What would make you doubt?

[Kronsteen]

What would have to happen to make you think, "Maybe I'm in the wrong group?" or "Maybe I've been following the wrong theory?"

I don't mean big, distant things like "We overthrow the government and immediately turn into rich capitalists". I mean smaller things which we sometimes see happening on the left.


What if...

* You attended a small, peaceful demonstration with minimal police presence, but in the party's paper it was described by someone who wasn't there as enormous, loud - and marred by police brutality.

* A leader of your branch told you a pack of lies, then at a meeting denied having said anything to you at all. And accuses you of disloyalty.

* The latest rising star of the movement turns out to be a spy, and all mention of him/her disappears from the group's website overnight.


What if you discovered...

* A founder of your group was a sexual predator. Who had members beaten up for leaving the party.

* They abandoned their own theories and left the struggle, but it was covered up by their aparachiks.

* Late in life they did a deal with the government's secret police, selling out some more 'extreme' comrades in return for being left alone.

* In a major theoretical work, they used fraudulent figures to support their analysis.

* They'd spent 60 years writing articles claiming the revolution would happen within 5 years, but their successors didn't want you knowing that.

* Your group received funding from the CIA - 40 years ago.


I'm not asking necessarily about these specific instances, but about what you could imagine happening that would make you question your affiliation.

[Arlekino]

Yes sure revolution would never happening if we all left wingers carry different flags, thoughts, newspapers, pamphlets, yes sometimes I am doubt can we get somewhere if we so divided, preaching own theory, don't agree or agree with something, and yes branch secretaries can be sometimes take over all meetings like they know everything. Sometimes I think is like marketing place or show for who even dear to compromise with secretaries.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Maybe on:


* A leader of your branch told you a pack of lies, then at a meeting denied having said anything to you at all. And accuses you of disloyalty.

* In a major theoretical work, they used fraudulent figures to support their analysis.

(i'm assuming the fraudulent figures we're used on purpose)
Yes on:



* Late in life they did a deal with the government's secret police, selling out some more 'extreme' comrades in return for being left alone.For the rest you can always criticize, or they we're flaws of individual comrades who need to be kicked out and/or criticized.

[Chris]

* You attended a small, peaceful demonstration with minimal police presence, but in the party's paper it was described by someone who wasn't there as enormous, loud - and marred by police brutality.

No. I would talk to the editor about it though, and suggest only having people who was at events to write about them (when they are domestic). Although, that is what we do now, so the above wouldn't happen.


* A leader of your branch told you a pack of lies, then at a meeting denied having said anything to you at all. And accuses you of disloyalty.

It would make me have doubts about the leader, but not about the Party. He would probably become booted as leader by the next yearly election meeting if he treated comrades like that.


* The latest rising star of the movement turns out to be a spy, and all mention of him/her disappears from the group's website overnight.

Infiltrators happen, and deleting them from our website once they are uncovered would only be prudent.


What if you discovered...

* A founder of your group was a sexual predator. Who had members beaten up for leaving the party.

I'd probably consider it the rightwing press smearing unless party archives backed it up.



* They abandoned their own theories and left the struggle, but it was covered up by their aparachiks.

That would make me doubt my choice.


* Late in life they did a deal with the government's secret police, selling out some more 'extreme' comrades in return for being left alone.

Same, although there are no better options. The only other communist grouping actually did the above... to the Communist Party of Norway. The Worker's Communist Party (now Red) was actually more extreme, but the CPN was considered more of a threat because we actually had once had massive support among the industrial proletariat... and still did at the time, to a lesser degree.


* In a major theoretical work, they used fraudulent figures to support their analysis.

If used consciously, I would take it up internally. If such a practice becomes the norm, I'd seriously doubt the Party.


* They'd spent 60 years writing articles claiming the revolution would happen within 5 years, but their successors didn't want you knowing that.

I consider that more as optimism than anything. Wouldn't make me doubt if the CPN had done that.


* Your group received funding from the CIA - 40 years ago.

40 years ago is a long time. 40 years ago the CPN was a very revisionist party that essentially followed the USSR in nearly everything. And this one actually is pretty much impossible. Still, the Party today is very different from what it was 40 years ago anyway. This wouldn't make me doubt that Party's present course.

[Dumb]

* You attended a small, peaceful demonstration with minimal police presence, but in the party's paper it was described by someone who wasn't there as enormous, loud - and marred by police brutality.

I'd get new glasses so that I could see the police brutality more clearly next time.


* A leader of your branch told you a pack of lies, then at a meeting denied having said anything to you at all. And accuses you of disloyalty.

I'd apologise for my disloyalty, accept whatever punishment the leader of my branch recommended, and promise my loyalty from that point forward.


* The latest rising star of the movement turns out to be a spy, and all mention of him/her disappears from the group's website overnight.

...Who? :confused:


* A founder of your group was a sexual predator. Who had members beaten up for leaving the party.

They shouldn't have left!


* They abandoned their own theories and left the struggle, but it was covered up by their aparachiks.

The aparatchiks merely made an error in assigning credit in the first place.


* Late in life they did a deal with the government's secret police, selling out some more 'extreme' comrades in return for being left alone.

But is that what the aparachiks say?


* In a major theoretical work, they used fraudulent figures to support their analysis.

The real figures are wrong.


* They'd spent 60 years writing articles claiming the revolution would happen within 5 years, but their successors didn't want you knowing that.

That, or the movement has spent 60 years letting down my fearless leader. Shame on us.


* Your group received funding from the CIA - 40 years ago.

The Communist International Association?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, 'Capital' would become an inaccurate description of reality if capitalism was abolished.