Discussion of tendencies and the current state of Marxism

[jookyle]

I thank Comrade Student for making the post about being stuck in the past for the inspiration to write this.

Since joining Revleft tendencies have come into mind more then they ever have. Before Revleft I gave almost no thought to it. But I was eager to find one that I fit in, to talk about and defend. However, I see this as being pointless because the tendencies we gather around are based on ideas written decades ago. The people who wrote these ideas were written in response to their own times, not ours. We face situations that they didn't, such as neo-liberalism. The bourgeoisie now make money out of money. The role of the worker for profit is diminishing.

I do not mean to say we should disregaurd these great thinkers ideas. Quite the contrary, we should use them to the extent that they can be used. Take the best from each strain of thought and put it together while we ourselves, as people of this world build upon them. We must realize that some ideas of these great thinkers do not apply as much today if at all. While other ideas we can use and apply to our own world and taking other ideas and evolving them.

Things are not so black and white. We all(for the most part) desire the same goal(which unites us as comrades) and are separated by the process. We can use the ideas of multiple tendencies for the situation at hand.For example, Permanent Revolution and Socialism In One Country are not incompatible with each other. They deal with under-developed/third world/backwards countries. These countries can experience Permanent Revolution and when the dictatorship of the proletarian is established they may move into SiOC as to strengthen themselves. Although I am a firm internationalist I wouldn't entertain the idea that an underdeveloped country should go out and "export the revolution" when their people are sleeping in mud. There were many great thinkers with many great ideas, we should as many as we can.

We need to combine as many good ideas as we can,evolve what we need to, and create what we should as a united communist community and not split ourselves into tendencies that define era's that existed decades ago. We need to throw away the ideas that haven't worked and move forward with the ones that have and can.We can not allow our admiration, gratitude, and appreciation of the thinkers of the past hinder us from being just as important and providing the world with just as important works, contributions, and actions. We must always remain critical thinkers providing critical analysis of the past and present.

Marx,Engels,Lenin, gave us the foundation. Works like The State and The Revolution are more important to the movement then we could possible say BUT it is not the end. As the world moves forward, as capitalism changes and evolves, so must we in order to combat it the best way possible.

I thank you, comrades, for indulging my outburst and I hope I have not wasted your time.

[Drosophila]

Tendencies on RevLeft are ridiculous. I think this would be a much better place if people weren't allowed to display their tendency.

[Questionable]

I greatly appreciate your thoughts, but I honestly don't see where the problem is coming from. There are many leftist movements occurring in the world right now. It's not as if every leftist in the world is sitting at home deciding whether to read Stalin or Trotsky. Revleft is in a state of disarray from sectarianism, but Revleft does not reflect the whole left-wing movement by any means. A lot of people are active on this website because they're not part of any real movement and have no way to contribute other than argue theory. There are real leftists out there making their own theories, some more closely resembling historical figures than others, but I don't think the left-wing is at a dead stop by any means.

[honest john's firing squad]

Tendencies on RevLeft are ridiculous. I think this would be a much better place if people weren't allowed to display their tendency.
I come here for the sectarianism

[Le Libérer]

I come here for the sectarianism

Please don't troll in Learning.


Thoughts/rant about tendencies and current state of Marxism

And please no rants. I would hate for this thread get out of control and have to shut it down because its a great topic.

Edited name of thread to
Discussion of tendencies and the current state of Marxism

[honest john's firing squad]

Please don't troll in Learning.
This thread doesn't even belong in the learning forum, so..

[TheMyth]

The revisionism of ML :
The idea of ​​a vanguard detachment of disciplined, efficient, led Lenin to formulate, in the historical conditions of Russia in 1917, the principle of democratic centralism. This is therefore a formulation not Marxist but Leninist. Furthermore, this idea became the cornerstone of the Leninist conception (not Marxist) party of new type.

Lenin put the problem in relatively simple terms. When the party must make a decision, it must meet its members, promote an open discussion, broad, deep, allowing the detailed examination of the issue, to finally, as the crowning of the discussion process, put to a vote the various positions up for grabs . This is the moment of democracy. Once consolidated a majority, the minority should be subordinate to it. This is the moment of centralism. Hence the formula Leninist democratic centralism.

The principle is crystalline. But which party was it? He was thought as an instrument for the realization of any political task? Without dwell, I think I can say that this was a party to the insurgency. It was effective as proposed. It was a party fit for a political struggle in the historical conditions of what Gramsci called "East", in which the state was everything and "civil society" jelly, which allowed the political struggle was conducted as a "war of movement". There, the state was essentially a repressive apparatus. The seizure of power military-bureaucratic state was placed as a central objective. The promptness requirement was to group the moment forces and the decisive point. On the other hand, said Gramsci, in the "West", only the "war of position" is feasible. Because then the state is "political society + civil society", is "coercion + consent." It has been a social formation strongly articulated by ideology. As a result, the ideological apparatus of state strategic importance. The state power is legitimated in an area of ​​socio-political hegemony that encompasses all (or almost every) society. It is necessary, these conditions have a party able to contest hegemony in society. And then no longer the vanguard postulates a disciplined, efficient, because it would no longer be effective in conditions of political democracy.

In this new situation, wins the fore the need for a mass party, articulated by intermediate frames, capable of performing tasks of persuasion. A party necessarily masses because the capillary, the spread is a prerequisite for making the effort to convince the fullest extent of the company. The requirement is the ability to reason, to persuade the perseverance and tolerance of difference. In this party, democratic centralism has no more validity. It is an anachronism. The unity of this party is not made by the subordination imposed administratively by the majority to the minority, but the consensus tissue around the capital issues for the development of political struggle.

This point of view of effectiveness, the organization serving the policy. But the question can and should be analyzed from different angles. The freedom, for example. As you know, the question of freedom is central to Marx's communism: the communist utopia is not equal (which at most is an assumption), but the freedom of man. It is in this light it is also necessary to discuss the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority. What freedom is that in which the minority is forced to shut their convictions on behalf of a majority decision? Then the socialist militant struggle to be muzzled when you need to express their opinions, which is exactly when disagrees with the majority of his companions? But the idea of ​​democratic centralism, aiming at unity of action, not only requires the dissident to shut their opinions. Want more, want to compel him to utter the words that repudiate. There is no greater violence. As Roland Barthes would say, "fascism is not to stop to say, is obliged to say."

Historically, democratic centralism tended toward bureaucratic centralism. This trend in the design degenerated Stalinist party. There was a shift in the center of political discussion-based organizations for the directions. And it becomes the height of the Secretary General decide to without objection. Consequently, the choice of directions is now operated by co-option. In this format, is the direction that legitimizes the bases and provides control over them, reversing the democratic dynamic. Thus, the willingness of the organization is forged from the top down, authoritarian ..

In harsh conditions underground fighters imposed against the dictatorship, the unity of action was essential. The lowest divergence is threatening the cohesion of the underground group under pressure terrifying repressive apparatus of the state. In this situation stifling, it is understood that centralism was exercised bureaucratic, authoritarian, with a minimum of discussion and a maximum discipline. The organization took military features. And there could be different. Under the conditions of political democracy, however, no one can even be imposed silence, the more the obligation to defend what it rejects, whether in the name of whatever.

A socialist party, in a context of political democracy, needs to be a democratic organization of the masses. It has the task of producing a consensus in society about their ideas. For this he needs to reach a consensus internally. Your unit must be designed as unity of thought and action, not just action. For it is the unity of thought which paves the unity of action. And that is not resolved by the subordination of minority to majority. It is far more complicated. Requires the exercise of persuasion.

The unity of thought can only be understood as a unity in diversity, a pact between different that preserves the free expression of thought. Therefore, the construction of a collective thought is a negotiation that does not rule out divergence, but seeks to harmonize it with the weaving of a web inclusive consensus on issues central to the development of political struggle. And do not forget that the collective thinking is always a dialectical synthesis provisional, unfinished, a becoming, a stream that never reaches its end, it is constantly reprocessing.

You do not wish therefore to resolve political differences or by the Leninist principle of subordination of the minority to the majority (which forces you to say), either by imposing silence merciful papal inspiration (which forbids to say). Much less when it comes to issues that mobilize an intimate convictions (religious or not).

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Since joining Revleft tendencies have come into mind more then they ever have. Before Revleft I gave almost no thought to it. But I was eager to find one that I fit in, to talk about and defend. However, I see this as being pointless because the tendencies we gather around are based on ideas written decades ago. The people who wrote these ideas were written in response to their own times, not ours. We face situations that they didn't, such as neo-liberalism. The bourgeoisie now make money out of money. The role of the worker for profit is diminishing.

They only appear to make money out of money, but in reality such thing is impossible. It is capital mystifying itself and it´s mechanisms, more than anything else.
But I agree it you think different tendencies should be based on positions but not which great thinkers to uphold. Commies also need to be able to differentiate between what is of primary and what is of secondary importance. I don´t think we can escape the separation of the movement into different tendencies and it´s not a problem as long as it´s based on principled and practical positions.

[hatzel]

There are many leftist movements occurring in the world right now. It's not as if every leftist in the world is sitting at home deciding whether to read Stalin or Trotsky. [...] There are real leftists out there making their own theories, some more closely resembling historical figures than others, but I don't think the left-wing is at a dead stop by any means.

Remember, however, that plenty of these leftist movements do not attract due attention from their fellow leftists simply because their participants don't sit at home reading Stalin or Trotsky (or using the tired old socialist tropes, waving red flags, doing all the stuff 'real leftists' do to identify themselves as such). I mean seriously, the number of times I've heard direct action groups in the so-called 'third world,' actively resisting neoliberal imperialist expansionism, being casually brushed off by certain leftists as 'mere traditionalists' because they don't explicitly identify with a particular current of historical socialism...well, let's just say I hear it too often. It's kinda depressing to see vast swathes of the global left totally ignored - or, at best, accepted as 'useful idiots,' temporarily helpful reactionaries etc. - because they don't immediately adhere to the rigid, inflexible forms of socialism presupposed by equally rigid, inflexible tendencyites (my new word - feel free to use it!).