A United Front: Fighting Sectarianism

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Many leftists have mentioned the creation of a party or organization that unites ALL LEFTISTS in the basic struggles of the capitalist world. Generally, the short and middle-term goals of different ideologies are the same, or very similar.

For the purpose of uniting the left and ACTUALLY GETTING SOMETHING DONE, do you think that it would be possible to create an organization of all leftists to work together towards certain short term aims.

We may not agree in all respects, but we can certainly work together instead of being divided by Sectarianism.

Marx said, "Workers of the world, unite!" He didn't say, "Divide yourselves and never get anything done because of incessant arguments on the most detailed aspects of theory."

Discuss

[Q]

Theoretically yes. In practice most "united fronts" are in fact devices to recruit new members for the main party that is behind said front. Other "united fronts" are actually popular fronts that try to "unite" all that is to the right of said party. One such example was Respect in the UK.

Then there are actual united fronts that unite much of the far left and other working class forces into a common bloc. One such example was Socialist Alliance in the UK, but it proved to be a failure as the constituent groups feared domination of one over the other and it thus broke apart.

It is not impossible, just not the easiest thing in the world.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Instead of building coalitions of leftists, we should build autonomous capacities in our communities.
Enough fucking circle-jerks.

[KurtFF8]

Instead of building coalitions of leftists, we should build autonomous capacities in our communities.

What exactly do you mean? Instead of uniting we should be more separated and less connect? Or did you mean something else?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx said, "Workers of the world, unite!"

That would be more relevant if the "revolutionary leftist" organizations were full of, and run by, workers.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

That would be more relevant if the "revolutionary leftist" organizations were full of, and run by, workers.

The common logical fallacy of attempting to discredit an argument by picking on non-substantive examples meant to express intention while ignoring the intention itself.

[Steve_j]

What exactly do you mean? Instead of uniting we should be more separated and less connect? Or did you mean something else?

I believe virgin molotov was suggesting we unite in local communities to engage in grass roots struggle and support each other through a federation of assistance as opposed to supporting popular fronts and other party based politics. This is not to mean less conected, simply horizontally connected with no centre or head.

[electro_fan]

ok but what does everyone mean when they say sectarianism ? theoretically we can say that it is a bad thing, but what about groups like saw the AWL who for example, support Israel and zionism, (their leader called for Israel to attack Iran at one point IIRC) and claim to be left wing, personally if that's a "united front" I want nothing to do with it ... you can work alongside people sure, but sometimes the differences are too great to want to unify all groups into one, and sometimes it would be immoral to do so

i wouldn't want anything to fucking do with some of the groups on the left because i find their views fucking abhorrent, and i don't think that's being "sectarian" of me

[Steve_j]

the AWL who for example, support Israel and zionism, (their leader called for Israel to attack Iran at one point IIRC)

WTF? This for real?

[Q]

ok but what does everyone mean when they say sectarianism ? theoretically we can say that it is a bad thing, but what about groups like saw the AWL who for example, support Israel and zionism, (their leader called for Israel to attack Iran at one point IIRC) and claim to be left wing, personally if that's a "united front" I want nothing to do with it ... you can work alongside people sure, but sometimes the differences are too great to want to unify all groups into one, and sometimes it would be immoral to do so

i wouldn't want anything to fucking do with some of the groups on the left because i find their views fucking abhorrent, and i don't think that's being "sectarian" of me

Yet it is sectarian of you, by definition actually. Unity is not going to be established on ideas, but on programme. In other words, there is unity in action while there needs to be a debating culture of open disagreement. So yes, I'm fine with being in one organisation as the AWL, as long as I have the freedom to publically express my opinion on their bullshit zionism and organise around that opinion with other members. I'm confident of getting a vast majority for an anti-zionist stance.

[electro_fan]

ah, ok, yeah that's fair enough, it'd be fine to work alongside them (there's quite a big difference) on anti cuts stuff etc, but i thought you meant something more "political" than that, but i'm not going to tolerate it from someone just because sectarianism is a "bad thing", if they are going around saying stuff like that they should expect to be challenged on it basically

[Q]

ah, ok, yeah that's fair enough, it'd be fine to work with them on anti cuts stuff etc, but i thought you meant something more "political" than that

Well, if we are committed to the project of building new mass class parties, we will inevitably get in layers with which we will vehemently disagree with. So it is better to express these differences openly so that we and the class movement can learn a thing or two on the political positions involved, on tactics and strategy and on theory and programme. This forms our class as a thinking entity that pro-actively shapes their own politics, a prerequisite for any potentially hegemonic class.

That, while we're all programmatically committed to the overthrow of our main enemy: the capitalist system.

[psgchisolm]

The problem with this is the same as any part on the right. We may be able to cooperate together and put up with each other for some time, but eventually one group will not like a couple of policys and break away. A chain "rout" will follow soon after and the One revolutionary party will be their individual selves again. Each vying for their own chance at control. In a way it's good that we don't unite. Our differences will most likely lead us to fighting and weakening our power overall. I think it's safe to say whatever party has the most support at the time the others follow for the revolutions sake.

[Widerstand]

Why do we have to have this unity thing, where Group A does exactly what Group B does, completely agrees with what Group B etc.? Why can't we instead have a system of mutual support, in which Group A supports Group B if both wish to do so (and vice versa), but the groups remain autonomous and separate otherwise? This mode of organizing not only seems to actually work in practice, it also allows much greater flexibility and for the groups to tackle a much wider spectrum of issues.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Yet it is sectarian of you, by definition actually. Unity is not going to be established on ideas, but on programme. In other words, there is unity in action while there needs to be a debating culture of open disagreement. So yes, I'm fine with being in one organisation as the AWL, as long as I have the freedom to publically express my opinion on their bullshit zionism and organise around that opinion with other members. I'm confident of getting a vast majority for an anti-zionist stance.

Exactly, we don't need to agree on all issues, but we agree on a whole lot and it would be far more effective if we pooled resources on those particular issues

[KurtFF8]

I believe virgin molotov was suggesting we unite in local communities to engage in grass roots struggle and support each other through a federation of assistance as opposed to supporting popular fronts and other party based politics. This is not to mean less conected, simply horizontally connected with no centre or head.

But this assumes that party based politics are not themselves based on local communities and engage in grassroots struggle.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

You suggest a grassroots movement... how would one go about organizing such a thing. Doesn't it have to be "spontaneous" to be effective?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's not the possibility nor the need to lump every leftist into one mass party. That simply won't work.

It'd be better to accept our differences, but also accept that, if we are M-L, then Trotskyism > Capitalism, and if we are Trot, then Marxism-Leninism, properly implemented, also is better than Capitalism.

Put simply, Left-wing post-Capitalism > Capitalism. Whether we are anarchists, libertarian Socialists, M-L, Trot or simply anybody who believes Marx was right and revolution against Capitalism is needed, we should work together against Capitalism, and work, democratically, on the details of a post-Capitalist society later, just as the Capitalists have done to us, we need to do to them.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Yes, but we can also work together. Don't you think that it would be productive to pool resources on certain shared issues?

[KurtFF8]

Yes, but we can also work together. Don't you think that it would be productive to pool resources on certain shared issues?

Yes, and sometimes it's a little silly to have 100 different anti-war "front" groups, when demonstration numbers would be much bigger if everyone worked together.

That said, some organizations certainly have real differences. For example a stance on Cuba will define whether an organization will want to organize an action in support of the "Cuban 5." An organization that sees Cuba as "just needing a 'real' workers' revolution against the 'state capitalist' regime" will likely not want to go out and support such a demo.

[Steve_j]

But this assumes that party based politics are not themselves based on local communities and engage in grassroots struggle. Not at all, just argues against the imposition of a party on the struggles of local communities.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Yes, and sometimes it's a little silly to have 100 different anti-war "front" groups, when demonstration numbers would be much bigger if everyone worked together.

That said, some organizations certainly have real differences. For example a stance on Cuba will define whether an organization will want to organize an action in support of the "Cuban 5." An organization that sees Cuba as "just needing a 'real' workers' revolution against the 'state capitalist' regime" will likely not want to go out and support such a demo.

Didn't I say that it was on only shared issues?

[KurtFF8]

Didn't I say that it was on only shared issues?

But my point is that an organization wouldn't have a single stance on...well a lot of things.

The closest thing to what this thread is getting at are formations like Die Linke in Germany which have various different tendencies. From the former ruling party of East Germany to libertarian Socialist groupings (from what I understand at least).

They of course have had some problems too of course.


Not at all, just argues against the imposition of a party on the struggles of local communities.

Is that really a thing that often happens with parties though? Or is this a misconception?

[Steve_j]

You suggest a grassroots movement... how would one go about organizing such a thing. Doesn't it have to be "spontaneous" to be effective?

Well it depends on what the aim of the community was, obviously emancipation from the capitalist systemis the ultimate goal but it depends on which of the numerous battlefields you want to fight it. In regards to issues like abusive bosses and landlords i think SeaSol is a good example, mind you they are a IWW front ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

That would be more relevant if the "revolutionary leftist" organizations were full of, and run by, workers.


The common logical fallacy of attempting to discredit an argument by picking on non-substantive examples meant to express intention while ignoring the intention itself.

I'm with NHIA on this one, actually. He prefers a workers-only voting membership policy.

[Steve_j]

Is that really a thing that often happens with parties though? Or is this a misconception? Historically speaking i would say yes, often.


I'm with NHIA on this one, actually. He prefers a workers-only voting membership policy.
Bit off topic but how does one define worker? IWCA for example, does the homemaker, reserve labour force ect count?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I'm with NHIA on this one, actually. He prefers a workers-only voting membership policy.

I am an upper class white male who supports betterment of humanity. I was raised priviliged. But I support the revolution.

Who's to say that I should not be allowed to vote. Who has the RIGHT to prevent me from actively participating in a revolutionary movement?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

AND that doesn't mean that contradictory ideologies can't cooperate on the issues that they share. (Especially when we share almost all issues...)

[Aloysius]

So...
Unity in action, not necessarily ideals?
Is that what I'm reading?

[KurtFF8]

Historically speaking i would say yes, often

That was more of a rhetorical question on my behalf in all honesty.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

So...
Unity in action, not necessarily ideals?
Is that what I'm reading?

We share many ideals and aims, especially in the short term. We should be unified in action on those ideals that we share.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bit off topic but how does one define worker? IWCA for example, does the homemaker, reserve labour force ect count?

Technically the homemaker is outside the legal wage-labour system, but for political purposes could have his/her "class" status determined by the class status of the breadwinner.

You'll have to flesh out the "reserve labour force." There are several distinct groups there.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can imagine a worker-only vote system ending up as some sort of horrible mess.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really. You just don't admit petit-bourgeois and other non-worker elements into the party. Period.

If you do, you explicitly list them in another group of members, those not eligible to vote.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Not really. You just don't admit petit-bourgeois and other non-worker elements into the party. Period.

If you do, you explicitly list them in another group of members, those not eligible to vote.

I still think that such broad generalization is detrimental

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's central to the concept of class independence, and it establishes more solid links with the working class than mere "organic links" to trade unions by non-worker oganizations.

Who better to make the case for worker-class emancipation than an actual worker for a party member?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

It's central to the concept of class independence, and it establishes more solid links with the working class than mere "organic links" to trade unions by non-worker oganizations.

Who better to make the case for worker-class emancipation than an actual worker for a party member?

Agreed, but the complete dismissal of the non-laborer... petty-bourgeois...

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

It's a new idea to me, I admit. I guess that I agree with it. Feasibility-wise? I'm not sure. I feel like the parties that are already in place should cooperate on shared issues. That's my stance. I'll continue to look in on this new worker-only voting membership concept. Thanks for the perspective.

[The American]

Good luck organizing that one

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Good luck organizing that one

Me? I feel like it's in everyone's best interests. For example, Anarchists and Communists share many similar political views. Why protest seperately? We could be more effective working together

[Widerstand]

Is that really a thing that often happens with parties though? Or is this a misconception?

From my personal experience, yes, yes definitely. Mostly because these parties usually precede the grassroots movements and often only pick up the thematic after the grassroots movements have become somewhat known. In which case I think it is funny that you mentioned Die Linke. There is a longrunning (I think roughly 2 years now) anti-Gentrification network in my city, made up entirely of working class grassroots groups fighting fights around different parts and issues in the city (migrants, social centers, Autonome, artists, people from gentrified neighborhoods, self-employed workers, etc.). Not once have these people ever seen anyone from Die Linke at their meetings, not once has Die Linke ever contacted any of these groups, not once has Die Linke offered cooperation or cooperated with them (the most they did was send a dozen people with flags to a 6000 protesters strong demo) - yet now, as elections are coming up and surveys reveal that the topic of housing is actually important to many, if not the most important topic in the campaigns, Die Linke posses themselves as a grassroot party close to the network which has always supported the network and is somehow to enact the will of the network. Basically they just bask in the publicity the network has generated and try to ride the wave to get voted into municipality.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a new idea to me, I admit. I guess that I agree with it. Feasibility-wise? I'm not sure. I feel like the parties that are already in place should cooperate on shared issues. That's my stance. I'll continue to look in on this new worker-only voting membership concept. Thanks for the perspective.

Here's some commentary:

Class-Strugglist Labour: “Workers Only” vs. “Workerism” (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-labour-t97028/index.html)

[Widerstand]

Me? I feel like it's in everyone's best interests. For example, Anarchists and Communists share many similar political views. Why protest seperately? We could be more effective working together

But you do realize that Anarchists and Communists don't really protest separately (at least no everywhere and always, although I certainly have heard stories of Commies calling the cops on Anarchists in the US), unless you mean the painfully obvious fact that Anarchists don't engage in electoral campaigns besides their "non-parliamentary" comrades.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

But you do realize that Anarchists and Communists don't really protest separately (at least no everywhere and always, although I certainly have heard stories of Commies calling the cops on Anarchists in the US), unless you mean the painfully obvious fact that Anarchists don't engage in electoral campaigns besides their "non-parliamentary" comrades.

I live in the United States and, from what I've seen, despite the weakness of the revolutionary leftist movement, revolutionary leftists of different sorts are at each others throats. If American revolutionary leftists want to make any progress at all, we need to work together or at least stop intentionally hurting each others efforts.

[RED DAVE]

I live in the United States and, from what I've seen, despite the weakness of the revolutionary leftist movement, revolutionary leftists of different sorts are at each others throats.Where and when? Please be specific.


If American revolutionary leftists want to make any progress at all, we need to work together or at least stop intentionally hurting each others efforts.In what arena do you think we could work together?

RED DAVE

[Aloysius]

I feel like admitting only workers to the party just creates a restructured class system: party members and non-members. Party members get voting rights, while non-members aren't; similar (at least to me) to the current bourgeois/prole system.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I feel like admitting only workers to the party just creates a restructured class system: party members and non-members. Party members get voting rights, while non-members aren't; similar (at least to me) to the current bourgeois/prole system.

Interesting thought... however, we're talking about the revolution itself. Marx acknowledged the need for the workers themselves to spearhead the revolution.

Great point though, if that sort of system were to be put in place, we'd have to be careful that it didn't spread into society.

(This reminds me of 1984 by Orwell: the caste system was based on party membership where planned capitalism favored those who were party members)

[FreeFocus]

I might make a new thread to explore this idea further, but a lot of what we conflict over involves tactics and strategy. I'm looking at events in Venezuela and I see some promising things. Chavez is lending support to grassroots stuff, the formation of peoples' militias and the like. If statist communists insist on a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of seizing state power, is it possible to change their approach slightly, to gain enough influence to deter and inhibit the state while lending support to grassroots stuff that libertarian communists can support more fully? I don't think we'll ever agree about the issue of the state and hierarchy. Is it possible to wage linked, but separate, struggles on two different fronts in this manner? Hopefully I explained this well enough.

[Steve_j]

I might make a new thread to explore this idea further, but a lot of what we conflict over involves tactics and strategy. I'm looking at events in Venezuela and I see some promising things. Chavez is lending support to grassroots stuff, the formation of peoples' militias and the like. If statist communists insist on a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of seizing state power, is it possible to change their approach slightly, to gain enough influence to deter and inhibit the state while lending support to grassroots stuff that libertarian communists can support more fully? I don't think we'll ever agree about the issue of the state and hierarchy. Is it possible to wage linked, but separate, struggles on two different fronts in this manner? Hopefully I explained this well enough.

Delionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism


De Leon combined the rising theories of Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) in his time with orthodox Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism). According to De Leonist theory, militant Industrial Unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism) (specialized trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union)) are the vehicle of class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle). Industrial Unions serving the interests of the "proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat)" (working class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class)) will bring about the change needed to establish a socialist system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism). The only way this differs from some currents in Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Syndicalism) is that, according to De Leonist thinking, a revolutionary political party (the Socialist Labor Party) is also necessary to fight for the proletariat on the political field.

[FreeFocus]

Delionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism

Hm, I'll look into that more in-depth. I would have concerns (as I do with Venezuela, and Cuba if you look at their model) about the state integrating peoples' militias, trade unions, workers' councils, etc. Maybe a "hands off" policy that is demanded by workers at the grassroots level to keep the state from doing that. Still, I'm not sure how this state of affairs could last indefinitely. It's an idea worth exploring further though, definitely.

[Aloysius]

(This reminds me of 1984 by Orwell: the caste system was based on party membership where planned capitalism favored those who were party members)

I was actually going to use the 1984 example, but couldn't figure out how to word it properly...

I think, in terms of tactics during a revolution, each group could do what they're known for: Anarchists can "MAKE TOTAL DESTROY", Trotskyists and Stalinists bicker amongst each other, and everyone else can form a sort of backing for the workers' front.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I feel like admitting only workers to the party just creates a restructured class system: party members and non-members. Party members get voting rights, while non-members aren't; similar (at least to me) to the current bourgeois/prole system.

You can't have a class party without the proper class demographics. Otherwise, you're slipping into liberal concepts of "representation," whereby some foreign element can "represent" a larger group, all the while "voting his conscience" even if the larger group clearly opposes the voting.

[Rafiq]

I think that debate among the left is somewhat good.

Note that not every leftists advocates a need for a 'party'.

What we do need, is cooperation, not complete political agreement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not really. You just don't admit petit-bourgeois and other non-worker elements into the party. Period.

If you do, you explicitly list them in another group of members, those not eligible to vote.

That's ridiculous.

Who is petit-bourgeois? Who decides who is petit-bourgeois?

That is bureaucratic nonsense in the extreme - can you not see how such a policy could, if in the wrong hands (a la USSR 1930s), lead to the degeneration of the revolution?

If someone is Socialist, if someone is for the revolution and wants to become a party cadre, it doesn't matter who they are or where they come from. Fidel Castro, after all, was a lawyer brought up in a wealthy family before his revolutionary days.