Marx on Sectarianism

[Weezer]

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I'm just going to leave this here.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, this is good topic, because i think that sectarianism is one of the biggest problems in the left all over the world. I think that we need a United Left all over the world, beause divided into a bunch of different political parties each with their own followers the left will never succeed and we will always have right-wing political parties in the governments in most countries of the world. There are too many egocentric people in the world, and egocentrism in the left as well, so i think that people need to put away their pety differences and unite to fight a common enemy (Capitalism)

.



In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I'm just going to leave this here.

[Comrade Corwin]

This rings true. I always wanted to unite the Communists under the goal of revolution, but you have to remember that many of these "parties" don't even agree on the core beliefs of Communism. Some "Communist" organizations even deny Dialectics, the foundation of Marxism. It's hard to unite them under Communism because, well, they aren't Communists and arguing that Marx wanted the proletariat movement to be united will fall on deaf ears. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try... just don't get your hopes up.

Maybe if we are more action oriented, there will be greater unity. It is far better to unite splinter groups under action than just words alone.

[Victus Mortuum]

Says the guy who's a "Trotskyist"...

[ZeroNowhere]

Hello, this is good topic, because i think that sectarianism is one of the biggest problems in the left all over the world. I think that we need a United Left all over the world, beause divided into a bunch of different political parties each with their own followers the left will never succeed and we will always have right-wing political parties in the governments in most countries of the worldNo, you're boring. That's not what Marx was talking about. What he was talking about is essentially the same thing as in 'Political Indifferentism' or what Bordiga was on about as regards democracy. In other words, an assertion of the principles of mechanistic Marxism. This was not Revleft-esque whining about 'leftist unity', which would be rather averse to statements like, "In France the long expected split has taken place," or declarations that, "one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else".

[Chambered Word]

Says the guy who's a "Trotskyist"...

I'm aware enough that we have a reputation for it, but the irony of that statement must really be lost on you.

[ZeroNowhere]

You Trots are the worst, man, always disagreeing with Trots.

[Sir Comradical]

Then again, we don't have to agree with Marx on absolutely everything.

[The Militant]

Marx's writings are not some religious dogma that we compare other communists groups to for validity. And yes all of us on the left should work together for global revolution.

[Widerstand]

This rings true. I always wanted to unite the Communists under the goal of revolution, but you have to remember that many of these "parties" don't even agree on the core beliefs of Communism. Some "Communist" organizations even deny Dialectics, the foundation of Marxism. It's hard to unite them under Communism because, well, they aren't Communists and arguing that Marx wanted the proletariat movement to be united will fall on deaf ears. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try... just don't get your hopes up.

Maybe if we are more action oriented, there will be greater unity. It is far better to unite splinter groups under action than just words alone.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"What, you don't believe that a stone contradicts itself? FUCKING RIGHTWING SCUM GTFO!!!!"

[ZeroNowhere]

Then again, we don't have to agree with Marx on absolutely everything.I agree that 1 + 1 = 2, I just don't agree that 2 - 1 = 1.

[Widerstand]

I agree that 1 + 1 = 2, I just don't agree that 2 - 1 = 1.

2+2 = 5, you anti-dialectic heretic.

[Weezer]

Says the guy who's a "Trotskyist"...

So I'm responsible for some sectarian fuckfaces' actions who just happen to share my ideology's name?

[Victus Mortuum]

So I'm responsible for some sectarian fuckfaces' actions who just happen to share my ideology's name?

Fair enough.

[MarxistMan]

And specially in USA where you have a marxist revolutionary left, like the people of this site. And a middle class progressive liberal centrists, like the centrists of The Nation Magazine, Commondreams, Alternet, Counterpunch, Salon, and other progressive-liberals who call themselves leftists and part of the left. But they are centrists (Social-democrats, Progressives), not leftists at all

.


This rings true. I always wanted to unite the Communists under the goal of revolution, but you have to remember that many of these "parties" don't even agree on the core beliefs of Communism. Some "Communist" organizations even deny Dialectics, the foundation of Marxism. It's hard to unite them under Communism because, well, they aren't Communists and arguing that Marx wanted the proletariat movement to be united will fall on deaf ears. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try... just don't get your hopes up.

Maybe if we are more action oriented, there will be greater unity. It is far better to unite splinter groups under action than just words alone.

[MarxistMan]

I am realist, not boring. The world is not a book my friend. Life out there is real harsh and violent, and even Marx's predictions about workers overthrowing the capitalist system by themselves didnt come true today. Because of the fact that the right-wing is just too militarily strong and too united, while the left is too sectarian.

Sorry but without a realist scientific plan and without unity in the left all over the world, we will head toward a Mad Max scenario in countries where the left is too divided into many many small leftist parties each with their own sectarian ideology.

I know that many leftist parties are really neoliberal political parties not authentic workers parties like The Socialist Workers Party of Spain. And many leftist leaders who rise to power turn to the right and apply neoliberal economic programs after they rise to power. And you are right about uniting with fake-leftist parties.

However i do think that the world left needs more unity.

.

.


No, you're boring. That's not what Marx was talking about. What he was talking about is essentially the same thing as in 'Political Indifferentism' or what Bordiga was on about as regards democracy. In other words, an assertion of the principles of mechanistic Marxism. This was not Revleft-esque whining about 'leftist unity', which would be rather averse to statements like, "In France the long expected split has taken place," or declarations that, "one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else".

[tbasherizer]

So I'm responsible for some sectarian fuckfaces' actions who just happen to share my ideology's name?

That's a great statement. It applies to all of us who get labeled as Stalinist-Kimist-Pol Potists just for saying the word "socialism" without implying death panels.

I agree with your original interpretation of Marx's quote. All we revolutionary leftists need do, instead of starting our own movements, is to imbue the working class in which we are immersed with class-consciousness and revolutionary spirit. It needn't be the same message from all of us; whichever elements of our messages stick will be the ones that motivate the Revolution, be they anarchist, Trotskyist, or even LaRouchian (cringe). Sectarianism is useless; for unless it destroys the very liberty we fight for, an ideology cannot become society-defining. The global socialist revolution will come, but it won't be Maoist, Hoxhaist, Bukharinist, or syndicalist; its character will be purely defined by the dreams and ideas of the whole of humanity.

[el_chavista]

What is the opposite to sectarianism? "Massification", a populist front?

How can a party be a distinctively organization of the working class, with a proletarian ideology, without being sectarian?

And how can we build a mass party being sectarian?

[Victus Mortuum]

Between sectarianism and massification lies the balance of a true revolutionary organization! If only we can find this divine balance, the revolution would swiftly carry on on its own! ;)

[synthesis]

Can I just throw it out there that this term "sectarianism" is overused? I don't see a problem with people breaking up and creating new groups over political differences - it's only when people focus on those break-ups and their groups at the expense of working class politics that it becomes sectarianism.