Thoughts on sectarianism

[DaringMehring]

Just some rough and ready thoughts based on my experience.

First a disclaimer: I am not an active member of any organization. I have worked with a number of different groups in the past.

I have noticed again and again, that leftist Parties seem very similar to corporations, in the sense that, their line is their brand, and members are the customers. Aren't the members the Party? No usually the Party is under the near complete control of a small group of individuals, who are either overtly dictatorial or who use a managed show-democracy to achieve de facto dictatorship.

What does the "management" get out of it? Sometimes a bit of cash, as in the case of groups with paid staff, but mostly I'm guessing, the feeling of being a left leader -- ego-boosting, a feeling of importance.

I have even heard leadership talk openly in these kinds of terms. For instance in the CPUSA, they said, if we become less friendly to the Democrats, then what would set us apart from the PSL. In a couple of Trotskyist groups, a similar mentality was there in that there was some idea or feud from 1970 that couldn't be let go, because it was the brand signature.

The result is a mosaic of small, rigid, territorial sects. Just like a company will almost never come out and say it was wrong and its product was crappy, so the various Parties generally don't adapt their line based on new experience. Just as companies can be quite vicious in their attacks one on another, so Parties often spend plenty of time vituperating against their supposed rivals.

There are hundreds of millions of non-Reds. Why spend time trying to fight over the small handful that are Red? It's just economics -- they are the low-hanging fruit. Since they are already self-identifying as Red, they're going to be easier to talk to. Consequently, the movement as a whole stagnates, and becomes introverted. Also problematic, is that in the rush to build the customer base, non-proletarian strata are often targeted, like students, environmentalists, minorities, without respect to class (it is one thing to let them participate, it is another for them to be specifically targeted and become the main membership basis).

That is the outline of my analysis of the Left sects. I have tried to approach is from a Marxist perspective of the material basis of the social relations. The "class" I identify as the main problem, who "profits" from the paradigm, is the upper-leadership of the Parties. Without them, lines would be more open to evolution, groups would be more fluid, more cooperative, and the movement would focus more on the working class rather than on other classes and in on itself.

At the same time, all social processes are dynamic. Nothing is forever and certainly the face of the Left has changed a lot down through the decades. The objective factor that would lead to a transcendence of this paradigm is heightened class struggle, because then the question of fighting other left groups for the scarce resource of self-identified radicals would become less important than trying to have the best line composed of workers-in-struggle's thinking in order to recruit as many of the newly radicalizing proletarians. Furthermore, all lines that are being shown to be a liability by being out of whack with reality will be under pressure to be cut (eg socialist groups supporting Gadhafi and then class struggle intensifies and it becomes obvious that Libyans want him gone).

But, objective factors don't solve history on their own. They provide the basic premise of success, but don't achieve it. People achieve it. So -- who wants to contest my analysis, or my line, that the main enemies of the communist movement are the Party bosses?

[DaringMehring]

Wrong forum, meant to post in politics, can mod move?

[Fungy]

lol, you definitely must be ex-ISO.

[theblackmask]

lol, you definitely must be ex-ISO.

Or any other Leninist group.

[DaringMehring]

Contrary to the troll (first in with a sectarian jab, ha ha), I have not been in the ISO, nor the RCP, though I have talked to people from both. Both make good examples though -- Shawki & Avakian...

[ckaihatsu]

While your description of the *group* dynamics of sectarianism is accurate, any critique of sectarianism on a *personified* basis is *not* valid -- and this is due to the nature of the politics we espouse. (More on this point in a moment.)

For any *other* kind of politics there would be a valid basis for concern over the power-positioning of a "Great Leader" type, since actual decision-making authority *would* rest with such an individual or individuals, over the fates of thousands and millions of lives, as with current bourgeois politics. But our collectivist politics means that, given any access to *real*, *significant* power -- as over industrial or public policy -- such power would immediately be subject to a recursive process of collectivizing politics, spreading discussion and implementation down among those who are doing the actual work, and are affected by such policy.

Those who are currently in any political-grouping *organizational* positions of responsibility right now have no *real* power in society. The extent of power of Marxist groups is on their ability to influence from without, as from propaganda. So they are essentially "propaganda clubs", so to speak, and any growth in objective class struggle will emerge entirely from objective material conditions and on the inter-subjective factor of the working class' willingness to fight on its own behalf -- *not* on the size and/or influence of Marxist organizations.

Further, I'll just add that like any works in the public domain, communism as a body of thought is *not* proprietary, and so any organizing done in its name is entirely subjective activity and could just as well be done by others, in different ways, like any other social activity. In practice, though, of course, there are real-world material concerns and issues at stake, and so only so much splintering is even realistically possible before such intricate (inter-)organizational overhead -- perhaps based on historical organizational internal politics -- fans out to absurd extents.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The negative sectarianism (IE, "You're a Trot therefore bad", "You're a Stalinist therefore bad") usually comes in the context of some positive sectarianism, or cult of personality, that requires followers to accept the viewpoints of one thinker, be he Mao, Lenin, or Trotsky, uncritically.

I think if we stop idolizing historical communists, we might be able to better appreciate the positive aspects of different theorists who are traditionally viewed as contradictory.

[DaringMehring]

For any *other* kind of politics there would be a valid basis for concern over the power-positioning of a "Great Leader" type, since actual decision-making authority *would* rest with such an individual or individuals, over the fates of thousands and millions of lives, as with current bourgeois politics. But our collectivist politics means that, given any access to *real*, *significant* power -- as over industrial or public policy -- such power would immediately be subject to a recursive process of collectivizing politics, spreading discussion and implementation down among those who are doing the actual work, and are affected by such policy.


Assuming that conviction was actually put into practice. It might be easy to "forget."



Those who are currently in any political-grouping *organizational* positions of responsibility right now have no *real* power in society. The extent of power of Marxist groups is on their ability to influence from without, as from propaganda. So they are essentially "propaganda clubs", so to speak, and any growth in objective class struggle will emerge entirely from objective material conditions and on the inter-subjective factor of the working class' willingness to fight on its own behalf -- *not* on the size and/or influence of Marxist organizations.


While I my self conclude that changing objective conditions will produce a much better terrain of struggle going forward, objective conditions do not automatically produce subjective responses. The social ability of communists plays a part in developing a revolutionary situation.



Further, I'll just add that like any works in the public domain, communism as a body of thought is *not* proprietary, and so any organizing done in its name is entirely subjective activity and could just as well be done by others, in different ways, like any other social activity. In practice, though, of course, there are real-world material concerns and issues at stake, and so only so much splintering is even realistically possible before such intricate (inter-)organizational overhead -- perhaps based on historical organizational internal politics -- fans out to absurd extents.

It's already quite absurd. I think FBI manipulation plays a part, but the role of proprietary Party bosses is more significant.

[DaringMehring]

The negative sectarianism (IE, "You're a Trot therefore bad", "You're a Stalinist therefore bad") usually comes in the context of some positive sectarianism, or cult of personality, that requires followers to accept the viewpoints of one thinker, be he Mao, Lenin, or Trotsky, uncritically.

I think if we stop idolizing historical communists, we might be able to better appreciate the positive aspects of different theorists who are traditionally viewed as contradictory.

Agree -- reminds me of psychologist Alfred Adler, who argued that superiority complexes grew out of overcompensating for inferiority complexes. The ones who shout the loudest and most mindlessly, are the ones most consumed by uncritical adulation that they know can't actually be valid, so they lash out.

Various leaders existed in various conditions, and usually got at least something right, and something wrong. You might think that Trotsky was 90% correct and Mao was 30% correct, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean, you shouldn't study what your least favorite got right, or your favorite got wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

The negative sectarianism (IE, "You're a Trot therefore bad", "You're a Stalinist therefore bad") usually comes in the context of some positive sectarianism, or cult of personality, that requires followers to accept the viewpoints of one thinker, be he Mao, Lenin, or Trotsky, uncritically.


Actually, the examples you're giving are different political orientations altogether and are *not* differences of petty sectarianism. Sectarianism would be differences among tendencies within a common political camp.





I think if we stop idolizing historical communists, we might be able to better appreciate the positive aspects of different theorists who are traditionally viewed as contradictory.


I'm all for non-idolization, and for picking-and-choosing value out from various authors.

I'm not a Stalinist, though, though I would support such soft-revolutionary-minded actions over anything further to the right, such as liberal nationalist reformism.





Assuming that conviction was actually put into practice. It might be easy to "forget."


Hence the ongoing struggle...(!) (Here we are.)





While I my self conclude that changing objective conditions will produce a much better terrain of struggle going forward, objective conditions do not automatically produce subjective responses. The social ability of communists plays a part in developing a revolutionary situation.


Certainly. The transmission and use of revolutionary theory is part of the subjective factor.





It's already quite absurd. I think FBI manipulation plays a part, but the role of proprietary Party bosses is more significant.


Ehhhhhhhh, it's a debatable point. I don't particularly like sectarianism, but there is something to be said for organizational (party) cohesion in local, on-the-ground concrete contexts. It's an inherent material trade-off -- autonomy vs. cohesion....

[DaringMehring]

Nobody has really fought against my characterization, so let me ask,

why shouldn't there be term limits for Party bosses?
Why shouldn't they rotate regularly?

I know, I know, Bob Avakian is a great resource for the revolution, and if he weren't unquestioned leader for even 1 minute it could lead to dire consequences for the world proletariat.

But seriously, we need collective, member-composed, member-responsive, leadership, not a string of dictators who lead until they die, voluntarily retire, or get forced out in a palace coup.

[Rusty Shackleford]

smash all political opponents. no time for sectarianism.



:lol:

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Contrary to the troll (first in with a sectarian jab, ha ha), I have not been in the ISO, nor the RCP, though I have talked to people from both. Both make good examples though -- Shawki & Avakian...

I'm sorry, did you just imply that Ahmed Shawki has a cult of personality in the ISO and that it is the equivalent of Bob Avakian's in the RCP? Are you high? The ISO has no Chairman/woman, just members of a national steering committee and members of local Branch Committees, never a single leader for any group. Also, I've only ever read one book by Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, and that is the only Shawki book we have in stock from Haymarket in our Branch and have ever had in stock since I've been around.

I don't know where you got this idea that ISO&Shawki=RCP&Avakian, but it is ridiculously wrong and makes no sense what-so-ever.

[theblackmask]

I'm sorry, did you just imply that Ahmed Shawki has a cult of personality in the ISO and that it is the equivalent of Bob Avakian's in the RCP? Are you high? The ISO has no Chairman/woman, just members of a national steering committee and members of local Branch Committees, never a single leader for any group. Also, I've only ever read one book by Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, and that is the only Shawki book we have in stock from Haymarket in our Branch and have ever had in stock since I've been around.

I don't know where you got this idea that ISO&Shawki=RCP&Avakian, but it is ridiculously wrong and makes no sense what-so-ever.

While the ISO is no RCP in regards to the whole cult of personality thing, I would say that there are traces of something there. Look at the way Haymarket has been promoting Sherry Wolf, for example.

Also, as an ex-ISO member in Chicago, where most of the steering committee lives, I can personally recall situations where higher up leadership has interfered in branch level activities just kind of on a whim. In situations like this, nobody would ever speak up or disagree with them simply because of their "leadership" status. Does the ISO have a cult of personality? No. Does the ISO have some serious organizational issues because of its hierarchy? For sure.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

While the ISO is no RCP in regards to the whole cult of personality thing, I would say that there are traces of something there. Look at the way Haymarket has been promoting Sherry Wolf, for example.

Also, as an ex-ISO member in Chicago, where most of the steering committee lives, I can personally recall situations where higher up leadership has interfered in branch level activities just kind of on a whim. In situations like this, nobody would ever speak up or disagree with them simply because of their "leadership" status. Does the ISO have a cult of personality? No. Does the ISO have some serious organizational issues because of its hierarchy? For sure.

I personally don't see a problem with Haymarket advertising the authors of books it publishes. Afterall, isn't that the point of having your own publishing house? As far as the Chicago branch goes, I have no idea about any such things occurring. I know I haven't seen such a thing in Atlanta and would expect us to not put up with any such thing based on the discussions and debates we have internally. Like I said, I can't speak for the culture or organization of any other branch, but I really doubt the ISO in Atlanta would allow such a thing to occur.

[DaringMehring]

I'm sorry, did you just imply that Ahmed Shawki has a cult of personality in the ISO and that it is the equivalent of Bob Avakian's in the RCP? Are you high? The ISO has no Chairman/woman, just members of a national steering committee and members of local Branch Committees, never a single leader for any group. Also, I've only ever read one book by Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, and that is the only Shawki book we have in stock from Haymarket in our Branch and have ever had in stock since I've been around.

I don't know where you got this idea that ISO&Shawki=RCP&Avakian, but it is ridiculously wrong and makes no sense what-so-ever.

I didn't say Shawki = Avakian. That is a distortion. I said they were both members of the class of Party bosses. Like, for instance, the Koch brothers and George Soros are different, but they are both members of the class of capitalists.

You claim that ISO only has a steering committee and branches? Well, Shawki draws a salary does he not? Do you feel there is a democratic route to removing him if so chosen by a lot of members? Is it possible if not probable that Shawki will serve a life term? Do you think the organization benefits from permanent-Shawki?

A few years back, I went to a public meeting of the ISO where there was a specialist speaker, and Shawki. The specialist speaker was a Trotskyist from abroad who put on a brilliant presentation. Then Shawki got up, sweaty, and rambled loudly and incoherently for 20 minutes. All I can remember thinking is, "why?" The answer is, cause he's a Party boss so apparently he always has something interesting to say.

While I was interested just to hear Shawki, who I had read, speak, the left friends I had brought, had no patience for it. They nicknamed him Ahmed "Shout-i."

The point is, in my direct experience, this guy has special organizational privilege. He's no Bob Avakian, sure, but George Soros is no Koch.

We communists like to proclaim the need for the highest form of democratic society, socialism... but at the same time, we work in anti-democratic forms, where members can feel totally disempowered and accept leadership just because we feel like they have no choice. The worst, are those people who get Stockholm syndrome for the Party bosses...

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I didn't say Shawki = Avakian. That is a distortion. I said they were both members of the class of Party bosses. Like, for instance, the Koch brothers and George Soros are different, but they are both members of the class of capitalists.

You claim that ISO only has a steering committee and branches? Well, Shawki draws a salary does he not? Do you feel there is a democratic route to removing him if so chosen by a lot of members? Is it possible if not probable that Shawki will serve a life term? Do you think the organization benefits from permanent-Shawki?

A few years back, I went to a public meeting of the ISO where there was a specialist speaker, and Shawki. The specialist speaker was a Trotskyist from abroad who put on a brilliant presentation. Then Shawki got up, sweaty, and rambled loudly and incoherently for 20 minutes. All I can remember thinking is, "why?" The answer is, cause he's a Party boss so apparently he always has something interesting to say.

While I was interested just to hear Shawki, who I had read, speak, the left friends I had brought, had no patience for it. They nicknamed him Ahmed "Shout-i."

The point is, in my direct experience, this guy has special organizational privilege. He's no Bob Avakian, sure, but George Soros is no Koch.

We communists like to proclaim the need for the highest form of democratic society, socialism... but at the same time, we work in anti-democratic forms, where members can feel totally disempowered and accept leadership just because we feel like they have no choice. The worst, are those people who get Stockholm syndrome for the Party bosses...

I'm sorry, but no. It all comes down to convention and helping to organize new leaders and new cadre. The ISO functions completely democratically and no decisions are made without a vote by the members in the branch or delegates to a convention who are bound to the results of their branch votes. I have no idea if he draws a salary or not, though I find it unlikely as there are very few national organizers who get paid by the organization and those are people who are doing organizing and not giving talks or writing books or articles. If Shawki needed to be kicked out, sure, he'd be kicked out, anyone would be. I'd like to see what information your basing all these base-less claims on. Probably just sectarian here-say. I don't see how the ISO fits into your little analysis of the left, as we are neither small(by US left standards) or rigid and territorial. In every city we work in cooperation with other left groups within movements and endorse other groups actions on many occasions, building working relationships and an atmosphere of cooperation and open-ness. Oh and rigid, really? Funny that you say that right after the organization votes at convention to remove state-capitalism from "Where We Stand".

[DaringMehring]

I'm sorry, but no. It all comes down to convention and helping to organize new leaders and new cadre. The ISO functions completely democratically and no decisions are made without a vote by the members in the branch or delegates to a convention who are bound to the results of their branch votes. I have no idea if he draws a salary or not, though I find it unlikely as there are very few national organizers who get paid by the organization and those are people who are doing organizing and not giving talks or writing books or articles. If Shawki needed to be kicked out, sure, he'd be kicked out, anyone would be. I'd like to see what information your basing all these base-less claims on. Probably just sectarian here-say. I don't see how the ISO fits into your little analysis of the left, as we are neither small(by US left standards) or rigid and territorial. In every city we work in cooperation with other left groups within movements and endorse other groups actions on many occasions, building working relationships and an atmosphere of cooperation and open-ness. Oh and rigid, really? Funny that you say that right after the organization votes at convention to remove state-capitalism from "Where We Stand".

The ISO is "completely democratic" but you don't know who is on the payroll, or what they make?

OK...

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

The ISO is "completely democratic" but you don't know who is on the payroll, or what they make?

OK...

I'm sorry, but do you? Where is your information that you are basing all of this on?

[DaringMehring]

I'm sorry, but do you? Where is your information that you are basing all of this on?

There was an expose several years ago on ISO's funding as they were running it through some kind of a shell non-profit and so they had to go on record with the IRS. I don't remember the details but it showed that at the time they were taking in over half a million yearly based on sales, plus another half based on selling off Philip Morris and other stock that had been gifted to them by a backer. They were maintaining a pretty good payroll and Shawki made the most.

I don't contest the basic goodness of virtually all the membership of most socialist organizations. But the Party bosses are another thing.

Term limits, transparency, checks and balances, and democratic safeguards are a good thing. Wonder why the Party bosses don't look kindly on them...

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

There was an expose several years ago on ISO's funding as they were running it through some kind of a shell non-profit and so they had to go on record with the IRS. I don't remember the details but it showed that at the time they were taking in over half a million yearly based on sales, plus another half based on selling off Philip Morris and other stock that had been gifted to them by a backer. They were maintaining a pretty good payroll and Shawki made the most.

I don't contest the basic goodness of virtually all the membership of most socialist organizations. But the Party bosses are another thing.

Term limits, transparency, checks and balances, and democratic safeguards are a good thing. Wonder why the Party bosses don't look kindly on them...

Still no links. Anyway, if you're talking about CERSC, several of the authors make money from it but it's only because CERSC owns Haymarket and so is where any Haymarket author gets paid from. They only get paid for their books, and even then, they don't make any ridiculously exorbitant amount as can be shown by the fact that you acknowledge that CERSC and Haymarket barely bring in a million dollars in revenue, with the vast majority of that going back into printing costs, upkeep, and research.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think it is controversial in the general that the modern Left has a big problem with transparency and good faith relationships to the masses and membership rank-and-file.