Really it's battle between the red flag vs. the black flag, marxists vs. anarchists, centralist vs. decentralists, etc...

I think the red flag looks prettier, but that's out of the question.

[Savage]

I'm against sectarianism but unfortunately complete unity is unlikely. I certainly believe than all Anarchists and Left Communists should be united though.

[Geiseric]

I think it's funny that some communists are labeled left communists, I mean communism in general is pretty left. However, anarchists and trots have the same goals ultimately, it's the stalinists and ultralefts that always discredit the cause it seems.

[Savage]

I don't know why you say that ultra-leftists discredit leftism, 'ultra-leftist' is usually used as a pejorative term to dismiss anyone further left than Lenin, it's pretty broad, and often includes anarchism.

[dernier combat]

I think it's funny that some communists are labeled left communists, I mean communism in general is pretty left. However, anarchists and trots have the same goals ultimately, it's the stalinists and ultralefts that always discredit the cause it seems.
I'm fairly sure Left Communism's name was chosen within a certain context - perhaps to distance the movement from those perceived as not being genuine communists. Whatever the reason, I'm no expert on the matter. Also, I'm fairly sure that "Stalinists" and "ultra-leftists" don't belong in the same bag as each other.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

I think it's funny that some communists are labeled left communists, I mean communism in general is pretty left. However, anarchists and trots have the same goals ultimately, it's the stalinists and ultralefts that always discredit the cause it seems.
Who are you referring to as "ultralefts" other than Anarchists and Trots? Left Communists? If so, why do you categorize them with "Stalinists" and why do these tendencies "discredit the cause"?

Also, how can Trots and Anarchists get along by having the same goals if Trotsky himself opposed the Anarchists actively?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Who are you referring to as "ultralefts" other than Anarchists and Trots? Left Communists? If so, why do you categorize them with "Stalinists" and why do these tendencies "discredit the cause"?

Also, how can Trots and Anarchists get along by having the same goals if Trotsky himself opposed the Anarchists actively?
What's that old joke, anarcho-trots shot themselves at Kronstandt.

[Geiseric]

ok sorry about that, I wasn't 100 percent sure about ultra leftism, I just read up on it and although I disagree, it isn't that bad, and doesn't belong with stalinism. Back then things were different, but today it makes more sense for all leftist groups to band togather, for a time at least, except the stalin/maoists.

sorry, I thought ultraleftism was the throwing bricks and molotov through police station windows looking for a political move, but I was incorrect. Apologies.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I certainly believe than all Anarchists and Left Communists should be united though.
Say that to an anarcho-syndicalist :lol: I think you meant the A.F. and Left-Comm's can unite.
I like some Left-Communist ideas and positions, but their absolute rejection of unionism scares me :thumbdown:

[Savage]

sorry, I thought ultraleftism was the throwing bricks and molotov through police station windows looking for a political move, but I was incorrect. Apologies.
Yeah I think it's important not to fall victim to that misconception, a violent leftist is not further left than a non-violent leftist.

[Savage]

Say that to an anarcho-syndicalist :lol: I think you meant the A.F. and Left-Comm's can unite.
I like some Left-Communist ideas and positions, but their absolute rejection of unionism scares me :thumbdown:
Even within left-Communism there is disagreement just as there is amongst the various Anarchist tendencies, I just think our similarities outweigh our differences and unity is vital, even if some compromises from one or both sides must be made.

[Martin Blank]

Not gonna happen. Period. There will always be divisions and competing organizations, mostly because the non-proletarian elements that usually control them want their exclusive "management team" and their "leadership" imposed on the working class, and have no interest in "sharing the wealth", so to speak. That's why you have the petty confessional sectarianism, with each organization having a particular article of faith (or a few, or a lot) that defines their "unique" doctrine, which they consider to be the key to building a unified communist (or "revolutionary socialist") political movement. Unity on the basis of a communist program requires unity on the basis of class and the class struggle, not petty doctrines. That means the development of communist theoreticians and organizers from within the working class. As long as most vocal and effective political movements that proclaim the need for workers' power are led by non-workers, there will remain an insurmountable obstacle to the kind of unity we need.

[Geiseric]

it seems like whenever a problem does happen, a body of leftists can't band togather to deal with something obvious, like the tax cut legislation. If the pro labor parties started demonstrations nationwide, the message would get across. However there are too many groups it seems to me. There need to be come large mergers, or a front has to be made, or something.

[pranabjyoti]

Why all "left organisations" can not be united because simply all of them doesn't represent the same class. Some represent the proletariat and some represent the petty-bourgeoisie class. This is nothing but expression of class contradiction. I have discussed nature of petty-bourgeoisie in many of my threads and don't want to repeat that again.
You don't have to go far, just look on some threads in revleft and see how anarchist, anarcho-syndicalists attacked anti-imperialist leaders based on news from imperialist backed media. Just mention somebody, they will start the foul crying of "personality cult", very rarely you will observe them to mention the successes of the struggles of working class in 20th century. While you can rarely differentiate between their criticism and "criticism" from imperialist viewpoint and they often used the same kind of words that imperialists used against leaders of proletariat and working class.

[Zanthorus]

The reason is fairly simple. On the one hand we have groups who cheer for any anti-working class regime which is hostile to US or European foreign interests, are perfectly comfortable with the derailment of workers' struggles and their containment as long as it's being done by trade unions, who are perfectly happy to sacrifice the political independence of the working-class and line up behind the state apparatus and bourgeois parties in order to defend parliamentary democracy against 'fascists' and 'reactionaries', who channel all their energy into building up organisations like the British Labour Party (Or else trying to build Labour mark II) and denounce the naysayers as 'sectarian', 'ultra-leftist' and so on and who see various regimes where the political rule of the working-class was non-existent as 'socialism' or some form of 'workers' state'. On the other hand there are the groups who don't buy into any of these.

The difficult for many comes from the fact that here are a hell of a lot of groups which are almost practically the same, and who split years ago because of some petty personality differences. They then conclude that the thing holding us back is just empty sectarianism. Sectarianism is an issue, but it is tied up with the more broader issue that much of the 'left' today has anti-working-class politics.


I certainly believe than all Anarchists and Left Communists should be united though.

This is pretty unlikely, some Anarchists hold exacly the kind of positions I outlined above.


I think it's funny that some communists are labeled left communists, I mean communism in general is pretty left.

The label 'Left-Communism' has a historical meaning going back to the groups which were on the left in the spectrum of positions within the Communist International. It works to distuinguish the current from groups which were never a part of the Comintern to begin with, or which split much later and on (What we would say was) a much less thoroughgoing basis.


Say that to an anarcho-syndicalist

The ICC actually works with the FAU in Germany if I remember correctly. Some of what goes under the banner of Anarcho-Syndicalism is not necessarily antithetical to Left-Communist politics, but we would say these organisations are not really unions in terms of the role they play.

[Sam_b]

I'm asking about why leftist groups, in your opinion, don't unify under a single flag and become an effective revolutionary force, fighting for what we all onsider important.

This is pretty woolly thinking, to be honest. The majority of differences on the left are wieghted as much on strategic and tactical analysis of the organisation of the class rather than on issues such as North Korea or whatever. Most of the time, these differences on issues stems itself from ideas of strategy and tactics and how they relate broader anyway. The fact of the matter is that organisations that completely liquidate themselves into these 'united' structures are not all happy-clappy and immediately become an "effective revolutionary force" at all: this actually negates the importance of strategy.

Though thinking about it this question is one of dualism. The first is the usual one in relation towhat you ask, which is "why don't they all unite to one organisation" "why don't we become one big party?". I think this has been covered above. The secondone is "why don't we unite?". The second is more reasonable and achievable, and we've seen positive steps recently in the UK with a plethora of organisations and trade unionists uniting against the austerity measures. There's nothing wrong with united front work to broaden the struggle and fight for gains in the class.

[thesadmafioso]

The answer to this question could not be any more obvious, as it is perfectly embodied in this site itself. Leftists are too busy bickering over the most menial and irrelevant of matters to actually focus on practical political action. The movement is too crippled by the most insignificant of divisions, and is devoid of any real ability to form itself into one coherent organization. Instead of working to create a solid base and presenting an image to the public, the left is too busy dwelling over the questions like if Stalin was the greatest leader of all time or the devil. It lacks any sense of political realism, and thus we find ourselves faced with the current situation.

[genstrike]

No offense, but this is the same stupid question and same stupid answers that pop up on sites like revleft from time to time.

First, I haven't noticed much of the "people refusing to work with anybody" as mentioned in the first post. For example, my city has about four active radical left groups, none of which has a particularly large membership, and each are on different sides of the "rivers of blood" (organizations which are vaguely Anarchist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, and Maoist), as well as a broad smattering of independent lefties. Now, in terms of practical unity, I've worked in coalitions on issues with comrades from all four of these groups, even to the point of jointly organizing Christmas keggers and municipal anti-cuts coalitions with those bastards who shot us at Kronstadt and inviting the Stalinists to come and ice-axe us all. I can't speak for what's going down in larger cities, but in the reality of day to day organizing, this historical shit never comes up (probably in part because no group is really powerful enough to fuck up another group anymore).

Second, the problem with these "left unity" proposals is that all they are are proposals to go from a bunch of little sects with little relevance to one big sect with little relevance. We can't pretend that glomming a bunch of little sects together will magically turn things around. Look, there's always going to be different positions on strategy, tactics, and issues on the left. The best way to sort those out, in my opinion, isn't to try to unite everyone into a fractitious group rife with crippling internal debate (as a "united" sect would be), but just let everyone do their own thing and try to work together in coalitions on issues. If one groups has a magical strategy which will create revolution, it would implement it and leave all the other groups in the dust. When leftists complain about other left groups, I figure "well, if they suck so much, just out-organize them and they will become irrelevant". It's survival of the fittest for sects.

Third, there are people who just plain see other leftists as counterrevolutionary or petty-bourgeois (see above). If someone says that to me (such as calling me a fake anarchist, Stalinist, or "anti-working class" because of my Palestinian solidarity work), my response is generally along the lines of "fine, whatever, fuck you too, comrade." It's got to be a sad existence looking for the fault in other leftists for which you can slag them as reactionary, petty-bourgeois, sexist, racist, imperialist scum.

Finally, RevLeft gives a very distorted view of the situation of the left. Instead of an actual organizing project where we're working together, it's pretty much a internet fairground for sectarian discussions and self-promotion of groups. I'm sure the RevLeft posters who are active in IRL activism regularly work with comrades that they slag on RevLeft.

In short, there is already some degree of unity in practice, cramming a bunch of tiny, ineffectual groups together won't make things better and might make things worse because of the idiotic internal debates and splits which will inevitably follow, and RevLeft is very different from IRL organizing.

[Geiseric]

Ok, fair enough i get what you guys mean. So from what i understand is that a coalition of groups banding togather isn't a very good idea, however groups working togather on specific issues that they all have a similar feeling for is a productive force, right?

[Q]

Not gonna happen. Period. There will always be divisions and competing organizations, mostly because the non-proletarian elements that usually control them want their exclusive "management team" and their "leadership" imposed on the working class, and have no interest in "sharing the wealth", so to speak. That's why you have the petty confessional sectarianism, with each organization having a particular article of faith (or a few, or a lot) that defines their "unique" doctrine, which they consider to be the key to building a unified communist (or "revolutionary socialist") political movement. Unity on the basis of a communist program requires unity on the basis of class and the class struggle, not petty doctrines. That means the development of communist theoreticians and organizers from within the working class. As long as most vocal and effective political movements that proclaim the need for workers' power are led by non-workers, there will remain an insurmountable obstacle to the kind of unity we need.
While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, it strikes me as too simplistic to generalise all leaderships of the sects as non-workers. Most obviously, at least from my experience, the leaderships of most groups are definitely workers.

What we have been burdened with is the aftermath of the failure of the socialist project of the 20th century. History, theoretical positions ("articles of faith") and a rather top-down organisational method (what I called before "educative elites" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1950280&postcount=3)) is what holds back most groups from uniting in my view.

In any case, I agree with you that the remedy to this is unity on the basis of a programme. This, in combination with an open culture of debate (see again my post on "educative elites"), is the only basis on which we can make the far left relevant again to the working class, which on itself will cause an increasing amount of "gravity" to take in more groups into such a unity project.

What we need, in short, is a genuine communist party that exists as class party, not as a "united sect" as genstrike pointed out.

[Devrim]

The ICC actually works with the FAU in Germany if I remember correctly.

Just to clarify on this, we organised a series of meetings there with a worker from the TEKEL struggle in Turkey together. As far as I am aware there isn't any ongoing collaboration, but of course we are not against organising things with anarhco-syndicalists.

Devrim