A Left Front?

[Susurrus]

One of the big problems facing the left, it seems to me, is all the divisiveness regarding organizations and such, with splits and splintering crippling action.

In Russia, there is an organization called "Left Front" (Левый фронт) that is an umbrella organization that unifies and coordinates various leftist parties and organizations without requiring the people within them to give up their membership. They have been successful in creating direct actions and organizing events, from what I can tell. This seems to be a good tactic, at least for the present.

Should similar organizations be created across the globe? Or will uniting various tendencies backfire, as it did with such organizations as the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War? Discuss.

[Kiev Communard]

In Russia, there is an organization called "Left Front" (Левый фронт) that is an umbrella organization that unifies and coordinates various leftist parties and organizations without requiring the people within them to give up their membership. They have been successful in creating direct actions and organizing events, from what I can tell. This seems to be a good tactic, at least for the present.

Comrade, I don't think that the Russian "Left Front" is a good model to follow, as it basically consists of disgruntled former Stalinists and Nazbols who mix left-populist and quasi-nationalist rhetoric and limit their activity to some occassional street pickets/demonstrations. There is nothing to be learned from them.

[Susurrus]

Member Organizations

Vanguard of Red Youth
Komsomol
EIF
Russian Communist Workers' Party – Revolutionary Party of Communists (RCWP-RPC)
Russian Socialist Movement
Autonomous Action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Front_(Russia)
This is what the wikipedia article says are the membership organizations, and they range from anarchists to stalinists. No nazbols, thankfully. I think you are thinking of the "Other Russia" front.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have no problem working with people who demand workers' control, be they Leninists, anarchists or democratic socialists, however the Stalinists I see do not demand these so I cannot work with them.

But I've been thinking about the same thing, some sort of Socialist Federation in which each constituent revolutionary group sends a delegate to the general committee of the Federation. However, what purpose would it serve...

[Susurrus]

Stalinists

Stalinism seems to mean a lot of things in Russia. For instance, the Vanguard of Red Youth is Stalinist, yet is described as operating in a similar manner to black blocs and members are quoted as shouting "We will turn Moscow into Paris!" So, clearly their view of Stalin is quite a bit different from authoritarian dictator. I may be completely wrong here, though, having never set foot in Russia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In Russia, there is an organization called "Left Front" (Левый фронт) that is an umbrella organization that unifies and coordinates various leftist parties and organizations without requiring the people within them to give up their membership. They have been successful in creating direct actions and organizing events, from what I can tell. This seems to be a good tactic, at least for the present.

Not only that, you can actually join the Left Front directly without having to be a member of constituent left groups.


Should similar organizations be created across the globe? Or will uniting various tendencies backfire, as it did with such organizations as the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War? Discuss.

It has already happened elsewhere, from the United Left Alliance in Ireland to SYRIZA in Greece to the GUE-NGL at the European Union level.


Comrade, I don't think that the Russian "Left Front" is a good model to follow, as it basically consists of disgruntled former Stalinists and Nazbols who mix left-populist and quasi-nationalist rhetoric and limit their activity to some occassional street pickets/demonstrations. There is nothing to be learned from them.

Comrade Cockshott is quite frank about having left-populist planks but with substance (not Bastard Keynesianism). The quasi-nationalist rhetoric only shows that the working class is not yet ready, but this redux of Lassalle's "international brotherhood of peoples" criticized by Marx later on is nonetheless a good start.

Relatedly, the same goes for Stalin myths and comparing them to Lassalle myths in pre-WWI European Social Democracy from Germany to Italy:


Stalinism seems to mean a lot of things in Russia. For instance, the Vanguard of Red Youth is Stalinist, yet is described as operating in a similar manner to black blocs and members are quoted as shouting "We will turn Moscow into Paris!" So, clearly their view of Stalin is quite a bit different from authoritarian dictator. I may be completely wrong here, though, having never set foot in Russia.


Sometimes myths are too strong to break in the short term. Combining "official Stalinism" (like noting Stalin's logistical knack in the Great Patriotic War, denouncing Khrushchev's hare-brained sovnarkhozy and industrial-agricultural party bifurcation schemes, etc.) with more revolutionary praxis and educative sessions denouncing "Marxism-Leninism" (such as sovkhozization vs. Stalin's kolkhozization mistake, or Popular Front idiocy) might be the way to go in today's Russia. That's why I referred to, for example, upholding Stalin's group's expulsion of Trotsky from the party when the latter and his supporters organized their anti-"unity-in-action" stunt.

It's exactly like Lassalle and German Social Democracy from the tail end of the Anti-Socialist Laws until about a decade or so later.

[Kiev Communard]

Comrade Cockshott is quite frank about having left-populist planks but with substance (not Bastard Keynesianism). The quasi-nationalist rhetoric only shows that the working class is not yet ready, but this redux of Lassalle's "international brotherhood of peoples" criticized by Marx later on is nonetheless a good start.

I have no qualms about tactical co-operation with left-nationalist groups (provided that the latter are not in favour of xenophobia, do not uphold anti-migrant and other similar bigoted positions, and are generally against faux "national unity" idea, instead advocating something close to "socialist nation" thesis). Still, I believe that the organizational unity with such groups is impossible due to ultimately differing worldviews, as even the best left-nationalists (i.e. those who acknowledge the primacy of class struggle over ethnic considerations) are still limited by their "national" political orientation.

[RED DAVE]

My experience with such fronts, in the antiwar movement and civil rights movement in the USA is tha the politics of various groups will out in the coalition.

For instance, in the antiwar movement of the USA, the stalinists constantly attempted a program that included liberals while the maoists constantly split organizations that they couldn't control. I am nevertheless for a united front (not a fucking popular front, which includes capitalist types).

It provides a test for all all tendencies' commitment to the working class and real left unity. Most will fail.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Still, I believe that the organizational unity with such groups is impossible due to ultimately differing worldviews, as even the best left-nationalists (i.e. those who acknowledge the primacy of class struggle over ethnic considerations) are still limited by their "national" political orientation.

Why? Those "best left-nationalists" aren't exactly "nationalists" and are for restoration of a unified Soviet space, which isn't a bad thing at all.

[Kiev Communard]

Why? Those "best left-nationalists" aren't exactly "nationalists" and are for restoration of a unified Soviet space, which isn't a bad thing at all.

Nope, I was talking about a Ukrainian left-nationalist group (which considers itself a "national-communist" one and has a broadly syndicalist programme for a post-revolutionary economy) that is anti-Stalinist and basically upholds "the United Socialist States of Europe" thesis in foreign policy matters (albeit in a different form). They regard the USSR as state-capitalist, support defeatism in inter-imperialist conflicts, and in general could be considered the successors to old Ukrainian Borotbists and other similar "national-communist" groups of the 1920s. The pro-Soviet nationalists you have referred to are generally quasi-fascistic anti-Semites, who praise Stalin for "eradicating godless Leninist scum in 1937", I would never associate myself with them. In fact, one of their groups is officially called "National Stalinist Movement for the Monarchy" :laugh::laugh::laugh:!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Neither would I. Also, by my mention of Stalin myths, I'm pretty sure you already know that I'm not referring to that crap you mentioned at the end, either.

Is the RCWP-RPC the only left group that balances left politics and class struggle with "Stalin the Marxist" stuff and Soviet re-unity? [I posted two articles in the Politics forum you might wish to read.]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, how can anarchists and Leninists work together?

I used to believe in left-frontism, but when you consider that left and right communists/Socialists have different views on the state, on revolution, on whether there should be a transition, on 'the party' and on tactics, then you can see that left-frontism is impossible. Historical materialism dictates it inevitable that one side will die out, eventually.

[RED DAVE]

No, how can anarchists and Leninists work together?

I used to believe in left-frontism, but when you consider that left and right communists/Socialists have different views on the state, on revolution, on whether there should be a transition, on 'the party' and on tactics, then you can see that left-frontism is impossible. Historical materialism dictates it inevitable that one side will die out, eventually.This is basically my position, but I think it needs to be tried anyway. I have full confidence, based on historical and personal experience, that certain tendencies will sell-out. some will insist on "doing their own thing," some will refuse to join, some will try bureaucratic maneuvers to take over, some will have a penchant for personal violence, etc.

And "one side [or another] will die out, eventually," but not before a lot of shit happens.

RED DAVE

[Kiev Communard]

Is the RCWP-RPC the only left group that balances left politics and class struggle with "Stalin the Marxist" stuff and Soviet re-unity?

There are some other groups that take a "Marxist" Stalinist position, but with the exception of the RCWP-RPC they are all overshadowed by rightist "Stalinists".

[Tim Finnegan]

In fact, one of their groups is officially called "National Stalinist Movement for the Monarchy" :laugh::laugh::laugh:!
How can I join these great visionaries? :tt1:

[Kiev Communard]

How can I join these great visionaries? :tt1:

Oh, there are a lot of such "visionaries" in modern Russia, I am afraid. If you can read Russian, you may be interested in rather hilarious books by Maxim Kalashnikov, who is sort of a Russian National Stalinist, with a technocratic streak. Even though almost all his crackpot musings are rather worthless, sometimes his description of the future super-tech the glorious Russia should have under National Stalinist regime may sound intriguing - on a Star Wars-level, I suppose:lol:.

[tobbinator]

The stubborn nature of some tendencies to do their own thing is only limiting our potential ability to unite and overwhelm and overthrow the rightists, who seem to be far more willing to unite against us. We cannot strike back capably because we are always bickering among ourselves and not forming some sort of co-operation between our tendencies.