Is "my socialism-ism" the problem

[campesino]

I see so many socialist organizations, some even sharing the same tendency. Can't we unite into one multi-tendency organization or coalition? Or at least split into the lines of, parliamentarian groups and non-parliamentarian groups. I can understand the membership of one not wanting to pay dues going to campaigns of the other groups.

I am of course ignoring the personality cult groups out there.

mods feel free to move this thread, I didn't know where to post it.

[The Douche]

No. That is not the problem.

Radical groups don't make revolution, it doesn't matter if radical groups combine or not.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I agree. Collaboration would probably be more helpful to our movement.

[Organic Revolution]

The problem with political parties is that they are constantly seeking to hold the power... Hence the multiple socialist organizations with similar politics who are completely opposed to each other.

You might want to look into your analysis of power structures and leadership before settling in on a 'politic'.

[ind_com]

I see so many socialist organizations, some even sharing the same tendency. Can't we unite into one multi-tendency organization or coalition? Or at least split into the lines of, parliamentarian groups and non-parliamentarian groups. I can understand the membership of one not wanting to pay dues going to campaigns of the other groups.

I am of course ignoring the personality cult groups out there.

mods feel free to move this thread, I didn't know where to post it.

When there are common grounds with respect to activism, usually groups from different tendencies unite actionwise. Other than that, trying to unite mechanically is not practical if a communist tendency follows its own distinct path to revolution.

[campesino]

When there are common grounds with respect to activism, usually groups from different tendencies unite actionwise. Other than that, trying to unite mechanically is not practical if a communist tendency follows its own distinct path to revolution.

if this is true, there will never be change, seriously if all the groups can't unite. 20 different disunited parties cannot lead to a change.

We have so many tendencies, it would be impossible for any one group to have enough popular support to create its vision of change.

the point is unite or fail.

[ind_com]

if this is true, there will never be change, seriously if all the groups can't unite. 20 different disunited parties cannot lead to a change.

We have so many tendencies, it would be impossible for any one group to have enough popular support to create its vision of change.

the point is unite or fail.

Rather the opposite is true. If there is even one group with the correct revolutionary line, then it will not only win mass support, but also attract members of other communist groups to itself. But if all the groups amalgamate just to increase numbers, then the result will be chaotic reformism.

[Blake's Baby]

No. That is not the problem.

Radical groups don't make revolution...

I absolutely agree with you up to this point. The revolution will be made by the working class.


... it doesn't matter if radical groups combine or not.

I disagree with this, if revoltionary groups are, as I believe they are, an active factor in the development of revolutionary consciousness, then by uniting they will be able to increase their effectiveness in that intervention.

But that presupposes a certain level of agreement about goals, strategy and organisation. Left Comms wouldn't unite with Trotskyists or Stalinists because we regard them as being the left wing of capitalism. I think we could just conceivably unite with Marxian Impossibilists (though they'd likely resist joining 'violent Bolshevists') or Council Communists (though they'd likely resist joining 'Leninist vanguardists') or Anarchist-Communists (though they're unlikely to trust 'authoritarian Marxists'). Honestly, we find it difficult enough to work with other Left Communists.

[campesino]

But that presupposes a certain level of agreement about goals, strategy and organisation. Left Comms wouldn't unite with Trotskyists or Stalinists because we regard them as being the left wing of capitalism. I think we could just conceivably unite with Marxian Impossibilists (though they'd likely resist joining 'violent Bolshevists') or Council Communists (though they'd likely resist joining 'Leninist vanguardists') or Anarchist-Communists (though they're unlikely to trust 'authoritarian Marxists'). Honestly, we find it difficult enough to work with other Left Communists.

the idea is to create a socialist group that would not be dominated by one tendency or another, and would be a place of dialogue and debate.

instead of left-coms uniting into a trotskyist organization, it would be troskyist and left-coms uniting under a socialist organization.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I see so many socialist organizations, some even sharing the same tendency. Can't we unite into one multi-tendency organization or coalition? Or at least split into the lines of, parliamentarian groups and non-parliamentarian groups. I can understand the membership of one not wanting to pay dues going to campaigns of the other groups.

I am of course ignoring the personality cult groups out there.

mods feel free to move this thread, I didn't know where to post it.

I think the fractured state of the left is a reflection or maybe symptom of the fractured and sporadic state of overt class struggle.

The way we organize ourselves and attempt to relate to existing class struggles matters, but it's not the determining factor - the objective factor is the working class.

[The Jay]

Opposing the same thing is not usually a good uniting factor for anything long-term. Some tendencies are just too different to get along in more than a handful of scenarios. You may see a stalinist at a rally next to an anarchist, but that would likely be as far as it would go - for good reason.

[l'Enfermé]

I absolutely agree with you up to this point. The revolution will be made by the working class.

That sounds very nice and pleasing and the idea is pretty relaxing, since you know, we can just sit around and do nothing because hey, what's the point? - the working class will just suddenly "make" a revolution!

Unfortunately, there's no working class("class-for-itself"). It doesn't really exist, it doesn't act like a class. To transform from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself, to become a conscious and active force, it must create a party-movement for itself. The class doesn't exist in any meaningful way except when it forms itself into a party-movement. This is simply an undeniable truth. Only a powerful worker-class-for-itself party-movement can pose any sort of genuine threat to bourgeoisie supremacy. This has been proven over and over again by the events of the 20th century.

[thriller]

Opposing the same thing is not usually a good uniting factor for anything long-term.

I agree as far as long term goes, but for actual results, it can do wonders. Just look at the anti-fascist movements of the 1930's and 40's. Many different communists, socialists, anarchists and even liberals fought fascism because they KNEW it had to be done away with. We all KNOW that capitalism must be done away with as well. Unfortunately, capitalism can not be so easily overthrown because of it's mode of production and mulch-encompassing grasp (compared to fascism which was mainly identified and attacked on political lines rather than class lines).
However communists, socialists and anarchists must all form a political fight against the bourgeoisie. I can't see real revolution being possible without an all out front against capitalism's order: political, economic, and social. I feel these must be combined by all and does limit any person from participating in one or the other. After all capitalism does drive the political, social, and economic forces of society (but class is the driving force behind all). A coalition could be possible if a situation were to arise where the workers became very much of aware their productive power and position, but for the most part that hasn't happen as of late. Until we get the workers active in the class struggle, I feel like having multiple groups allows for people to get a feel of the ideology, people, and strategies used by different radicals and revolutionaries. The time when the politics must be united is when the class is united. It doesn't matter if there are 100,000 revolutionary groups of 20 or 1 group of 2,000,000 if the workers are not aware of the very functioning of the system. Every revolutionary can spread class awareness, be it in a group or not.

[Rafiq]

Sacrifice well founded theoretical qualms with other tendencies because apparently, the result of which will result in the revival of a proletarian movement? No thanks.

[campesino]

Sacrifice well founded theoretical qualms with other tendencies because apparently, the result of which will result in the revival of a proletarian movement? No thanks.

I hope this is a sarcastic remark, if not this is the problem of the left.

[theblackmask]

No. That is not the problem.

Radical groups don't make revolution, it doesn't matter if radical groups combine or not.

Absolutely this. When and if enough people get together to both overthrow the system and establish any sort of alternative society, radical groups will not play a factor. This isn't 1917 Russia. Any movement that is going to change society for the better is going to have to be a mass movement free of any of the sectarian bullshit which plagues organizations today.

[CryingWolf]

I don't think the revolutionary left being fractured is a serious hindrance to revolution.

Suppose that there existed only a single revolutionary tendency. Would this organization be capable of triggering a revolution? Of course not. Not so long as the current prosperity of capitalism gives workers more rewards than they can expect to gain through revolution.

We tend to look at the example of the Russian Revolution and point to the unity of the Marxist-Leninists as the secret to its success. But this analysis leaves out the important fact that the Russian people could simply look to the West and see that significant gains are more than a pipe dream.

If any tendency had a revolutionary strategy that was sound enough to make significant gains for the worker a certainty, gaining support from the working class would be piss easy. But designing that strategy is the problem.

[Let's Get Free]

If there is even one group with the correct revolutionary line, then it will not only win mass support, but also attract members of other communist groups to itself.

Pretty much every socialist party/organization claims to have the "correct line."

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Rather the opposite is true. If there is even one group with the correct revolutionary line, then it will not only win mass support, but also attract members of other communist groups to itself. But if all the groups amalgamate just to increase numbers, then the result will be chaotic reformism.

Yeah, because "the revolution" can only happen when everyone has been educated in the "correct" party line. :rolleyes:

Here's mah dawg Engels on backup vocals


The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive of one another.

Here he is clearly referring to the idiocy of claiming you just need to find the right idea and magically socialism.

[ind_com]

Pretty much every socialist party/organization claims to have the "correct line."

The correctness of their line will depend on their success in mobilizing the masses to establish socialism, not their own empty claims.


Yeah, because "the revolution" can only happen when everyone has been educated in the "correct" party line. :rolleyes:

Educating everyone is not necessary. But yes, without a strong enough party-line, there can be no revolution.


Here's mah dawg Engels on backup vocals

Here he is clearly referring to the idiocy of claiming you just need to find the right idea and magically socialism.

That quote of Engels has nothing to do with party-building and organizing the masses for revolution. As opposed to utopianism, a correct line can be derived only through analysis of the material conditions of the society and formulating the correct strategy and tactics of class war.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Not that I'm a maoist, but I do think that the concept of the mass line is a much better strategy then simply "re-uniting" the left.

After all, we marxists are all a bunch of middle class dumbasses who can do little but fantasize about power. Heck, I feel like this is the reason why we have so many splits. Once a faction grows to the point that it can collect enough membership fees to make a living for it's leader, it tends to split from the main group. You can frame it however you want but that's the essence of it. And although I'm beginning to warm up to the PSL, no one can tell me with a straight face that what I've described isn't what caused the split that created them. Just look at the British left and compare it to the British working class. While the Trots were debating the merits of deflected permanent revolution and going on about the "subsitutionism" and the ML types were going on about how insert regime here was unfairly charctherized by those dirty mainstream historians, the working masses took it to themselves to go on the streets and cause havoc for the bourgeois in the form of rioting. And all the left had to say was some grumbling about the "lumpen" being all backward and went on practicing entryism in some decaying union filled with two angry old white men complaining about how all those dirty Muslims be takin' all our jerbs.

That's not to say that the riots were revolutionary, but what they do prove is that if the left stopped giving a shit about what other leftists think and actually tried to serve the people like the Black Panthers did back in the sixties then they could have led those riots and perhaps even led a 1905 style uprising. So I say fine Trots, fine ML types, form as many parties as you like and come up with as many theories as you can, I'm going to go follow the line of the Philly Socialists and actually start doing things for the working class. Since after all, One party + Two parties equals two teens and their pet dog Sally.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The correctness of their line will depend on their success in mobilizing the masses to establish socialism, not their own empty claims.
So, in your view, the party organizes the proletariat into a movement rather than the party being an expression of a mass, class-conscious movement?

[ind_com]

So, in your view, the party organizes the proletariat into a movement rather than the party being an expression of a mass, class-conscious movement?

The formation of the party requires only an advanced section of the proletariat, which has moulded itself through participating in class-struggle. Even if no significant class-conscious mass-movement exists, the party can gradually create those.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Educating everyone is not necessary. But yes, without a strong enough party-line, there can be no revolution.
"Oh, if only everyone just believed in world peace it could happen" etc etc etc



That quote of Engels has nothing to do with party-building and organizing the masses for revolution. As opposed to utopianism, a correct line can be derived only through analysis of the material conditions of the society and formulating the correct strategy and tactics of class war.
Double posting because ind_com edited their post after my last post


That quote of Engels has everything to do with what you're describing - you're verbally distancing yourself from the utopians while emulating their methods. The fact that you think we can just 'adjust' to material conditions and just will the world into magical socialism only adds insult to injury.

The formation of the party requires only an advanced section of the proletariat, which has moulded itself through participating in class-struggle. Even if no significant class-conscious mass-movement exists, the party can gradually create those.
Again, you're using the argument that if only we can just "educate" everybody then we can magically socialism.

[ind_com]

"Oh, if only everyone just believed in world peace it could happen" etc etc etc

You mean it could happen without at least a substantial number of people believing in it?


Double posting because ind_com edited their post after my last post


That quote of Engels has everything to do with what you're describing - you're verbally distancing yourself from the utopians while emulating their methods.

Please explain how the party intensifying class struggle is utopian.


The fact that you think we can just 'adjust' to material conditions and just will the world into magical socialism only adds insult to injury.

Strawman. Party-building leads to the masses overthrowing the very society that creates these material conditions, not adjusting to them.


Again, you're using the argument that if only we can just "educate" everybody then we can magically socialism.

Educate and intensify class struggle.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You mean it could happen without at least a substantial number of people believing in it?

I'm saying it's not some magical idea everybody adopts and then BAM - socialism. Not if you're a Marxist, at least. Ideology is the expression of material conditions. Or do you not consider yourself a Marxist?


Please explain how the party intensifying class struggle is utopian.
Again, if everybody just agreed with the party line then magically socialism. I'm not against the concept of the vanguard party, I'm against your assertion that we must all agree to some mystical party line and then we'll suddenly do the socialism thing.





Strawman. Party-building leads to the masses overthrowing the very society that creates these material conditions, not adjusting to them.
What you said, here:


"... a correct line can be derived only through analysis of the material conditions of the society and formulating the correct strategy and tactics of class war."

Is literally the assertion that "ideas precede matter"

[ind_com]

I'm saying it's not some magical idea everybody adopts and then BAM - socialism. Not if you're a Marxist, at least. Ideology is the expression of material conditions. Or do you not consider yourself a Marxist?


Again, if everybody just agreed with the party line then magically socialism. I'm not against the concept of the vanguard party, I'm against your assertion that we must all agree to some mystical party line and then we'll suddenly do the socialism thing.

What you said, here:


"... a correct line can be derived only through analysis of the material conditions of the society and formulating the correct strategy and tactics of class war."

Is literally the assertion that "ideas precede matter"

At this point you seem to be just trolling. Every argument that you use here is a strawman. Keep your notions of magical socialism to yourself.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

At this point you seem to be just trolling. Every argument that you use here is a strawman. Keep your notions of magical socialism to yourself.
Go read a damn book

[Blake's Baby]

the idea is to create a socialist group that would not be dominated by one tendency or another, and would be a place of dialogue and debate.

instead of left-coms uniting into a trotskyist organization, it would be troskyist and left-coms uniting under a socialist organization.

How? Left-Comms don't think Trotskyists are socialists, we think they're pro-capitalists. Why would they become socialists just because we offered to stand under the same umbrella as them?





That sounds very nice and pleasing and the idea is pretty relaxing, since you know, we can just sit around and do nothing because hey, what's the point? - the working class will just suddenly "make" a revolution!...

It's not up to you to decide that we need a revolution. You and your 'mass party movement' can fuck off back to your 19th century re-enactment society where you all dress up as Kautsky and shout 'but I want to be the Pope of Marxism!' at each other.


Unfortunately, there's no working class("class-for-itself"). It doesn't really exist, it doesn't act like a class. To transform from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself, to become a conscious and active force, it must create a party-movement for itself...

Repeat the Enferme/DNZ mantra: mass-party-movement, mass-party-movement, mass-party-movement, say it backwards in the mirror and it will appear.

What you are saying that I agree with is that the revolutionary movement will be created by the working class, not as the act of will of some revolutionaries. Revolutionaries have a duty to help in that process but they cannot be that process. Revolutionaries are (or, should be) an 'active factor' in the generalisation of class consciousness and the self-organisation of the working class but they cannot substitute themselves for the working class.


... The class doesn't exist in any meaningful way except when it forms itself into a party-movement. This is simply an undeniable truth...

Tell it like it is, Comrade Pope! What other great eternal truths do you have for us your unworthy acolytes?

The working class sometimes struggles, and sometimes does not struggle. It still exists as the working class, in a 'meaningful' way (ie it is exploited by the bourgeoisie), otherwise capitalism would be impossible unless people were on strike. Which is a pretty stupid position.

Consciousness is a difficult thing to grasp, and also predict. But revolutionaries understand what Marx called 'the line of march' - we grasp that the interests of the working class as a whole are in overthrowing capitalism. Not all workers grasp that. We understand that in order to overthrow capitalism, there needs to be organisation. Not all workers understand that. But we also need to understand that it is not up to us as revolutionaries to abrogate to ourselves the role of the class as a whole.



... Only a powerful worker-class-for-itself party-movement can pose any sort of genuine threat to bourgeoisie supremacy. This has been proven over and over again by the events of the 20th century.

No it hasn't.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Pretty much every socialist party/organization claims to have the "correct line."

Most Democratic Centralists don't, I would think.

Honestly, I disagree with the fairly shallow "UNITEZ DA MAOISTS AND ANARCHEST" lines, after getting a little more into working with separate groups and learning from historical examples, but I very much support the idea of a kind of 'far center-left grouping' along the lines of many tendencies coming together in a single organisation to debate which of their ideas prove more useful to the working class (the sectarian who does not examine foreign ideas excluded).

[campesino]

shouldn't socialism be socially defined?

[Blake's Baby]

If that's the case, then I reject socialism, because 'socially defined' socialism is Stalinism, which is shit.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer words to relate to things. Sure, language changes, and ideas change, but I wouldn't say that a 'National Socialist' has any claim to be in the same party as me just because he has the term 'socialist' in his political description. 'Socialist' has a fairly specific meaning. I'm not up for redifining it to mean 'whatever some people think it means'.

[campesino]

@ Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis
you gave a very good example of what happens when the supposed class parties are separated from the working class, there is tremendous potential if we would all unite among ourselves and the working class.

@Blake's Baby

I think the working class would unite around the message of "worker controlled definition of socialism" and all the tendencies of the world would argue and try to influence the definition of socialism, but ultimately it would be in the hands of the working class what path they would pursue, and we would be trying to sway them in our direction.

but we can't and shouldn't put our definition of socialism above what the working class pursues and defines as socialism.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, but Socialism doesn't have a fairly specific meaning at all, I'd say. It's a very broad term that encompasses "tendencies" that range anywhere from modern Social-Democracy and Democratic Socialism to Anarchism, Revolutionary/Orthodox Marxism, Stalinism and Trotskyism, Maoism, Left-Communism, etc, etc, and there are the 18th-19th century utopian socialists to consider also.

This is exactly why I love DNZ's "Social-Proletocracy".

[Blake's Baby]

...
@Blake's Baby

I think the working class would unite around the message of "worker controlled definition of socialism" and all the tendencies of the world would argue and try to influence the definition of socialism, but ultimately it would be in the hands of the working class what path they would pursue, and we would be trying to sway them in our direction.

but we can't and shouldn't put our definition of socialism above what the working class pursues and defines as socialism.

Is Obama a socialist? Millions of people think he is. Do you think they're wrong? Why?


Comrade, but Socialism doesn't have a fairly specific meaning at all, I'd say. It's a very broad term that encompasses "tendencies" that range anywhere from modern Social-Democracy and Democratic Socialism to Anarchism, Revolutionary/Orthodox Marxism, Stalinism and Trotskyism, Maoism, Left-Communism, etc, etc, and there are the 18th-19th century utopian socialists to consider also...

In which case, it means nothing. If socialism includes support for capitalism, as in "...modern Social-Democracy and Democratic Socialism to ... Stalinism and Trotskyism, Maoism... and there are the 18th-19th century utopian socialists to consider also..." (not to mention some people who call themselves Anarchists); and on the other hand refers to anti-capitalist, proletarian politics (class-struggle Anarchism, "... Revolutionary/Orthodox Marxism... Left-Communism, etc, etc...") then it has no use whatsoever as a political term. A thing can't be both itself an its opposite; socialism cannot be capitalism, if socialism is anti-capitalist. And if socialism is not anti-capitalist, I'm not a socialist.



...This is exactly why I love DNZ's "Social-Proletocracy".

Quite the Boy Wonder to his Caped Crusader.

[campesino]

there is a difference between glenn beck reactionary defined socialism, and the socialism that the working class would define.
@ l'Enferme
I have no problem with utopianist and democratic socialism and anarchist influencing the working class, the working class will not conform to one tendency, the working class will go down its own path, the path might resemble or be one tendency, but if it was that tendency it would come to it because it was meant to be, not because other tendencies were kept from influencing the working class.

[Blake's Baby]

there is a difference between glenn beck reactionary defined socialism, and the socialism that the working class would define...

No there's not. Millions of working people think that socialism is 'administering welfare programs'. They think the French Socialist Party is socialist, they think Obama is a socialist, they think the Labour Party in Britain is socialist, they think Stalin was a socialist, Robert Mugabe is a socialist, Hitler was a socialist, Gaddhafi was a socialist, hell I've been told (by workers) that Richard Branson, multi-millionaire entrepreneur and playboy, is a socialist.

Does 'socialist' mean something, or does it not? If it does, what do you think it means?

[l'Enfermé]

It's not up to you to decide that we need a revolution.

Why is that? Am I not a proletarian?

:(

Fine, I'll drop all this talk of needing a revolution until our Left-Communist comrades blow the trumpets and raise the call. :)



You and your 'mass party movement' can fuck off back to your 19th century re-enactment society where you all dress up as Kautsky and shout 'but I want to be the Pope of Marxism!' at each other.
Since the model mass-party worker-class-movements for RevLeft's Rev. Marxists are the pre-war SPD, the RSDLP(b) in 1917 and the inter-war USPD, you should have wrote "fuck off back to your 20th century re-enactment society". As for dressing up as Kautsky, I will consider letting my beard grow out when my hair greys, but for now, I haven't lost the colour in my hair yet so I'll have to wait a while.


Repeat the Enferme/DNZ mantra: mass-party-movement, mass-party-movement, mass-party-movement, say it backwards in the mirror and it will appear.Good advice comrade. :D


What you are saying that I agree with is that the revolutionary movement will be created by the working class, not as the act of will of some revolutionaries. Revolutionaries have a duty to help in that process but they cannot be that process. Revolutionaries are (or, should be) an 'active factor' in the generalisation of class consciousness and the self-organisation of the working class but they cannot substitute themselves for the working class.
Since a revolutionary movement is by definition composed of revolutionaries, wouldn't that mean that it has to be created by "an act of will" of revolutionaries?

I didn't say revolutionaries should substitute themselves for the working class. I said that a (mass)party-movement is the worker-class-for-itself. It doesn't substitute it, because they are the same thing.


Tell it like it is, Comrade Pope! What other great eternal truths do you have for us your unworthy acolytes?

The working class sometimes struggles, and sometimes does not struggle. It still exists as the working class, in a 'meaningful' way (ie it is exploited by the bourgeoisie), otherwise capitalism would be impossible unless people were on strike. Which is a pretty stupid position. It exists as a class-in-itself(klasse an sich). Not as a class-for-itself(klasse für sich).



Consciousness is a difficult thing to grasp, and also predict. But revolutionaries understand what Marx called 'the line of march' - we grasp that the interests of the working class as a whole are in overthrowing capitalism. Not all workers grasp that. We understand that in order to overthrow capitalism, there needs to be organisation. Not all workers understand that. But we also need to understand that it is not up to us as revolutionaries to abrogate to ourselves the role of the class as a whole.
You're the only one who mentioned anything of "abrogating ourselves the role of the class as a whole" comrade.




No it hasn't.
Really? You'd say that even after Mai 1968 wasn't even capable of toppling de Gaulle, let alone challenging bourgeoisie supremacy? So much for "spontaneity"!

[l'Enfermé]

Quite the Boy Wonder to his Caped Crusader.

http://i.imgur.com/artsY.png

[Rafiq]

I hope this is a sarcastic remark, if not this is the problem of the left.

Are you really under the impression that the power of the proletariat has been suppressed because Marxists have disagreements with each over regarding organizational strategies, etc. ? Imagine if someone, around the time before the October revolution would have demanded the same thing. It's counter productive and it does nothing but force ourselves to destroy well founded theoretical components of our Marxism. The sciences are objective, and there is nothing more to it. The sciences are strengthened by disagreements, etc.

Sectarianism is the least of the Left's problems. Quote me on that if you like.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

magical socialism

Only when the working class realizes itself against capital and abolishes itself through esoteric ritual will the authentic socialization of life be possible. The purpose of the party is to refine the techniques of socialist magic by doing psychedelic drugs and shooting fireworks at the police.

I hope this adequately addresses the OP's concerns.

[The Jay]

shouldn't socialism be socially defined?

You mean where people determined their community's future through a democratic process over time? Naw, that would be revisionist.

Seriously though, how can we have Socialism without democratic process? People should be free to decide their own society to the degree to which it effects them. Without that then what would be the point?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Seriously though, how can we have Socialism without democratic process? People should be free to decide their own society to the degree to which it effects them. Without that then what would be the point?

Democracy is bullshit - people must realize their society in harmony with the totality of the universal order.
HAIL ASTAROTH! BUILD THE PARTY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF SACRED MATHMATICS!

[The Jay]

Democracy is bullshit - people must realize their society in harmony with the totality of the universal order.
HAIL ASTAROTH! BUILD THE PARTY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF SACRED MATHMATICS!

Shhh, don't say that. The cult of Cthulhu doesn't like that talk. Ia' Cthulhu! Ia' Cthulhu fatagn!

[Blake's Baby]

You mean where people determined their community's future through a democratic process over time? Naw, that would be revisionist.

Seriously though, how can we have Socialism without democratic process? People should be free to decide their own society to the degree to which it effects them. Without that then what would be the point?

I don't think that's what campesino meant. I think (seems that this is the logic anyway) that what campesino wants is for all of us who think there's some sort of platonic socialism out there to get together and just do it; which is ridiculous, because you'd be putting together people with completely the opposite conception of what socialism is. On the one hand, the 'party-statists' (Trots, Stalinists), and on the other, the 'libertarian communists' (though I hate that term and don't think it applies, around 9/10 of the people it's applied to accept it).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

@ Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis
you gave a very good example of what happens when the supposed class parties are separated from the working class, there is tremendous potential if we would all unite among ourselves and the working class.

There is a good point to be made in this, yes we ought to "unite". But we need to think about how this unification occurs. Admittedly I could have been more polite in my post and given a better explanation so I appreciate that you responded politely.

First of all, it seems as if every socialist party lives in it's own little bubble and due to their sizes, most socialist parties aren't accountable to the masses so they can get away with absurd things like the PSL-WWP split and the cult of bob. So in the mean time, if the masses aren't going to hold these parties accountable then we socialists ourselves need to. If a party splits for no reason, then both parties should cease to exist by what ever means this can be practically accomplished, there ought to be massive, organized waves of criticism against these parties to the extent that makes it impossible for them to effectively organize and exist (I'm not talking polemics, I'm talking Anonomyous V Church of Scientology levels of agression), and their members should be encouraged to join other more genuine formation, until both parties either reunite or liquidate themselves into the wider left. In the case of the cult of bob, well to be quite frank we can just sort of ignore it since I don't think that such organizations really have any value to the left.

And there is a good reason why Trotskites, Troskyite-Grantites and Maoists(MLM types I mean) don't work together. One believes in the use of electoral politics and broad fronts to achieve socialism, one believes in entryism into mainstream parties to achieve.... Errrrr......Profit? And the Maoists on the other hand believe in People's War (and the other ones that don't matter believe in being nice little boys until those fine capitalist fellows decide that maybe they were being too mean and decides to stop butchering the masses). So when I speak of re-uniting the left I don't think that we should have each faction liquidate themselves until you've got a meaningless blob of non-principles, but instead we need to liquidate every Trot faction into one Trot party, every entryist faction into one party (though they have taken the liberty to do this themselves,and every Maoist faction to form one party. Once that is accomplished then we ought to stop all this non-sense about there being a sacred "only way" to socialism and start letting the Trots be Trots, The Grantites be Grantites, and the Maoists be Maoists, with the general agreement that when the revolution breaks out that those upright gentlemen from the International Marxist Tendency will roll up their sleeves and join the People's war. (Or on the other hand, if the Trots get power through elections then the Maoists shouldn't pull a Hoxha and start undermining them every chance they get just because they are upset that their faction didn't win.