Why don't all commies unite?

[mrld1630]

As a Marxist humanist of the praxis school I am often accused of being a "revisionist."

Let me get straight to the point... Communism is a big movement. There are millions upon millions of communists on this Earth.

Yet we are plagued by infighting and disunity! I always wonder why socialism has never been achieved yet!

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's because communists can't agree on one tendency. There's orthodox marxism, there's titoism, maoism, marxism humanism, stalinism, eurocommunism, the list goes on.

If we would set aside our common disagreements and united in a united front we could bring about socialism!

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days

[Manic Impressive]

Well there are irreconcilable differences between tendencies some believe that a revolution can and should be controlled by a tiny minority of class concious workers and others believe that a majority of the working class must be class concious and be willing to implement socialism for themselves. That's a fundamental difference which can't be compromised over and in the end only time will tell which is right.

But yeah I don't know why all the vanguardists don't all get together or why they are so quick to split over insignificant differences :lol:

[tir1944]

Because Trotskites,Revisionists and other deviants work against Communist Unity...

[Magón]

Because Trotskites,Revisionists and other deviants work against Communist Unity...

Cool story, bro.

[Apoi_Viitor]

But yeah I don't know why all the vanguardists don't all get together or why they are so quick to split over insignificant differences :lol:

Because of 'democratic centralism' and the "strict subordination of the minority to the majority", every minor disagreement is a reason to splinter off.

[Commissar Rykov]

Because Trotskites,Revisionists and other deviants work against Communist Unity...
^This is why we splinter off. We can only take so much crazy before our quota hits max.

[pax et aequalitas]

That's not to say ALL communist despise each other. I'm sure Stalinists for example could work with Maoists just fine and anarcho-commies and left-commies usually get on pretty well too.

[Zav]

There are two big tendencies: Authoritarian and Libertarian. All the little ones disagree on one point or another.
All fall into one or the other, and their differences cannot be resolved. You may as well try arguing with an An-Cap. We would be more productive if we recognized that we are really two different movements. For instance, I respect Stalinists as fellow Leftists and human beings, but are they my Comrades? Fuck no.

[thefinalmarch]

^Manic Impressive is pretty much entirely correct.

Also:

I have been listening to calls for left unity for longer than I like to remember. Let me state, unequivocally, that the differences between the various left groups are not trivial. They are based on significant differences over the very definition of socialism, and, in practice, the different groups advocate different strategies and tactics.

[Geiseric]

Its because some "revolutionaries" are really modern mensheviks who try to act more radical than others by calling everybody else "revisionists" or "liberal" or "fascist 5th column (?)". Others are more obvious about being reformist, which makes progressive liberals and reformist socialists seem in the same category. And everybody else has kinda been systematically purged from political activity in the 3rd world, where theoretically the first revolutions would happen. However having everybody in one party would be a huge mistake, thats why the Bolsheviks split from the Mensheviks in the first place. Alot of "communists" are cultish too, which doesn't help.

[RedZezz]

Because WE are right and THEY are wrong. THEY are revisionists and without THEM, WE would be able to unite the working class and a socialist revolution would happen tomorrow. Unfortunatly, since THEIR policies are counter-revolutionary and a cancerous tumor on the socialist movement, WE will never be able to unite with THEM.

[Property Is Robbery]

Because WE are right and THEY are wrong. THEY are revisionists and without THEM, WE would be able to unite the working class and a socialist revolution would happen tomorrow. Unfortunatly, since THEIR policies are counter-revolutionary and a cancerous tumor on the socialist movement, WE will never be able to unite with THEM.
If you're not joking then you're the cancerous tumor causing these serious divisions.

[RedZezz]

If you're not joking then you're the cancerous tumor causing these serious divisions.

Unfortunatly, sarcasm doesn't translate well into text.

[Kamos]

Unfortunatly, sarcasm doesn't translate well into text.

Don't worry about that. Half the fun of sarcasm is when people don't get it and you can snicker to yourself about it.

[Tablo]

Because the trotskyites are nazis, the anarchos are petite-bourgeois liberals, the stalinoids are mass murdering fascists, the maoists are mass murdering class-collaborationists, and the rest are ultra-leftist scum.

Honestly, because everyone has irreconcilable differences. We may work together at times on specific things, but our strategies and tactics are worlds apart. Also some people are too focused on historical disagreements to even consider working together when we should.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Because history gave us Stalin,Mao,Baukin,and all the rest...plus people have this strange desire to worship dead people (via tendency).

It is very frustrating yes.

[thefinalmarch]

There are two big tendencies: Authoritarian and Libertarian.
I prefer 'capitalist' and 'communist', respectively. The problem with your dichotomy is that it implies the "authoritarians" are communists at all. I usually make sure to quote myself whenever I see this sort of talk, so here goes:


The only way communism could be considered "authoritarian" is if the revolution is considered to be an authoritarian act - which it inherently is, as it necessary involves the working class exerting its authority over the capitalist classes. As for communism being "libertarian", what exactly does that even mean? Communism will both grant liberty to and take liberty from people; the workers, and the capitalists & managers, respectively. It cannot be universally considered to be libertarian. The false dichotomy between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" tendencies is ridiculous.

[thefinalmarch]

If we would set aside our common disagreements and united in a united front we could bring about socialism!
This is basically an idealist assertion:


…the Communists know only too well […] that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.

[ZeroNowhere]

Thefinalmarch has said most of what needed to be said, and quoting oneself is perfectly acceptable when this thread seems to be recreated every couple of days here. Still, though, the assurance that 'we' could bring about socialism isn't of much aid when we don't all agree upon what 'socialism' is, quite apart from the fact that revolution will probably not be 'our' product, but that of the working class acting in their own immediate interests.

Likewise, to bring about socialism one would presumably have to use some sort of method, and, well, disagreements about that are generally the basis of tendency splits. One must stand before one can run. Other tendencies would hold that it's not a matter of how 'we' are to bring about socialism at all, but rather of describing what methods the working class will use in their struggle, at least in general and tendential terms. Clearly the two groups would have a completely different outlook on the situation; for some, socialism is primarily a matter of using propaganda and rhetoric to convince the working class to become socialist, and revolution is probably far away judging from our current skill at doing such, while to others revolution is immanent in capitalism and its own development, and is hence a necessary result of capitalism's own progress. And, to be frank, our current numbers would probably not be enough to create a revolution in China, let alone the world.

[R_P_A_S]

because some people have crushes and get hard ons when they think about Stalin, Lenin or any other of those.

[Nox]

All tendencies agree on most things, we just disagree on how to reach Communism.

The differences are relatively huge, so it would be difficult to unite.

[R_P_A_S]

I also think is an ego trip. Think of this.. "Did Capitalist disagree on how to reach Capitalism?" No.. they just went with it.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is nonsense.


The only way communism could be considered "authoritarian" is if the revolution is considered to be an authoritarian act - which it inherently is, as it necessary involves the working class exerting its authority over the capitalist classes. As for communism being "libertarian", what exactly does that even mean? Communism will both grant liberty to and take liberty from people; the workers, and the capitalists & managers, respectively. It cannot be universally considered to be libertarian. The false dichotomy between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" tendencies is ridiculous.

Would you say that liberating a Nazi death camp is authoritarian because 'it necessarily involves the Allied forces exerting its authority over the Nazi camp guards'? Of course not. Eliminating authoritarianism by force, i.e. removing coercion, is not an act of authoritarianism. Taking away private property from capitalists is not removing their liberty, because this implies they had a right to it in the first place.

Although I should say that this discussion is rather pointless, no matter what you call it's the same act, and the act that matters. And the act is the emancipation and thereby the liberation of the working class.

[W1N5T0N]

Because, unlike fascism, communism is not some kind of dumbass follow the line ideology thus leading to people thinking for themselves therefore there WILL be differences.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Maybe we should. But the reality is that we all hate each other too much. There's certainly a strong authoritarian/libertarian divide.

Personally, I don't believe that the libertarian side do themselves (ourselves) any favours by accepting Leninism and Maoism as genuinely part of the movement overall, then criticising and moaning about it til the cows come home. We really need to break away from that side of things and accept that the 20th century and beyond has shown that Leninism can never lead to the kind of Socialism we want.

Having said that, maybe we should unite. The Leninists crumbled in the face of some quite determined opposition in some places, the GDR being one example. I'd imagine that the right, centre and left of capital would combine under a non-capitalist system, as opposition. Perhaps we should be doing the same. We are foolhardy, I guess.

Though having said that, too much historical shit has happened to make that a reality. I know who I blame. I find it difficult to accept working with someone who would most likely have me executed were they to ever come anywhere near the organs of power and security apparatus.

[ZeroNowhere]

I also think is an ego trip. Think of this.. "Did Capitalist disagree on how to reach Capitalism?" No.. they just went with it.
Did people who supported the establishment of capitalism and republicanism disagree on how to reach them?
Well... Yes?

[Rusty Shackleford]

whats more important? Uniting a million parties with mutually hated political views or just fighting to set the working class into motion?


I dont want to merge with other tendencies. I think it would waste time. Other parties with similiar tendencies? fine. but other than that. fuck it.

[thefinalmarch]

This is nonsense.

Would you say that liberating a Nazi death camp is authoritarian because 'it necessarily involves the Allied forces exerting its authority over the Nazi camp guards'? Of course not. Eliminating authoritarianism by force, i.e. removing coercion, is not an act of authoritarianism.
Soldiers and prisoners are exerting authority over Nazis, are they not? Unless you consider being rounded up and shot at to be freedom in action*, the liberation of a concentration camp is an authoritarian act on the part of its participants, but it is ultimately a means to a very favourable, ethical and indeed "libertarian" end.

*This is not a moralistic perspective. I am not asking you to sympathise with Nazis in any way -- I do not. I simply ask that you observe that shooting someone demonstrates your authority to determine whether they live or die.


Taking away private property from capitalists is not removing their liberty, because this implies they had a right to it in the first place.
It doesn't imply I believe they had any sort of right to ownership of private property at all. I simply make the observation that, under the current socio-economic order, capitalists are free to own private property -- that is to say, the present system ensures that they have the liberty to do so. Do you dispute any of this?


Although I should say that this discussion is rather pointless, no matter what you call it's the same act, and the act that matters. And the act is the emancipation and thereby the liberation of the working class.

Communism, as broadly defined by Engels, is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. This liberation of the proletariat can only take place after the seizure of the means of production by the workers, the abolition of wage labour, and the seizure of political power by the workers. The second is entirely dependent on the first, and the first and third are inherently authoritarian acts (they are acts in which an entire class exerts its authority over another class; feel free to dispute this) -- their classification as authoritarian does not change depending on whether or not they are used for authoritarian or libertarian ends. The internal nature and structure of the movement will be "libertarian" and democratic, but viewed from the outside and as a collective whole, it will be a movement seeking to forcibly expropriate an entire social class -- the bourgeoisie. Workers' revolution, specifically, is by definition an authoritarian means to a libertarian end.

I personally prefer my materialist "nonsense" over your idealistic nonsense. There is no mystical quality pertaining to the expropriation of property which somehow makes forcibly doing so -- even by a large section of the population with whom we are aligned, and indeed whom we are a part of -- a non-authoritarian act. To quote you, it's the same act and that's all that matters. It's inherently authoritarian no matter who does it.

[Grenzer]

It seems easy to blame sectarianism on those that have founding figures, but I think this is a bit of a cop out. It's true to some degree, but I haven't met that many serious Trotskyists that obsess over Trotsky or Marxist-Leninists that obsess over Stalin.

Also, it seems unfair to conveniently heap all the blame for prior failure on the back of the Marxist-Leninists. Hypocritical in that many of their critics possess such romantic and idealistic conceptions that they are arguably untenable in the face of reality. However, it would be nice if we could all just get our shit together and destroy capitalism.

At least it can be said that the far left will never be an echo chamber..

[Agent Ducky]

I also think is an ego trip. Think of this.. "Did Capitalist disagree on how to reach Capitalism?" No.. they just went with it.
I don't think that's a valid analogy. Capitalism didn't require organizing and doing revolution against the old system. It was brought in almost naturally when the ruling/upper classes utilized new industrial technologies to keep their positions in the changing world. Communists have a much bigger challenge. And there are plenty of splinter sects within capitalism now. Just watch the Republicans and Democrats fight.

[thefinalmarch]

Also, it seems unfair to conveniently heap all the blame for prior failure on the back of the Marxist-Leninists.
I don't blame Marxism-Leninism as an ideology for prior failures -- it is idealistic to do so. Ideas do not determine the fate of the material world; it is the other way around. The October Revolution completed the historical tasks of the bourgeois revolution in Russia. That's all there is to it. Prior failures were the unfortunate but necessary result of material circumstances.

What I do criticise proponents of opposing ideologies for, however, is the ideological support for such societies largely in their totality.

[Zav]

I prefer 'capitalist' and 'communist', respectively. The problem with your dichotomy is that it implies the "authoritarians" are communists at all. I usually make sure to quote myself whenever I see this sort of talk, so here goes:
Firstly, I personally don't think Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists, Marxists, Technocrats, etcetera are Communists, however I like being able to post outside of OI.

Secondly I define 'Authoritarian' as a minority with power over a majority, so basically all top-down power structures fall under that term. Any system where all people have equal power is 'Libertarian', because it does not rely on higher authority and provides the most positive freedom while still restricting negative freedom. This ensures that no one's positive liberties, free speech, free press, free thought, etcetera, are not trampled upon by other people's negative liberties, such as the freedom to kill, to rape, to exploit, etcetera.

So the dichotomy, more of a gradation, for the record, stands.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God I hate all this kumbaya why-can't-we-all-just-get-along??!! bullshit.

Look. Forget all the differences of opinion on the left for a moment. Has there ever been a major ideology on this planet that is totally united? Is Christianity united? Is Islam? How about conservatism? Or liberalism? Or fascism? The answer is NOOOOOOOOOO.

Honestly a lot of the opinions that I find on the left are repulsive, and I will never, ever, ever agree with them. I'm sure there are many people who feel the same way about my opinions, and I don't care, cuz the success or failure of our political project doesn't depend on us uniting. If it did we'd be totally fucked.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that's a valid analogy. Capitalism didn't require organizing and doing revolution against the old system. It was brought in almost naturally when the ruling/upper classes utilized new industrial technologies to keep their positions in the changing world. Communists have a much bigger challenge.
To be honest, I think it was a bit messier than that. There were English Civil Wars, French Revolutions, the American Revolution, Russian Revolutions, the Russian Civil War, conquests and empires, draconian measures of primitive accumulation, and all in all it may have been natural but it certainly wasn't smooth. Hell, I believe that it was Marx who commented that the proletarian revolution will probably be a fair bit smoother than the capitalist one.

[thefinalmarch]

I personally don't think [...] Marxists [...] are Communists.
Why do you say that? Please elaborate further.


This ensures that no one's [...] free speech [...] are not trampled upon by other people's negative liberties
I'm straying off-topic here, but I think this should be addressed.

Chomsky had this to say about free speech:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.I don't believe in the abstract principle of free speech. I don't believe in the free speech of reactionaries, therefore I don't believe in it at all -- and that's perfectly OK with me. I want nothing to do with allowing reactionaries a platform. I believe they should be opposed and shouted down by the working class wherever and whenever they choose to spew their anti-worker bullshit. I don't think the state should have anything to do with suppressing it though -- the state has entirely different reasons for what it does; the maintenance of the conditions of bourgeois rule.

Some food for thought:

Fascists and NAZIs don't make public speeches for the sake of the exchange of ideas or idle discussion and debate. Typically they make speeches and have rallies in order to "put people in their place" and intimidate the working class. Recently in Los Angeles, neo-nazis from Detroit were allowed to make a speech advocating the forced re-location of Latino immigrants. Why would Detroit NAZIs want to come to LA for this speech? Were they hoping to attract people Los Angelenos to their cause? Would it be worth it to get a devotee who lived clear across the country? No, they went to LA because there is a large Latino population.

In the 80s and 90s neo-Nazis also famously tried to have marches through a Jewish enclave in the US.

It is not simply a case of "bad ideas" with NAZIs and fascists, they want to intimidate workers and that is why they should be opposed and shouted-down whenever they show up.

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.

Off the top of my head, the only Lenin quote I can see myself agreeing with:

Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.

[Tim Cornelis]

Soldiers and prisoners are exerting authority over Nazis, are they not? Unless you consider being rounded up and shot at to be freedom in action*, the liberation of a concentration camp is an authoritarian act on the part of its participants, but it is ultimately a means to a very favourable, ethical and indeed "libertarian" end.

*This is not a moralistic perspective. I am not asking you to sympathise with Nazis in any way -- I do not. I simply ask that you observe that shooting someone demonstrates your authority to determine whether they live or die.


It doesn't imply I believe they had any sort of right to ownership of private property at all. I simply make the observation that, under the current socio-economic order, capitalists are free to own private property -- that is to say, the present system ensures that they have the liberty to do so. Do you dispute any of this?



Communism, as broadly defined by Engels, is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. This liberation of the proletariat can only take place after the seizure of the means of production by the workers, the abolition of wage labour, and the seizure of political power by the workers. The second is entirely dependent on the first, and the first and third are inherently authoritarian acts (they are acts in which an entire class exerts its authority over another class; feel free to dispute this) -- their classification as authoritarian does not change depending on whether or not they are used for authoritarian or libertarian ends. The internal nature and structure of the movement will be "libertarian" and democratic, but viewed from the outside and as a collective whole, it will be a movement seeking to forcibly expropriate an entire social class -- the bourgeoisie. Workers' revolution, specifically, is by definition an authoritarian means to a libertarian end.

I personally prefer my materialist "nonsense" over your idealistic nonsense. There is no mystical quality pertaining to the expropriation of property which somehow makes forcibly doing so -- even by a large section of the population with whom we are aligned, and indeed whom we are a part of -- a non-authoritarian act. To quote you, it's the same act and that's all that matters. It's inherently authoritarian no matter who does it.

I have to say on the one hand it sounds very logical, on the other hand forcefully abolishing authoritarian social relations still does not sound like an authoritarian act, however I have no arguments to explain why I feel this way. (maybe I can explain why I still don't think it's authoritarian, although for now I have to admit you are right).

But can we at least agree that to the cause of socialism it's irrelevant?*

*not saying it's not worth discussing.

[Ocean Seal]

Let me get straight to the point... Communism is a big movement. There are millions upon millions of communists on this Earth.


Let me first state that I agree with you for a call of unity.



Yet we are plagued by infighting and disunity! I always wonder why socialism has never been achieved yet!
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's because communists can't agree on one tendency. There's orthodox marxism, there's titoism, maoism, marxism humanism, stalinism, eurocommunism, the list goes on.

No, its not entirely so. Even if we did all unite we would still be a relatively small faction in world politics. The main reason that we don't have socialism has more to do with the fact that we don't have institutions of working class power, or even proto institutions of working class power yet.




If we would set aside our common disagreements and united in a united front we could bring about socialism!
No, we couldn't, not yet anyway. But what it could do is allow us to organize the working class (each in our own individual way) without attempting to destroy what we each build up.

[CAleftist]

I don't think that's a valid analogy. Capitalism didn't require organizing and doing revolution against the old system. It was brought in almost naturally when the ruling/upper classes utilized new industrial technologies to keep their positions in the changing world. Communists have a much bigger challenge. And there are plenty of splinter sects within capitalism now. Just watch the Republicans and Democrats fight.

Added to this is that Communism is, theoretically, the highest stage of society. It doesn't exist...yet. And there's nothing after Communism, in terms of major historical development.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards Communism. But the fact is, capitalism was the reorganization of the old feudal relations, not the destruction of them. So the capitalists had it easier than us.

[Q]

As a Marxist humanist of the praxis school I am often accused of being a "revisionist."

Let me get straight to the point... Communism is a big movement. There are millions upon millions of communists on this Earth.

Yet we are plagued by infighting and disunity! I always wonder why socialism has never been achieved yet!

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's because communists can't agree on one tendency. There's orthodox marxism, there's titoism, maoism, marxism humanism, stalinism, eurocommunism, the list goes on.

If we would set aside our common disagreements and united in a united front we could bring about socialism!
I agree that disunity is making us irrelevant. However, if we persue unity, on what basis should it occur? This is the main question.

I believe unity should occur on three basic principles. I've written about it earlier here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1598):


Marxist unity (and, if they want to be involved, anarchists too) can only possibly happen, I think, on a common Marxist programme; a document spelling out the objective tasks of what is necessary to go from here to the seizure of power of the working class and the transformation of society towards communism after that. There needs to be an acceptance of such a programme, not necessarily an agreement, as such a programme needs to be debated and tested against living experience.

From such a programmatic approach does flow a minimum base of agreement though, a key set of principles without which you cannot work on the revolutionary project, or hold a pro-working class position even:
- The formation of the working class as its own self-aware collective entity, independent from the bosses and the state.
- Radical democracy, both as our projected future society as well as a principle within our movement today. It is not wrong to disagree, in fact quite the opposite. Controverse needs to happen in order for the movement to develop and politicise society, so let it happen openly.
- Internationalism as there can't be a positive national solution to capitalism. In Europe we have to work towards a common party-movement across the EU.

Incidentally, I do think the "Marxists-Leninists" and derivatives are going to have an issue with all three positions. But if they're willing to accept, I have no real issues being in one party with, for example, Maoists. As long as I have the right to openly disagree with whatever tactic, strategy or theory they have come up with, debate them on it and, tested against practical experiences, can win a majority in the party. Of course, they would have the same right to do so, as would anyone. This is what the workers movement is about: together forming our own collective politics.

The implied overarching idea is to build a party based on these principles and programme. "Party" shouldn't be understood here as a mere vote raising machine, to "conquer" parliament, but as a politicised and organised mass movement, with its own alternative culture, its own community homes, etc. Basically its own "society within the society". The purpose of this party-movement is to prepare the working class to become a ruling class and to build the mass institutions that will eventually replace the capitalist state by a social form of governance.

It would tremendously help our cause if the left did unite along such lines and become an actual relevant social weight within society to build a genuine mass movement :)

[Dogs On Acid]

Because Libertarians are bourgeois and Authoritarians are fascist.

There is no Left to unite.

[A Marxist Historian]

As a Marxist humanist of the praxis school I am often accused of being a "revisionist."

Let me get straight to the point... Communism is a big movement. There are millions upon millions of communists on this Earth.

Yet we are plagued by infighting and disunity! I always wonder why socialism has never been achieved yet!

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's because communists can't agree on one tendency. There's orthodox marxism, there's titoism, maoism, marxism humanism, stalinism, eurocommunism, the list goes on.

If we would set aside our common disagreements and united in a united front we could bring about socialism!

Well, as long as you sit around chatting on Revleft we can all get along together, sort of.

But when you actually try to *apply* communist ideas you discover that, in practice, the differences between the various schools of political radicalism are far, far greater than the petty little differences between, say, Democrats and Republicans. Or, for that matter, than the somewhat larger differences between, say, fascists and Nazis on the one hand and Democrats and Republicans on the other.

In the real world, there are rivers of blood between revolutionary Marxists on the one hand and Stalinists and Social Democrats on the other, even though they all call themselves "Marxists."

Stalin's murder of Trotsky and the German Social Dem's murder of Rosa Luxemburg is only the most famous example of why we can't "all just get along," as Rodney King put it.

And then there are the anarchists and such, who oppose all state powers, and therefore seek to overthrow the rule of the workers if it doesn't meet their sectarian requirements. Not even getting into Kronstadt and Makhno, but it was hard to keep up the original 1917 anarchist-Bolshevik alliance after the anarchists bombed the Moscow Bolshevik party headquarters in 1918, killing 83 prominent Moscow communists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Soldiers and prisoners are exerting authority over Nazis, are they not? Unless you consider being rounded up and shot at to be freedom in action*, the liberation of a concentration camp is an authoritarian act on the part of its participants, but it is ultimately a means to a very favourable, ethical and indeed "libertarian" end.

*This is not a moralistic perspective. I am not asking you to sympathise with Nazis in any way -- I do not. I simply ask that you observe that shooting someone demonstrates your authority to determine whether they live or die.


It doesn't imply I believe they had any sort of right to ownership of private property at all. I simply make the observation that, under the current socio-economic order, capitalists are free to own private property -- that is to say, the present system ensures that they have the liberty to do so. Do you dispute any of this?



Communism, as broadly defined by Engels, is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. This liberation of the proletariat can only take place after the seizure of the means of production by the workers, the abolition of wage labour, and the seizure of political power by the workers. The second is entirely dependent on the first, and the first and third are inherently authoritarian acts (they are acts in which an entire class exerts its authority over another class; feel free to dispute this) -- their classification as authoritarian does not change depending on whether or not they are used for authoritarian or libertarian ends. The internal nature and structure of the movement will be "libertarian" and democratic, but viewed from the outside and as a collective whole, it will be a movement seeking to forcibly expropriate an entire social class -- the bourgeoisie. Workers' revolution, specifically, is by definition an authoritarian means to a libertarian end.

I personally prefer my materialist "nonsense" over your idealistic nonsense. There is no mystical quality pertaining to the expropriation of property which somehow makes forcibly doing so -- even by a large section of the population with whom we are aligned, and indeed whom we are a part of -- a non-authoritarian act. To quote you, it's the same act and that's all that matters. It's inherently authoritarian no matter who does it.

I think it's hard to beat the way Engels put it himself, in his article "On Authority."

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists."

For the full, excellent article, here's the URL.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Why do you say that? Please elaborate further.


I'm straying off-topic here, but I think this should be addressed.

Chomsky had this to say about free speech:
I don't believe in the abstract principle of free speech. I don't believe in the free speech of reactionaries, therefore I don't believe in it at all -- and that's perfectly OK with me. I want nothing to do with allowing reactionaries a platform. I believe they should be opposed and shouted down by the working class wherever and whenever they choose to spew their anti-worker bullshit. I don't think the state should have anything to do with suppressing it though -- the state has entirely different reasons for what it does; the maintenance of the conditions of bourgeois rule.

Some food for thought:


Off the top of my head, the only Lenin quote I can see myself agreeing with:

As to Chomsky yes he's a free speech absolutist, and that's how he wandered into defending the free speech of Nazis, something he has tried to live down ever since, and failed to do. In fact he didn't even stop with defending their free speech, but got suckered into claiming that a notorious French Holocaust denier was just an "ordinary liberal.'

Second worst blunder of his political career, worst being his claims back in the '70s that Pol Pot wasn't really that bad. He always claimed that he was just refusing to believe Western propaganda, but I think the real reason was his obsessive hatred for the Soviet Union, being as the Soviets and the Vietnamese were cleaning up the mess in Cambodia over the objections of Jimmy Carter and Reagan, who were supporting Pol Pot

It's because of these embarrassments that he is so much less radical than he used to be, pretty much turning into an "ordinary liberal" himself, like for example his support of Clinton's bombing of the Serbs.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I have to say on the one hand it sounds very logical, on the other hand forcefully abolishing authoritarian social relations still does not sound like an authoritarian act, however I have no arguments to explain why I feel this way. (maybe I can explain why I still don't think it's authoritarian, although for now I have to admit you are right).

But can we at least agree that to the cause of socialism it's irrelevant?*

*not saying it's not worth discussing.

Sorry, don't think we can. If we have illusions in "anti-authoritarianism," then firstly it will be tough to make a revolution in the first place, for the reasons Engels explains. And secondly, then we'll have no idea of what to do after the revolution, everything will come unstuck, and the reactionaries will quickly be back in power and out for blood.

Mussolini, Hitler ... once was more than enough for that crap, let's not go through all that again just for the sake of "anti-authoritarian" dogma.

-M.H.-

[Apoi_Viitor]

like for example his support of Clinton's bombing of the Serbs.-M.H.-

Proof?


Mussolini, Hitler ... once was more than enough for that crap, let's not go through all that again just for the sake of "anti-authoritarian" dogma.

Because "anti-authoritarianism" was responsible for Mussolini and Hitler...?


Not even getting into Kronstadt and Makhno, but it was hard to keep up the original 1917 anarchist-Bolshevik alliance after the anarchists bombed the Moscow Bolshevik party headquarters in 1918, killing 83 prominent Moscow communists.

Of course that bombing also occurred after the Bolsheviks decided to imprison and attack anarchists in Petrograd and Moscow...

[Os Cangaceiros]

And then there are the anarchists and such, who oppose all state powers, and therefore seek to overthrow the rule of the workers if it doesn't meet their sectarian requirements. Not even getting into Kronstadt and Makhno, but it was hard to keep up the original 1917 anarchist-Bolshevik alliance after the anarchists bombed the Moscow Bolshevik party headquarters in 1918, killing 83 prominent Moscow communists.

-M.H.-

I'm not sure about a bombing in 1918, but the bombing of the HQ in 1919 was in retaliation for the raid on the Moscow Federation's "House of Anarchy" by the Cheka in early 1918, in which over 40 anarchists were killed in a shoot-out. The raid was in turn in retaliation for the petty theft of certain state assets like cars by the Black Guards. So I don't think that you're putting what happened in the right perspective.

There was a good thread on this subject that I just spent ten whole minutes searching for, but my efforts were in vain. But, in brief: Russian anarchism at the turn of the 20th century was a strange milieu, with no small amount of individualist anarchists associated with the Gordin brothers and people like Lev Chernyi (who was framed and executed for the Moscow bombing, although he was part of the organization that committed the act). These people were "troublemakers". However, there were also dedicated revolutionary syndicalists who would face increasing unjust repression by the OGPU in the years leading up to Stalin's taking of power, although they were still technically allowed to exist, a condition which of course changed under uncle Joe.

[Sam Varriano]

It seems easy to blame sectarianism on those that have founding figures, but I think this is a bit of a cop out. It's true to some degree, but I haven't met that many serious Trotskyists that obsess over Trotsky or Marxist-Leninists that obsess over Stalin.

Also, it seems unfair to conveniently heap all the blame for prior failure on the back of the Marxist-Leninists. Hypocritical in that many of their critics possess such romantic and idealistic conceptions that they are arguably untenable in the face of reality. However, it would be nice if we could all just get our shit together and destroy capitalism.

At least it can be said that the far left will never be an echo chamber..


...I consider myself to be a Marxist-Leninist and I don't accept Stalin, I basically just think the best course of action was written by Lenin in his book "State and Revolutution"

[Die Rote Fahne]

All communists should unite under a single party during a revolution. Within the party will be heated debates, and discussion about who does what, what goes where etc. The German Social Democracy had numerous views within it. It's at the point when purges by the majority within the party eliminate debate and discussion, for the sake of it's own central committee and it's views, that prevents this. Within the party, the masses can choose, not the central committee, which platform represents them best after issues are discussed and debated.

Problem is that some people would rather have their own party for their own tendency because if the masses don't choose their exact path, then everything will go to shit. Stalinists and Trotskyists within the same party having rational discussion and debate rather than "STFU should icepick you counter-revolutionary scum"...etc etc. If you really think the other is wrong, discuss and debate it within the same revolutionary party, and let the masses decide.


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element". - Rosa Luxemburg

I think this quote is very valid to use within the context of the party as well.

[00000000000]

It's hliarious / tragic the number of times a communist or socialist party will split and splinter into smaller and smaller groups whose pendatry and dogma increase as their numbers decrease. One of the main reasons I left the Socialist Party of England and Wales was b/c I was sick of hearing people ***** about the other parties (even when part of an electoral coalition). They hated the Socialist Worker's Party as much as they hated the National Front!
Members of the 'major' parties may have internal factions, but they still remain more united in some sense than many of those on the Left...quite disheartening..if that's a word.

End of line

[El Louton]

Because we're too busy on RevLeft!

[jmlima]

Because leftists start to split over if organizing is a good idea or not, then they split over how to organize, then they split over who will lead the organizing, then they will split over some minor doctrinaire quibble, and so on, and so on. Until they are left alone typing furiously in their keyboard either to their unknown blog, or in some internet forum, and thinking that revolution will happen whilst they are in their bloody pyjamas, typing, hiding behind a screen.

[~Spectre]

Because WE are right and THEY are wrong.

More like 'cause THEY are right, and WE are left. Na'mean?

[Tim Cornelis]

Sorry, don't think we can. If we have illusions in "anti-authoritarianism," then firstly it will be tough to make a revolution in the first place, for the reasons Engels explains. And secondly, then we'll have no idea of what to do after the revolution, everything will come unstuck, and the reactionaries will quickly be back in power and out for blood.

Mussolini, Hitler ... once was more than enough for that crap, let's not go through all that again just for the sake of "anti-authoritarian" dogma.

-M.H.-

And how does anti-authoritarianism lead to non-organisationalism? Of course we know what to do after the revolution: construct a network of communes, defend these if necessary, and bring the economy under control of the workers. Whether we consider this authoritarian or libertarian is irrelevant since the objective is the same.

[Kosakk]

I agree an united left will be stronger, but it's more important that the people are united.
And I'm not gonna leave me differences toward other tendencies behind,
just to wait for the revolution to come around.
I have my principles!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

All communists should unite under a single party during a revolution. Within the party will be heated debates, and discussion about who does what, what goes where etc. The German Social Democracy had numerous views within it. It's at the point when purges by the majority within the party eliminate debate and discussion, for the sake of it's own central committee and it's views, that prevents this. Within the party, the masses can choose, not the central committee, which platform represents them best after issues are discussed and debated.

Problem is that some people would rather have their own party for their own tendency because if the masses don't choose their exact path, then everything will go to shit. Stalinists and Trotskyists within the same party having rational discussion and debate rather than "STFU should icepick you counter-revolutionary scum"...etc etc. If you really think the other is wrong, discuss and debate it within the same revolutionary party, and let the masses decide.

- Rosa Luxemburg

I think this quote is very valid to use within the context of the party as well.

In an historic time I might agree with you, but do you not think that given the context of what has occurred within the left hitherto, that what you are demanding is somewhat unrealistic?

It may be the case (and it would be for the good of the movement) if the working class shook off the cast of the Stalinists and the Trotskyists and took control for themselves, i.e. self-emancipation within a mass movement model, but can you really see Leninists, Trotskyists, Anarchists and any other assortment of tendencies actually uniting under a mass party/movement? I just don't think that it can happen.

Hopefully the start of my previous paragraph will ring true and we can cast off the 20th century Statist ideologies, but you never know. It's still problematic to make a call for unity like you have, when these Statist tendencies still exist, as if I then respond like I have, I seem sectarian and actually anti-unity, despite agreeing with your statement, in principle.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm not sure about a bombing in 1918, but the bombing of the HQ in 1919 was in retaliation for the raid on the Moscow Federation's "House of Anarchy" by the Cheka in early 1918, in which over 40 anarchists were killed in a shoot-out. The raid was in turn in retaliation for the petty theft of certain state assets like cars by the Black Guards. So I don't think that you're putting what happened in the right perspective.

There was a good thread on this subject that I just spent ten whole minutes searching for, but my efforts were in vain. But, in brief: Russian anarchism at the turn of the 20th century was a strange milieu, with no small amount of individualist anarchists associated with the Gordin brothers and people like Lev Chernyi (who was framed and executed for the Moscow bombing, although he was part of the organization that committed the act). These people were "troublemakers". However, there were also dedicated revolutionary syndicalists who would face increasing unjust repression by the OGPU in the years leading up to Stalin's taking of power, although they were still technically allowed to exist, a condition which of course changed under uncle Joe.

Yes indeed. For that matter there were quite a few "Soviet anarchists" who joined the Party, some of whom stayed the revolutionary course and opposed Stalin, and some became Stalinist bureaucrats.

Most famously Genrikh Yagoda, the first head of the NKVD, who had started his political career as an anarchist. And Victor Serge, a just barely former anarchist who for a while was a prominent Trotskyist, then fell out with Trotsky and went part way back to his anarchist roots. As well as writing some wonderful novels.

And indeed you also had dedicated revolutionary syndicalists who didn't go over to counterrevolution like Makhno but often had troubles with Soviet authorities, sometimes their own fault and sometimes that of overly suspicious Chekists, hey nobody's perfect.

As for the bombing, my memory is fall 1918, maybe I'm off by a year. It was more however than just some petty thefts by the Anarchist Black Guard.

One of the first things done during the revolution was to release *all* prisoners without exception from Tsarist prisons, except for the Romanovs and a few other right wing political prisoners that Kerensky had been compelled to jail. The idea was to give all victims of the Tsarist legal system a second chance and the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. And with most of them, this worked.

But you had a certain number of hardened criminal elements who were not reformed by the revolutionary atmosphere, so what they would do is form phony "anarchist communes" and set about mugging and robbery under the Black Flag. In the first months of the USSR Soviet authorities repeatedly begged anarchists in Moscow and Petrograd just to investigate the situation and inform them which communes were legit and which were phony. This the anarchists refused to do, seeing it as an impermissible intervention in their affairs by The State.

This created an intolerable situation, and the petty thefts you mentioned were I think just the straw that broke the camel's back, the final spark for the conflict.

After the bombing of the Moscow party HQ, that was it, the non-Soviet anarchists were suppressed.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Proof?

A mistake on my part, thanks for correcting me. Apologies to Chomsky...

What I was thinking of was his original support for economic sanctions vs. Saddam Hussein and Iraq in 1991, and his support for the US-imposed "no fly zone" in Kurdistan during the '90s under Clinton.

He did withdraw his support for economic sanctions vs. Iraq when Clinton actually implemented them, and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis starved to death. But that doesn't change the fact that this was originally what he had advocated as what to "do about" Iraq invading Kuwait.



Because "anti-authoritarianism" was responsible for Mussolini and Hitler...?

You're quoting me out of context, rather misleadingly. Like I said:

"If we have illusions in "anti-authoritarianism," ... we'll have no idea of what to do after the revolution, everything will come unstuck, and the reactionaries will quickly be back in power and out for blood.

Mussolini, Hitler ... once was more than enough for that crap, let's not go through all that again just for the sake of "anti-authoritarian" dogma."



Of course that bombing also occurred after the Bolsheviks decided to imprison and attack anarchists in Petrograd and Moscow...

See other posting.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

All communists should unite under a single party during a revolution. Within the party will be heated debates, and discussion about who does what, what goes where etc. The German Social Democracy had numerous views within it. It's at the point when purges by the majority within the party eliminate debate and discussion, for the sake of it's own central committee and it's views, that prevents this. Within the party, the masses can choose, not the central committee, which platform represents them best after issues are discussed and debated.

Problem is that some people would rather have their own party for their own tendency because if the masses don't choose their exact path, then everything will go to shit. Stalinists and Trotskyists within the same party having rational discussion and debate rather than "STFU should icepick you counter-revolutionary scum"...etc etc. If you really think the other is wrong, discuss and debate it within the same revolutionary party, and let the masses decide.

- Rosa Luxemburg

I think this quote is very valid to use within the context of the party as well.

All communists should unite in one party? Sure. But what's a communist? Was Stalin a communist? And how about the German Social Democrats, Noske and Scheidemann and so forth? Should all "communists" have stayed in one party with them? Even Kautsky had problems with that, for a while anyway.

No, if you want to have a revolution you can't have a party with both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries within it.

If you do, the counterrevolutionaries will use that to prevent a revolution, and quite likely to physically murder the revolutionaries, whose addresses and so forth will be in the party records after all.

Stalinist and Social Democrats murder revolutionaries when push comes to shove. Always have, always will. That's because they represent different social interests than do the revolutionary Marxists.

Social Democrats represent the labor aristocracy, which has made its peace with capitalism. Stalinists represent Stalinist state bureaucracies, same deal.

Revolutionary Marxists represent the best interests of the working class, even when the workers haven't grasped this yet.

Ultimately, it is material social interests of different classes and layers of society which shape history, not the petty bourgeois hope that "we can all just get along."

-M.H.-

[MustCrushCapitalism]

It really does bother me, how Communists are so incredibly divided over a few historical feuds with no significance to today.

[promethean]

It really does bother me, how Communists are so incredibly divided over a few historical feuds with no significance to today.
Most of divisions among communists are not based on historical feuds, but on things that are significant today. Given that the divisions are based on significant things like vanguard parties, national liberation, class collaboration and so on, how do you plan to achieve unity?

[jmlima]

Most of divisions among communists are not based on historical feuds, but on things that are significant today. Given that the divisions are based on significant things like vanguard parties, national liberation, class collaboration and so on, how do you plan to achieve unity?

Significant? Yes, indeed, if you lose sight of the target and remain focused on the process, in fact too much focus on the process usually leads to paralysis.

It would be funny if it wasn't serious, but many of those differences arose due to the inner desires of a few individuals in past historical situations, at a time where such divisions actually suited them very well.

[citizen of industry]

Capitalism limits the political spectrum to bourgeoisie parties. Once you get past that the political spectrum is actually very large. "All commies" is quite a generalization, because many parties are further left/right from each other and disagree on both theoretical issues and modern political positions. I'm a big fan of the united front idea, where separate parties unite over specific issues they share in common. But for "all commies to unite" you would have to have a very watered down program.

[jmlima]

... But for "all commies to unite" you would have to have a very watered down program.

Maybe. But what is worst, inaction and total lack of results, and a very politically focused program, or action and a program that focus on the single goal of uniting the masses?

I thought left ideology is about tolerance, respect, and learning to accept and incorporate all tendencies of the same purpose...

Is it still the case, as in the SCW, that some leftists (namely the Communist party back then) find being a trotskyst as less acceptable that being from the falange?

[citizen of industry]

Maybe. But what is worst, inaction and total lack of results, and a very politically focused program, or action and a program that focus on the single goal of uniting the masses?

I thought left ideology is about tolerance, respect, and learning to accept and incorporate all tendencies of the same purpose...

Is it still the case, as in the SCW, that some leftists (namely the Communist party back then) find being a trotskyst as less acceptable that being from the falange?

Believe you me, I'm not sectarian and I work with a lot of syndicalists, unionists and various stripes of trots. Hence the united front. We work together on issues we agree on, rather than arguing about program all the time. But I don't see creating a kind of all-encompassing program that keeps everyone happy as feasible.

[jmlima]

Believe you me, I'm not sectarian and I work with a lot of syndicalists, unionists and various stripes of trots. Hence the united front. We work together on issues we agree on, rather than arguing about program all the time. But I don't see creating a kind of all-encompassing program that keeps everyone happy as feasible.

Oh but I agree keeping everyone happy is impossible. But as you say trying to incorporate the maximum amount of people should be a primary objective of the left in this day and age. To prove that pluralism can indeed be a source to move the world in a different direction is n obvious first step into building some semblance of international movement that can fight for a new world.

[citizen of industry]

Oh but I agree keeping everyone happy is impossible. But as you say trying to incorporate the maximum amount of people should be a primary objective of the left in this day and age. To prove that pluralism can indeed be a source to move the world in a different direction is n obvious first step into building some semblance of international movement that can fight for a new world.

Solidarity US is an example of a party with a very wide program. But they seem about as small as every other party about.

[Die Rote Fahne]

In an historic time I might agree with you, but do you not think that given the context of what has occurred within the left hitherto, that what you are demanding is somewhat unrealistic?

It may be the case (and it would be for the good of the movement) if the working class shook off the cast of the Stalinists and the Trotskyists and took control for themselves, i.e. self-emancipation within a mass movement model, but can you really see Leninists, Trotskyists, Anarchists and any other assortment of tendencies actually uniting under a mass party/movement? I just don't think that it can happen.

Hopefully the start of my previous paragraph will ring true and we can cast off the 20th century Statist ideologies, but you never know. It's still problematic to make a call for unity like you have, when these Statist tendencies still exist, as if I then respond like I have, I seem sectarian and actually anti-unity, despite agreeing with your statement, in principle.You don't think that in the event of a working class revolution, the various tendencies won't be able to unite under a single party?

Maybe your right, but it should happen.

[jmlima]

Solidarity US is an example of a party with a very wide program. But they seem about as small as every other party about.

There's another example in Portugal from the 'Bloco de Esquerda', which despite still having an entire ocean separating them from the stalinist PC, is good value for your money thus far, and managed to collect almost the entire reminder of the left.

[Rooster]

I disagree that communists have to be strongly united within one mass party as I think that would dilute the revolutionary push of some groups and force compromises with others and make many ineffectual. I do not disagree with united fronts of revolutionary parties and groups though. Besides, I think the whole notion of communist parties being the fore front of revolution is wrong, egocentric and secondary to the actual workers making the revolution for themselves.

[A Marxist Historian]

Significant? Yes, indeed, if you lose sight of the target and remain focused on the process, in fact too much focus on the process usually leads to paralysis.

It would be funny if it wasn't serious, but many of those differences arose due to the inner desires of a few individuals in past historical situations, at a time where such divisions actually suited them very well.

The process is what you do, right?

So if you only focus on the target and not the process, then all you can do is talk about how socialism would be a good thing, and not actually do anything about it.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Maybe. But what is worst, inaction and total lack of results, and a very politically focused program, or action and a program that focus on the single goal of uniting the masses?

I thought left ideology is about tolerance, respect, and learning to accept and incorporate all tendencies of the same purpose...

Is it still the case, as in the SCW, that some leftists (namely the Communist party back then) find being a trotskyst as less acceptable that being from the falange?

Um, yeah to your question, you just have to read certain Revleft postings.

But, uniting the masses to do what? Hitler after all managed to "unite the masses" in Germany.

In Spain, the Communist Party were the great advocates of uniting the masses -- for a broad coalition that everyone could agree on, namely just preserving democracy and opposing fascism. Trouble was, a lot of the masses were interested in a social revolution.

So they set about killing all the "Trotskyite" and anarchist "disrupters of unity," who they claimed were a "fascist Fifth Column."

Left ideology is *not* about tolerance, it is about intolerance. Intolerance of oppression, racism, capitalism, imperialism etc. etc. It is about organizing the anger of the masses against their oppressors. Zero tolerance for capitalism! Make the world a "zero tolerance zone" for oppression.

And it should be about intolerance of so called leftists who sell out the struggle of the masses against their oppressors.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You don't think that in the event of a working class revolution, the various tendencies won't be able to unite under a single party?

Maybe your right, but it should happen.

That would be nice, but that's not historically what has happened. Certainly not what happened in Russia!

In fact, when push comes to shove, it usually turns out that political differences that seem pretty abstract and minor in normal conditions turn out to be life and death issues that people die over.

What does happen however is big political reconfigurations on the left, as it becomes *clear* to masses of people which political ideas are right and which are wrong. So you have lots of splits and fusions.

-M.H.-

[Zav]

Why do you say that? Please elaborate further.


I'm straying off-topic here, but I think this should be addressed.

Chomsky had this to say about free speech:
I don't believe in the abstract principle of free speech. I don't believe in the free speech of reactionaries, therefore I don't believe in it at all -- and that's perfectly OK with me. I want nothing to do with allowing reactionaries a platform. I believe they should be opposed and shouted down by the working class wherever and whenever they choose to spew their anti-worker bullshit. I don't think the state should have anything to do with suppressing it though -- the state has entirely different reasons for what it does; the maintenance of the conditions of bourgeois rule.

Some food for thought:


Off the top of my head, the only Lenin quote I can see myself agreeing with:
Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for me.

Honestly I shouldn't have put Marxists in that list. They're sort of in the middle of the spectrum. Some would fit into it, and others wouldn't, Libertarian Marxists, for example. I don't consider anyone who advocates massive State power and total centralization to be Communists, as that is the antithesis of Communism. It makes as much sense as using Fascism to get to it or using Primitivism to achieve Technocracy.
I agree with Chomsky. If you were to restrict the freedoms of people you don't like, then you're no better than Nazis or Stalinists.
The freedom to spew hatred and advocate genocide is a negative liberty because it gives fuel to those activities. The freedom to talk about Statism, conformity, and other aspects of Fascism is a positive liberty and therefore fine, albeit moronic.
Shouting down a child rapist is a reflection of cultural values and has nothing to do with free speech. Prevailing culture supports warfare, Imperialism, genocide, and all sorts of discrimination, so it is no wonder Nazis are tolerated.
I disagree with that statement, as with pretty much all Lenin quotes. If anything the bourgeois favor the restriction or elimination of free speech to maintain power.

[jmlima]

The process is what you do, right?

So if you only focus on the target and not the process, then all you can do is talk about how socialism would be a good thing, and not actually do anything about it.

-M.H.-

No.

The process is talking. I'm advocating talking less and doing more.

[jmlima]

Um, yeah to your question, you just have to read certain Revleft postings.

But, uniting the masses to do what? Hitler after all managed to "unite the masses" in Germany.

...
Left ideology is *not* about tolerance, it is about intolerance. Intolerance of oppression, racism, capitalism, imperialism etc. etc. It is about organizing the anger of the masses against their oppressors. Zero tolerance for capitalism! Make the world a "zero tolerance zone" for oppression.

And it should be about intolerance of so called leftists who sell out the struggle of the masses against their oppressors.

-M.H.-

So, how do you propose to change anything with de-united masses?

Re tolerance - intolerance , that's really splitting hairs and semantics. I do wonder how do you make the world a "zero tolerance zone" without uniting masses.

[hatzel]

The freedom to spew hatred and advocate genocide is a negative liberty because it gives fuel to those activities. The freedom to talk about Statism, conformity, and other aspects of Fascism is a positive liberty and therefore fine, albeit moronic.

I don't know if you're actually trying to talk about positive and negative liberties, or if you just mean this to mean 'good' liberty and 'bad' liberty (whatever that means), but...well, if you mean the former, then you're using the words wrong. Freedom of speech is always a negative liberty.

[thriller]

I'm not sure why. I guess the course of history has split us into different camps. Although part of me doesn't mind some of the disunity. I think someone already posted this, but disagreement is good. It means we are thinking for ourselves and understanding the world through different eyes. When everyone agrees on everything and people march in lock-step, it's called fascism. Plus I think most commies here would agree that it wouldn't matter at all if every communist got together in one group, the workers are the people who need to unite.

[A Marxist Historian]

No.

The process is talking. I'm advocating talking less and doing more.

But what do you do? Wise to at least think about it first. And wise to talk with others, so different people are trying to do the same thing at the same time, and are not at cross purposes.

The differences between left groups are because they want to do different things in order to obtain the final goal of socialism. Things that contradict each other.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So, how do you propose to change anything with de-united masses?

Re tolerance - intolerance , that's really splitting hairs and semantics. I do wonder how do you make the world a "zero tolerance zone" without uniting masses.

OK, forget arguing about words then.

But yes, of course you have to unite the masses to get anything accomplished. But first you have to figure out just what they would want to do when united.

Different left groups have different plans for that. The way to a revolution is the left group with the right idea, like say the Bolsheviks in Russia, triumphing over all the left groups with wrong ideas, and uniting the masses around them, as opposed to the other left groups.

-M.H.-

[Waffles]

I think Marxism is the only way to allow Communism to move forwards.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The problem with all this "unite the left" chatter is that it forgets that extremely costly lessons of the past 150 years. The precondition for the Russian Revolution was the SPLIT between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Quoting Luxembourg on party unity strikes me as moderately absurd. The German revolution failed, in large part because the Spartacus Bund split too late from the USPD (and of course from the larger SPD). If you think of the Vanguard Party's purpose -- leading proletarian revolution -- there is room for debate, surely, but not for people who's views have been shown to be the path to defeat and destruction. As some have said, we have enough negative examples, we cannot afford to repeat them over and over.

[A Marxist Historian]

The problem with all this "unite the left" chatter is that it forgets that extremely costly lessons of the past 150 years. The precondition for the Russian Revolution was the SPLIT between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Quoting Luxembourg on party unity strikes me as moderately absurd. The German revolution failed, in large part because the Spartacus Bund split too late from the USPD (and of course from the larger SPD). If you think of the Vanguard Party's purpose -- leading proletarian revolution -- there is room for debate, surely, but not for people who's views have been shown to be the path to defeat and destruction. As some have said, we have enough negative examples, we cannot afford to repeat them over and over.

Well, for those who think the whole left can unite, why can't we all just get along like Rodney King said, you don't even have to go back to history.

Just go to the Greece page in "ongoing struggles," and read about what is going on in Greece right now.

Which is, by the way, nothing unusual. This is what happens when leftwing politics exits the land of discussion and the occasional feel-good rally and starts to affect the real world.

Always, always. Get used to it, this is what always happens.

-M.H.-

[todd]

Maybe we should. But the reality is that we all hate each other too much. There's certainly a strong authoritarian/libertarian divide.

Personally, I don't believe that the libertarian side do themselves (ourselves) any favours by accepting Leninism and Maoism as genuinely part of the movement overall, then criticising and moaning about it til the cows come home. We really need to break away from that side of things and accept that the 20th century and beyond has shown that Leninism can never lead to the kind of Socialism we want.

Having said that, maybe we should unite. The Leninists crumbled in the face of some quite determined opposition in some places, the GDR being one example. I'd imagine that the right, centre and left of capital would combine under a non-capitalist system, as opposition. Perhaps we should be doing the same. We are foolhardy, I guess.

Though having said that, too much historical shit has happened to make that a reality. I know who I blame. I find it difficult to accept working with someone who would most likely have me executed were they to ever come anywhere near the organs of power and security apparatus.

I agree.
I get the feeling from history, and what I've read on this site just since I joined, that the authoritarians would likely cooperate with libertarians during the revolution, then do everything they could to put themselves in power, and spend decades marginalising outlawing and executing those that do not fit into their ideology.

[todd]

Why do you say that? Please elaborate further.


I'm straying off-topic here, but I think this should be addressed.

Chomsky had this to say about free speech:
I don't believe in the abstract principle of free speech. I don't believe in the free speech of reactionaries, therefore I don't believe in it at all -- and that's perfectly OK with me. I want nothing to do with allowing reactionaries a platform. I believe they should be opposed and shouted down by the working class wherever and whenever they choose to spew their anti-worker bullshit. I don't think the state should have anything to do with suppressing it though -- the state has entirely different reasons for what it does; the maintenance of the conditions of bourgeois rule.

Some food for thought:


Off the top of my head, the only Lenin quote I can see myself agreeing with:

I'm sorry I'm new here, but you seem to be defending mob rule.
Your hardened materialistic view rejects the notion of anything other than objects and means of production. That means that there is no such thing as rights, unless I'm mistaken.
So the mob gets to just shout down anything it doesn't like, and since there is no such thing as right and wrong or fair play, there's no reason why it shouldn't behave however it wants.
To me this is equally disturbing applied to individuals, and the revolution in general. If there is no ethics, no mutually agreed upon code of conduct then there is nothing to stand in opposition to the most brutal of dictatorial conditions.
From what I've gleamed so far Marx rejected traditional morality because it was born from a framework of oppression and class struggle. He felt that the idea of justice was a product of the ruling class, and was imposed upon the ruled. Does this forbid revolutionaries from choosing a different form of justice, fair play?
I must have read a dozen philosophers that go on about justice. Most say that what we think of as justice is not really justice, and then go on to describe a new definition of justice with a basis founded outside of traditional ideology. Materialism is a very good justification for the rejection traditional morality, but to stop there seems incomplete. Choosing a new more philosophically defensible basis for social justice to replace what materialism has disproven would seem to be the natural next step. After the revolution when materialism no longer has much of an affect of society won't it be possible to build a new moral paradigm free from ruling class taint?

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm sorry I'm new here, but you seem to be defending mob rule.
Your hardened materialistic view rejects the notion of anything other than objects and means of production. That means that there is no such thing as rights, unless I'm mistaken.
So the mob gets to just shout down anything it doesn't like, and since there is no such thing as right and wrong or fair play, there's no reason why it shouldn't behave however it wants.
To me this is equally disturbing applied to individuals, and the revolution in general. If there is no ethics, no mutually agreed upon code of conduct then there is nothing to stand in opposition to the most brutal of dictatorial conditions.
From what I've gleamed so far Marx rejected traditional morality because it was born from a framework of oppression and class struggle. He felt that the idea of justice was a product of the ruling class, and was imposed upon the ruled. Does this forbid revolutionaries from choosing a different form of justice, fair play?
I must have read a dozen philosophers that go on about justice. Most say that what we think of as justice is not really justice, and then go on to describe a new definition of justice with a basis founded outside of traditional ideology. Materialism is a very good justification for the rejection traditional morality, but to stop there seems incomplete. Choosing a new more philosophically defensible basis for social justice to replace what materialism has disproven would seem to be the natural next step. After the revolution when materialism no longer has much of an affect of society won't it be possible to build a new moral paradigm free from ruling class taint?

Yes, there absolutely is such a thing as right and wrong. History is one long struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. What serves the interests of the oppressed is right, what serves the interests of their oppressors is wrong.

That is why the rule of left wing, revolutionary, working class "mobs" is right, and why the rule of right wing, fascist, petty bourgeois mobs is wrong.

Read Trotsky's very fine pamphlet, Their Morals and Ours.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index19.html

The perfect moral catechism for the 21st century, free from the taint of the ruling classes.

Among other things, he explains how brutal dictatorships, lies, deceit, murder of the innocent, torture, etc. etc. are all morally wrong, because they serve the interests of the oppressors, not the oppressed.

-M.H.-

[Bardo]

Cool story, bro.

I've never seen so many reps for a single post before

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well, for those who think the whole left can unite, why can't we all just get along like Rodney King said, you don't even have to go back to history.

Just go to the Greece page in "ongoing struggles," and read about what is going on in Greece right now.

Which is, by the way, nothing unusual. This is what happens when leftwing politics exits the land of discussion and the occasional feel-good rally and starts to affect the real world.

Always, always. Get used to it, this is what always happens.

-M.H.-
I get it, MH. I just thought I would throw in my idea that unity based on anything other than a revolutionary program leads to anything but revolution. No problem with real united fronts (march separately, strike together) around specific actions (could have spared the world the Nazi victory in Germany). It is maddening that the same freaking lessons need to be learned over and over at such a brutal cost to humanity.