Stop idealizing "left unity"

[Drosophila]

Lately I've been reading here and elsewhere promotion of the concept of "left unity." Many seem to think that the biggest obstacle to revolution is the fact that "the left" is divided over trivial issues., and that somehow, if the left were to unite, the proletariat could gain momentum and move towards revolution. In the past few weeks, I've finally come to realize that this notion of "left unity" is a complete farce. I felt that it would be appropriate to start a thread attacking this issue directly.

We must start off by defining just what "the left" actually is. If so many want to unite it, then surely it's something of importance, right? Wrong. "The left" is used to describe so many different lines of thought that it may as well be a useless term. Liberals claim to be on the left, as do reformists and even some neoconservatives. But the "pan-leftists" who so fetishize left unity often only seek to unite the true left - the tendencies you see prevalent around the revolutionary left (Trotskyism, "Marxism-Leninism," Maoism, Anarchism, Left-Communism, etc.). Still, the union of these tendencies would not only be a monumental task, but a pointless task.

Here's where the real kicker comes in. Left unity is a worthless cause. It really doesn't matter whether or not the left is united. This is because the left has nothing to do with communism. Communism is not a doctrine, an ideology, or a set of principles. Thus, there is no reason to unite the left, since there is nothing concrete that it could work towards. As Marx himself said in The German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." See any mention of "the left" in there? Of course not, because both Marx and Engels realized that the proletarian class had to be the sole driving force for revolution. They realized that the proletariat couldn't be represented through some vague "left" coalition or party. ( I realize that the words of Marx & Engels are not gold, but it's a bit odd for the people who hold them to be their ideological founders not to understand what their actual positions were.) The countless sects that make up the modern-day left are not, and will never be, a force for proletarian revolution. This is because the proletariat, the revolutionary force of communism, is fundamentally separate from the left. When the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the parties out there that claim to be "vanguards" will be left in the dust. The working class, the proletariat, is the sole driving force of communism. No sect out there, no matter what its principles and strategies, can ever hope to agitate or carry the proletariat through communism. Thus, ambitions of uniting "the left" are completely baseless. Since the proletariat must mobilize on its own and carry out revolution by itself, a united left will do nothing to assist the cause of proletarian revolution. When (if) the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the left will sink even further into irrelevance and impotence.

In short, the left is not and will never be a force for revolution. It is a meaningless collection of contradictory ideologies that is fundamentally separate from the proletariat.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I agree wholeheartedly. The word Sectarian means you're divided over trivial issues, but there are meaningful differences between most of the major tendencies.
Also, fuck the left.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Kautskyite dream of a mass Marxist labor party hasn't got anything to do with the reality of working poor life or the reality of parliamentary politics in the west.

[Q]

In this thread: Rage fest.

[Comrade Samuel]

Well to be honest friend I doubt Marx and Engles would have appreciated so-called "revolutionaries" sitting around with their thumbs in their asses hoping that class consciousness will just appear out of thin air. When approaching a large task, dividing it into smaller, easier steps makes the whole process alot smoother- that is just common sense, why would we not apply this to building communism? By smaller more easily achieved steps I mean a vanguard, socialist state ect. but obviously we've been over this countless times and it's not worth beating a dead horse so I guess I'll just leave it at "don't just sit around and hope revolution happens!".Despite what most here belive I for one still think that unity among the left (and by this I mean the revolutionary left) is not only a worth while cause because it will aid the the process of building communism but also because it may very well be our only hope of surviving the wave of fascism sweeping the world today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lack of unity isn't necessarily the same thing as a lack of cooperation.

Shouldn't working class agencies collaborate in their mutual interest? The bourgeoisie, the fascists, and the defenders of and apologists for both, present a much greater threat to working class interests than some little Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist/whateverist party, surely?

[l'Enfermé]

The Kautskyite dream of a mass Marxist labor party hasn't got anything to do with the reality of working poor life or the reality of parliamentary politics in the west.
What labour party? What are you even talking about?

[Conscript]

. ( I realize that the words of Marx & Engels are not gold, but it's a bit odd for the people who hold them to be their ideological founders not to understand what their actual positions were.)

I agree.


The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions,and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

Left unity might be out of the question, but establishing a correct line and rallying some (or none) divisor tendencies behind it isn't, nor is it irrelevant because it's not exactly 'the working class' doing it, but then, that's just worthless fetishism.

Only then can the communists finalize the division that's been blurred over the decades between them and the other, reformist working class parties, and in the process expose to the working class its own alternative.

[Eleutheromaniac]

What labour party? What are you even talking about?

The only thing I can find is from Karl Kautsky: Marxism, Revolution & Democracy:



Kautsky assumed that in industrialized countries the working class would constitute the majority of the population...and that it therefore would capture control of the government by winning a parliamentary election and would gradually carry through the social revolution by introducing socialism.
Let me know if there are more examples.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't think anyone thinks that the left (and yeah, there is a "left") uniting will automatically bring about a revolution. Those who push and work for more unity (I'm speaking from my reasons and the reasons I hear from many others) do so because we realize that it's stupid to not work together over shit that has nothing to do with the struggle at this time. Yes, not every single group/tendency/party/etc. will be able to work together (you kind of prove this point by your seeming to rather prefer to not work together out of priniciple rather than an actual reason) but the vast majority of us on the left share a lot of common ground on many different things.

Unity doesn't mean everyone forms a massive party and everyone gets rid of their political lines. It means we work together out of a common interest, which is what the bourgeoisie already does with themselves. You seem to take the simple position of "The left should try to work together and support each other more." to some stupidly ridiculous extreme and then condemn that extreme.

If you want to sit around and twiddle your thumbs by yourself in a corner just waiting for a revolution to fall into your lap while condemning everyone that trys to organize for that revolution, be my guest. Recognizing our differences and limitations is not the same as actively being opposed to unity (which is what you, and many other leftcoms like you, seem to be).

[Q]

The only thing I can find is from Karl Kautsky: Marxism, Revolution & Democracy:


Let me know if there are more examples.

I'd recommend reading his own work than reading about him.

[Eleutheromaniac]

I'd recommend reading his own work than reading about him.

True. It was written by his grandson, so I figured it'd be relatively close. Like I said though, I couldn't find much, so I thought this would help.

[Grenzer]

Ironically, Leftsolidarity is right about one thing: any sort of unity can only come about on the basis of practical work. It is precisely because of this reality that uniting the left is a fruitless task. Most people that call themselves leftists are reformists or otherwise work in the interests of Capital. Unity among the left of capital won't accomplish anything. If there is a revolution, then the left will have little to do with it. The idea that they will reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of leftism: defending and upholding Capital while making the appearance of being revolutionary.

It is worth pointing out that Kautskyites aren't for a labor party; they're for a social-democratic party. What they both have in common is that only someone who has never opened a history book could advocate either.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aye, left "unity" seems irrelevant, but I think it's also problematic to dismiss the left entirely, since, often, the left and the working class are intertwined. This is true individually - individual leftists are often from within the working class - and also institutionally (unions, for example, are often closely aligned with "left" parties). I think, in many cases, this latter overlap is a barrier rather than a boon, but it is a reality that has to be confronted and dealt with.

Anyway, as such, I think that there needs to be less of an emphasis on "unity" and more on practical collaboration. The Convergence des Luttes Anticapitalistes (http://www.clac-montreal.net/)(CLAC) is an interesting example of cooperation and communication that is not based on uniting around a specific line, but on combining limited resources in the face of common obstacles.

[Leftsolidarity]

any sort of unity can only come about on the basis of practical work.


Indeed.


It is precisely because of this reality that uniting the left is a fruitless task.

Wait. What?


Most people that call themselves leftists are reformists or otherwise work in the interests of Capital. Unity among the left of capital won't accomplish anything. If there is a revolution, then the left will have little to do with it. The idea that they will reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of leftism: defending and upholding Capital while making the appearance of being revolutionary.

Oh yeah, that nonsense. I forgot that we're all just capitalists in disguise :rolleyes:


If you think that unity can only come from work and think that reaffirms the fact that their can't be unity, maybe that means you should start doing some work.

[Rafiq]

The Kautskyite dream of a mass Marxist labor party hasn't got anything to do with the reality of working poor life or the reality of parliamentary politics in the west.

Just please stop posting. You're making an ass out of yourself

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

It is worth pointing out that Kautskyites aren't for a labor party; they're for a social-democratic party.

Everything you say loses legitemacy after this

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Grenzer]

Everything you say loses legitemacy after this

A social-democrat is trying to talk about legitimacy? You left that behind at Verdun, Ypres, and the Somme.

Social-democracy has proven to be a universal failure. It's absurd that this is even a matter of discussion It hasn't ever succeeded. The Bolsheviks don't count. Even your hero Lars Lih, whose work I strongly suspect you have never even read, admits that a standard social-democratic model party could not be fully applied in Russia until the overthrow of Czarism.

As a proponent of an ideology that makes even Stalinism look revolutionary, you're not really in much of a position to make a judgement of any kind. All you've done is simply regurgitate the phrases and slogans of your master without even understanding the context or background material from which they came.

[Leftsolidarity]

A social-democrat is trying to talk about legitimacy? You left that behind at Verdun, Ypres, and the Somme.

Social-democracy has proven to be a universal failure. It's absurd that this is even a matter of discussion It hasn't ever succeeded. The Bolsheviks don't count. Even your hero Lars Lih, whose work I strongly suspect you have never even read, admits that a standard social-democratic model party could not be fully applied in Russia until the overthrow of Czarism.

As a proponent of an ideology that makes even Stalinism look revolutionary, you're not really in much of a position to make a judgement of any kind. All you've done is simply regurgitate the phrases and slogans of your master without even understanding the context or background material from which they came.

Mhmmmmmmmm the Bolsheviks were Social-Democrats you say?
And tell me how the Sun revolves around the Earth as well... :rolleyes:

[l'Enfermé]

The OP is a little bit correct, but accidentally. A revived communist movement won't appear by uniting all the various sects of ours, but by pushing them out of existence(and perhaps swallowing a bunch). What we currently have is wholly inadequate and not up to the task of rebuilding the movement.

But it's very odd that you used that German Ideology quote, since apparently you don't understand the point of it, which is that the revolutionary method is inseparable from the revolutionary goal(communism) - communism can't be an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself, instead, communism must be adjusted itself to reality. The quote then has nothing to do with your argument, in the fact, the whole book speaks of "proletarians and communists", that is, communists and workers as 2 different categories, i.e your argument that "the left"("communists") has nothing to do with communism finds no support in the book - the left is communism. Did you even read the book? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, I only bought it and read it this summer.

Marx and Engels, instead of agreeing with you, disagree with you to the fullest. It's incomprehensible that you use out-of-context quotes from them to justify your argument.

It was Marx, and not Lenin or Kautsky, that said the working class can only act as a class after it constitutes itself into a political party(i.e, "the left") and that this constitution of the working class into a political party is "indispensable" to the victory of the revolution.


Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.

This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes.

[Drosophila]

The Kautskyite dream of a mass Marxist labor party hasn't got anything to do with the reality of working poor life or the reality of parliamentary politics in the west.

I think the Trotskyists are far more guilty, but yeah. The whole "mass, multi-tendency party" thing is mostly what turned me off Kautskyism.


In this thread: Rage fest.

Yeah, I expected this thread would get a lot of hate, but I posted it anyway since I think the issue needs to be addressed.


Well to be honest friend I doubt Marx and Engles would have appreciated so-called "revolutionaries" sitting around with their thumbs in their asses hoping that class consciousness will just appear out of thin air. When approaching a large task, dividing it into smaller, easier steps makes the whole process alot smoother- that is just common sense, why would we not apply this to building communism? Despite what most here belive I for one still think that unity among the left (and by this I mean the revolutionary left) is not only a worth while cause because it will aid the the process of building communism but also because it may very well be our only hope of surviving the wave of fascism sweeping the world today.

There are a lot of things wrong with this post. First of all, none of us are "revolutionaries" because there is no revolution. You might like the "idea" of revolution but you are not a revolutionary. No one is a revolutionary unless there is a revolution currently underway.

Second, "class consciousness" is an awful concept that should be completely disregarded. The proletariat knows it's being screwed over. I would be shocked if more than a small minority of workers out there believe there is no way out. You wouldn't see strikes, lockouts, or any kind of resistance if the proletariat was "unconscious." Also, this idealization of "class consciousness" can create problematic assumptions that we valiant revolutionaries need to step in and educate the proletariat in the ways of Marxism. It's an elitist and pedantic view of the working class.

Finally, there is no such thing as "building communism." Communism is the act, the movement, of proletarian class emancipation. There is no way to "build" or "establish" that. Also lol at the fascism part. Anyone who seriously thinks that fascism is a threat is just looking for an excuse to unite with liberals and turn communism into some moralistic "left vs. right" strategy game.


Shouldn't working class agencies collaborate in their mutual interest? The bourgeoisie, the fascists, and the defenders of and apologists for both, present a much greater threat to working class interests than some little Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist/whateverist party, surely?

But working class agencies as they exist are totally irrelevant because they are so separated from the working class, not because they're divided. The only real fight against the bourgeoisie and fascists (even though they really aren't a major threat and probably never will be) has to be carried out by the revolutionary proletariat itself, not some impotent intellectuals.


I don't think anyone thinks that the left (and yeah, there is a "left") uniting will automatically bring about a revolution. Those who push and work for more unity (I'm speaking from my reasons and the reasons I hear from many others) do so because we realize that it's stupid to not work together over shit that has nothing to do with the struggle at this time. Yes, not every single group/tendency/party/etc. will be able to work together (you kind of prove this point by your seeming to rather prefer to not work together out of priniciple rather than an actual reason) but the vast majority of us on the left share a lot of common ground on many different things.

You seem to have missed the point. There is a left. I don't deny this. But it will forever be irrelevant, because communism is an act of the proletarian class itself. The intellectuals and 'activists' that make up the left would be forgotten in a revolution by the proletariat. We can see this not only today (with worker insurrections around the world and even Occupy Wall Street), but also throughout history. The Bolsheviks didn't agitate towards revolution in Russia, but were left in the dust when the proletariat actually mobilized on its own. The shock of actual revolutionary movement left the Russian Marxists scrambling to capture the revolutionary energy of the Russian proletariat.


Unity doesn't mean everyone forms a massive party and everyone gets rid of their political lines. It means we work together out of a common interest, which is what the bourgeoisie already does with themselves. You seem to take the simple position of "The left should try to work together and support each other more." to some stupidly ridiculous extreme and then condemn that extreme.There isn't a "common interest" amongst the left, though. You have Stalinists on one side, who think socialism is possible within the confines of capital, and 'ultra-lefts' on the other who basically reject every single position the Stalinists hold. Do you really expect those two to be united?

Also, the bourgeoisie is not united ideologically, and it's not some conspiratorial sect. Your position contradicts the basic Marxist understanding of class.


If you want to sit around and twiddle your thumbs by yourself in a corner just waiting for a revolution to fall into your lap while condemning everyone that trys to organize for that revolution, be my guest. Recognizing our differences and limitations is not the same as actively being opposed to unity (which is what you, and many other leftcoms like you, seem to be). But no one does that. I simply realize that the proletariat is the sole driving force for its own emancipation. I reject the notion that "the left" needs to step in and hold its hand. The point I'm trying to make is that left unity won't accomplish anything, as the left is irrelevant to communism.


@l'Enfermé - I mostly put the Marx quote there to demonstrate how many so-called Marxists don't understand what communism is. I honestly don't care that much about his supposed advocacy of a mass party. Some need to stop canonizing the words of people who died over 100 years ago.

[l'Enfermé]

A social-democrat is trying to talk about legitimacy? You left that behind at Verdun, Ypres, and the Somme.

Social-democracy has proven to be a universal failure. It's absurd that this is even a matter of discussion It hasn't ever succeeded. The Bolsheviks don't count. Even your hero Lars Lih, whose work I strongly suspect you have never even read, admits that a standard social-democratic model party could not be fully applied in Russia until the overthrow of Czarism.

As a proponent of an ideology that makes even Stalinism look revolutionary, you're not really in much of a position to make a judgement of any kind. All you've done is simply regurgitate the phrases and slogans of your master without even understanding the context or background material from which they came.
We prefer the social-democracy of Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht and Lafargue to the social-democracy of Ebert and Noske, buddy.

[Leftsolidarity]

You seem to have missed the point. There is a left. I don't deny this. But it will forever be irrelevant, because communism is an act of the proletarian class itself. The intellectuals and 'activists' that make up the left would be forgotten in a revolution by the proletariat. We can see this not only today (with worker insurrections around the world and even Occupy Wall Street), but also throughout history. The Bolsheviks didn't agitate towards revolution in Russia, but were left in the dust when the proletariat actually mobilized on its own. The shock of actual revolutionary movement left the Russian Marxists scrambling to capture the revolutionary energy of the Russian proletariat.



You also seem to forget that the left plays a lot of behind the scenes roles that you apparently just don't recognize. You also are forgetting about the part that the Bolsheviks and other radical working-class parties were in jail, hard-labor, exile, etc. because of the agitation and organization that they did within the movement. You're correct, though, the masses mobilized on its own accord but an initial mobilization is not a complete revolution nor does it prove that a party is not needed.



There isn't a "common interest" amongst the left, though. You have Stalinists on one side, who think socialism is possible within the confines of capital, and 'ultra-lefts' on the other who basically reject every single position the Stalinists hold. Do you really expect those two to be united?

Also, the bourgeoisie is not united ideologically, and it's not some conspiratorial sect. Your position contradicts the basic Marxist understanding of class.



Umm, yes there is. If you don't see; anti-capitalism, anti-sexism, anti-LGBTQ oppression, anti-racism, anti-imperialist war, etc. as any sort of common group you're simply ignorant. You're "Hur dur but these darn Stalinists!!11!!" is not any sort of argument and still doesn't even matter within the context of the present day struggle if these "Stalinists" are really what you say they are. Do I expect them to unite? I don't expect true ultra-leftists (I don't like using that phrase all that much but it does apply here) to unite with anyone, so no.

The bourgeoisie does unite as a class when they need too. It's not anti-Marxist nor adovacting the idea of some "conspiratorial sect". When it comes down to it, they have the same basic class interest in which they will work together across their different ideological lines to protect.


But no one does that. I simply realize that the proletariat is the sole driving force for its own emancipation. I reject the notion that "the left" needs to step in and hold its hand. The point I'm trying to make is that left unity won't accomplish anything, as the left is irrelevant to communism.

So the left is not apart of the working class anymore?

[Manic Impressive]

A lack of unity isn't necessarily the same thing as a lack of cooperation.

Shouldn't working class agencies collaborate in their mutual interest? The bourgeoisie, the fascists, and the defenders of and apologists for both, present a much greater threat to working class interests than some little Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist/whateverist party, surely?
No they represent an equal threat as they are all capitalism. No such thing as good capitalism.

[Leftsolidarity]

No they represent an equal threat as they are all capitalism. No such thing as good capitalism.

We got our winner here. They are the only "true" anti-capitalists.

We're all unknowingly just cappies with red flags.

[Manic Impressive]

We got our winner here. They are the only "true" anti-capitalists.

We're all unknowingly just cappies with red flags.
It depends who you mean by "they" but yes you want to manage capitalism, therefore do not represent the interests of the working class. Hate to break it to you bud and hope you come to your senses.

[Let's Get Free]

I think it's good to have cordial relations toward groups where you have some commonality. There are fundamental differences in approach toward organizzation between, for example, Leninists and anarchists that make conflict inevitable. There are also differences between anarchists and some left-communists type groups, despite there usually being more in common than not, that can result in disagreements. Where there is good structure and a clear basis for discussion, at least, these difference don't mean a lot. In the absence of clear goals and limitations, shit will reign. For example, who can speak on behalf of the organization, if anyone? How are goals set? Who gets to participate and who does not? How is that decided? When these question come up, that's usually when things start to fall apart.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social-democracy has proven to be a universal failure. It's absurd that this is even a matter of discussion It hasn't ever succeeded. The Bolsheviks don't count. Even your hero Lars Lih, whose work I strongly suspect you have never even read, admits that a standard social-democratic model party could not be fully applied in Russia until the overthrow of Czarism.

Lenin's argument was that the model should be tried nonetheless, and the results for the RSDLP flowed from that. Councilism, abstentionism, spontaneism, and all that keep bumping heads against a wall when the door out of the confined space is on the opposite site.


Second, "class consciousness" is an awful concept that should be completely disregarded. The proletariat knows it's being screwed over. I would be shocked if more than a small minority of workers out there believe there is no way out. You wouldn't see strikes, lockouts, or any kind of resistance if the proletariat was "unconscious." Also, this idealization of "class consciousness" can create problematic assumptions that we valiant revolutionaries need to step in and educate the proletariat in the ways of Marxism. It's an elitist and pedantic view of the working class.

Somehow you ditched an old fact you used to recognize: that strikes, lockouts, or similar resistance are more often than not indicative of things other than class awareness. You just don't like now the fact that this is political, not economic.

Oh, Wilhelm Liebknecht was an "elitist" for his advocacy of educating, agitating, and organizing the working class.


You seem to have missed the point. There is a left. I don't deny this. But it will forever be irrelevant, because communism is an act of the proletarian class itself. The intellectuals and 'activists' that make up the left would be forgotten in a revolution by the proletariat. We can see this not only today (with worker insurrections around the world and even Occupy Wall Street), but also throughout history. The Bolsheviks didn't agitate towards revolution in Russia, but were left in the dust when the proletariat actually mobilized on its own. The shock of actual revolutionary movement left the Russian Marxists scrambling to capture the revolutionary energy of the Russian proletariat.

And when the question of class power is posed? Why does spontaneism always fail on this fundamental question? Why is mere regime change always found wanting? :glare:


@l'Enfermé - I mostly put the Marx quote there to demonstrate how many so-called Marxists don't understand what communism is. I honestly don't care that much about his supposed advocacy of a mass party. Some need to stop canonizing the words of people who died over 100 years ago.

Your "new" doctrine has been tried again and again, and found wanting, yet there's the insistence on bumping one's head against the wall when the door leading out of the confines of the small room is in another direction.


The OP is a little bit correct, but accidentally. A revived communist movement won't appear by uniting all the various sects of ours, but by pushing them out of existence(and perhaps swallowing a bunch). What we currently have is wholly inadequate and not up to the task of rebuilding the movement.

A revived worker-class movement might not appear by such, actually, but instead by pushing the (non-)strategies of reform coalitions and spontaneous strike/mass action fetishes aside.

[Comrade Samuel]

I think the Trotskyists are far more guilty, but yeah. The whole "mass, multi-tendency party" thing is mostly what turned me off Kautskyism.



Yeah, I expected this thread would get a lot of hate, but I posted it anyway since I think the issue needs to be addressed.



There are a lot of things wrong with this post. First of all, none of us are "revolutionaries" because there is no revolution. You might like the "idea" of revolution but you are not a revolutionary. No one is a revolutionary unless there is a revolution currently underway.

Second, "class consciousness" is an awful concept that should be completely disregarded. The proletariat knows it's being screwed over. I would be shocked if more than a small minority of workers out there believe there is no way out. You wouldn't see strikes, lockouts, or any kind of resistance if the proletariat was "unconscious." Also, this idealization of "class consciousness" can create problematic assumptions that we valiant revolutionaries need to step in and educate the proletariat in the ways of Marxism. It's an elitist and pedantic view of the working class.

Finally, there is no such thing as "building communism." Communism is the act, the movement, of proletarian class emancipation. There is no way to "build" or "establish" that. Also lol at the fascism part. Anyone who seriously thinks that fascism is a threat is just looking for an excuse to unite with liberals and turn communism into some moralistic "left vs. right" strategy game.



But working class agencies as they exist are totally irrelevant because they are so separated from the working class, not because they're divided. The only real fight against the bourgeoisie and fascists (even though they really aren't a major threat and probably never will be) has to be carried out by the revolutionary proletariat itself, not some impotent intellectuals.



You seem to have missed the point. There is a left. I don't deny this. But it will forever be irrelevant, because communism is an act of the proletarian class itself. The intellectuals and 'activists' that make up the left would be forgotten in a revolution by the proletariat. We can see this not only today (with worker insurrections around the world and even Occupy Wall Street), but also throughout history. The Bolsheviks didn't agitate towards revolution in Russia, but were left in the dust when the proletariat actually mobilized on its own. The shock of actual revolutionary movement left the Russian Marxists scrambling to capture the revolutionary energy of the Russian proletariat.

There isn't a "common interest" amongst the left, though. You have Stalinists on one side, who think socialism is possible within the confines of capital, and 'ultra-lefts' on the other who basically reject every single position the Stalinists hold. Do you really expect those two to be united?

Also, the bourgeoisie is not united ideologically, and it's not some conspiratorial sect. Your position contradicts the basic Marxist understanding of class.

But no one does that. I simply realize that the proletariat is the sole driving force for its own emancipation. I reject the notion that "the left" needs to step in and hold its hand. The point I'm trying to make is that left unity won't accomplish anything, as the left is irrelevant to communism.


@l'Enfermé - I mostly put the Marx quote there to demonstrate how many so-called Marxists don't understand what communism is. I honestly don't care that much about his supposed advocacy of a mass party. Some need to stop canonizing the words of people who died over 100 years ago.

I honestly have no idea were to start with you. Firstly I did not come here to argue semantics, I personally have just always thought that a revolutionary is somebody who rejects reformism and actively attempts to bring about revolution via agitation or in the case of revleft- talking about dead bearded people for hours on end.

I hardly feel as though the concept of class consciousness somehow promotes eliteism and worse yet you think that just because some workers are able to unionize that there aren't hundereds of thousands of them slaving away believing in the lassie fairy tale- that if they work harder maybe they could one day become the capitalist. What about the workers in China or North Korea? I'm certan that with their bourgeois governments censoring everything that threatens their absolute power that the workers have a perfect grasp on exactly what goes on at the top and about the world around them.

Really I think your being ridiculace when you say that every worker in the world is just going to throw off their oppressors simotainously. We could sit here for hours trying to prove if a socialist state can be successful but I have neither the time nor patients for this debate again. Your lack of concern at fascism's rising influence (in easten Europe specifically) is very unsettling. Face it- the worker's ultimate enemy is on the rise again and your trying to convince me and everybody else here that it is nothing to get spooked about. Why?

[Skyhilist]

Left unity is at least practical to a certain extent, in that we all (almost) share common goals which we can seek to accomplish and will likely be more successful in together. I mean obviously stalinism and anarcho-communism for example coexisting post revolution isn't realistic. But even post-revolution I think there can be a lot of idealogical unity. For example, if IIRC, Anarchist Catalonia contained anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, and even anarcho-mutualism in some cases I believe. I think that various types of anarchy at least can coexist post-revolution, seeing as they have a lot more in common.

[Drosophila]

You also seem to forget that the left plays a lot of behind the scenes roles that you apparently just don't recognize. You also are forgetting about the part that the Bolsheviks and other radical working-class parties were in jail, hard-labor, exile, etc. because of the agitation and organization that they did within the movement. You're correct, though, the masses mobilized on its own accord but an initial mobilization is not a complete revolution nor does it prove that a party is not needed.

The left today is just a hodge-podge of various positions, most of them irrelevant to the present day. The left is separate from working class struggle because it is neither a part nor an extension of the working class. The Russian Marxists didn't make the revolution or even play a significant role in it. All they tried to do was capture the energy of the actual revolutionaries. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's simply wrong to assert that the Russian proletariat couldn't move forward without them.


Umm, yes there is. If you don't see; anti-capitalism, anti-sexism, anti-LGBTQ oppression, anti-racism, anti-imperialist war, etc. as any sort of common group you're simply ignorant. You're "Hur dur but these darn Stalinists!!11!!" is not any sort of argument and still doesn't even matter within the context of the present day struggle if these "Stalinists" are really what you say they are.None of those hold much ground when you realize that the only way to achieve them is through a revolution. If the left can't agree on how to carry out that revolution, then anti-capitalism, anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc. aren't going to prove anything.


Do I expect them to unite? I don't expect true ultra-leftists (I don't like using that phrase all that much but it does apply here) to unite with anyone, so no.Sorry, but 'ultra-leftists' comprise a massive part of "the left." Kind of odd how you claim "left unity" while saying that you don't expect one of the biggest left tendencies to unite.


The bourgeoisie does unite as a class when they need too. It's not anti-Marxist nor adovacting the idea of some "conspiratorial sect". When it comes down to it, they have the same basic class interest in which they will work together across their different ideological lines to protect.But what you claimed was basically just "look, the bourgeoisie can unite! Why can't we?" There isn't a concrete bourgeois ideology, as they already are the ruling class.


So the left is not apart of the working class anymore?nope

You still haven't shown why left unity is so important.


I honestly have no idea were to start with you. Firstly I did not come here to argue semantics, I personally have just always thought that a revolutionary is somebody who rejects reformism and actively attempts to bring about revolution via agitation or in the case of revleft- talking about dead bearded people for hours on end.

But it's not semantics. Here's your quote: "Well to be honest friend I doubt Marx and Engles would have appreciated so-called "revolutionaries" sitting around with their thumbs in their asses hoping that class consciousness will just appear out of thin air."

That makes it seem like we are actual revolutionaries - engaging in "the revolution" through our discussions and whatnot. There is a big difference between being a revolutionary and advocating revolution.


I hardly feel as though the concept of class consciousness somehow promotes eliteism and worse yet you think that just because some workers are able to unionize that there aren't hundereds of thousands of them slaving away believing in the lassie fairy tale- that if they work harder maybe they could one day become the capitalist. What about the workers in China or North Korea? I'm certan that with their bourgeois governments censoring everything that threatens their absolute power that the workers have a perfect grasp on exactly what goes on at the top and about the world around them.The problem arises when leftists think that they can imbue the working class with some sort of "consciousness." This just results in what we see in the existing left parties. Everyone wants to be the workers' vanguard, yet they all sit around wondering why there are so few workers in their ranks. People who think "consciousness" needs to come from without underestimates the working class and holds an elitist view towards it.


Really I think your being ridiculace when you say that every worker in the world is just going to throw off their oppressors simotainously. We could sit here for hours trying to prove if a socialist state can be successful but I have neither the time nor patients for this debate again.?


Your lack of concern at fascism's rising influence (in easten Europe specifically) is very unsettling. Face it- the worker's ultimate enemy is on the rise again and your trying to convince me and everybody else here that it is nothing to get spooked about. Why?To quote another user:


And so is 'pure' anti-fascism. Waving the banner of bourgeois democracy against bourgeois fascism does nothing but drown the world in proletarian blood. And more importantly, has always been a historical failure. And I say this as an (nowadays not-so) active anti-fascist.

[Lokomotive293]

@OP: I have a serious question. If I understood you correctly, you are saying that all revolutionary organizations are at best irrelevant, at worst actually harmful to the revolution. That revolutionary organizations have nothing to do with the working class, the working class will make the revolution by itself. Besides not understanding how the working class is going to take power without being organized, my questions is: What do you propose we (= working class people who have realized that capitalism is not the end of history) do? Because to me, it seems like you are trying to tell me to give up politics, lean back and wait for the revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Concerning the original topic, it's a strawman. Comrades don't "idealize" left unity, otherwise we'd be in bed with state loyalists.

[robbo203]

Here's where the real kicker comes in. Left unity is a worthless cause. It really doesn't matter whether or not the left is united. This is because the left has nothing to do with communism. Communism is not a doctrine, an ideology, or a set of principles. Thus, there is no reason to unite the left, since there is nothing concrete that it could work towards. As Marx himself said in The German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." See any mention of "the left" in there? Of course not, because both Marx and Engels realized that the proletarian class had to be the sole driving force for revolution. They realized that the proletariat couldn't be represented through some vague "left" coalition or party. ( I realize that the words of Marx & Engels are not gold, but it's a bit odd for the people who hold them to be their ideological founders not to understand what their actual positions were.) The countless sects that make up the modern-day left are not, and will never be, a force for proletarian revolution. This is because the proletariat, the revolutionary force of communism, is fundamentally separate from the left. When the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the parties out there that claim to be "vanguards" will be left in the dust. The working class, the proletariat, is the sole driving force of communism. No sect out there, no matter what its principles and strategies, can ever hope to agitate or carry the proletariat through communism. Thus, ambitions of uniting "the left" are completely baseless. Since the proletariat must mobilize on its own and carry out revolution by itself, a united left will do nothing to assist the cause of proletarian revolution. When (if) the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the left will sink even further into irrelevance and impotence.

In short, the left is not and will never be a force for revolution. It is a meaningless collection of contradictory ideologies that is fundamentally separate from the proletariat.

There is a lot to be said for this line of argument. Insofar as it implies a rejection of vanguardism I wholly endorse it. Society cannot possibly be transformed in the interests of a majority by a minority however enlightened. That much is obvious. You cannot operate a postcapitalist society along postcapitalist lines without people understanding what this means and accepting what flows from that.


However, I do have a slight niggling doubt when I hear arguments being put forward such as the OP has put forward. Yes, of course it is true that that it is the working class itself that must bring about socialism/ communism in and through a revolution. This is basic Marxism. Neverthless it is also basic Marxism that the revolution must be a political act. It would seem to follow from this the mobilisation of the working class itself must take a political form - that is to say, the form of a political party in the widest sense of this term. It requires political organisation

Spontaneism and political orgaisation may seem like they are mutually exclusve but I dont think that is necessarily the case. Perhaps it is the case with a particular type of political organisation in the case of vanguardism but not necessarily political organisation per se

Why cannot these things be seen instead as reciprocal and complementary aspects of a revolutionary movement of the working class itself?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

LThis is because the proletariat, the revolutionary force of communism, is fundamentally separate from the left.
Fundamentally? Not at all. Most leftists I know are themselves workers, workers who have come to understand that the solution to their oppression as workers is to abolish capitalism and work toward communism.

I certainly agree that when the revolution comes, it will be because of the working class as a whole, not specific leftist tendencies.

[l'Enfermé]

There are a lot of things wrong with this post. First of all, none of us are "revolutionaries" because there is no revolution. You might like the "idea" of revolution but you are not a revolutionary. No one is a revolutionary unless there is a revolution currently underway.
You can say so.


Second, "class consciousness" is an awful concept that should be completely disregarded. The proletariat knows it's being screwed over. I would be shocked if more than a small minority of workers out there believe there is no way out. You wouldn't see strikes, lockouts, or any kind of resistance if the proletariat was "unconscious." Also, this idealization of "class consciousness" can create problematic assumptions that we valiant revolutionaries need to step in and educate the proletariat in the ways of Marxism. It's an elitist and pedantic view of the working class.If the proletariat knew it's being "screwed over" everyone wouldn't consider themselves part of this all-encompassing "middle class" buddy.


Finally, there is no such thing as "building communism." Communism is the act, the movement, of proletarian class emancipation. There is no way to "build" or "establish" that. Also lol at the fascism part. Anyone who seriously thinks that fascism is a threat is just looking for an excuse to unite with liberals and turn communism into some moralistic "left vs. right" strategy game. Communism is the movement and it's also the mode of production. This is Marx's definition and I will stick to it also, on the account of being a Marxist.



But working class agencies as they exist are totally irrelevant because they are so separated from the working class, not because they're divided. The only real fight against the bourgeoisie and fascists (even though they really aren't a major threat and probably never will be) has to be carried out by the revolutionary proletariat itself, not some impotent intellectuals.
If something is a working class "agency" it by definition can't be seperated from the working class since it's made up of proletarians.

The "revolutionary proletariat" is the "left", "the party", "communists", and so on. Otherwise it's not revolutionary.


You seem to have missed the point. There is a left. I don't deny this.You should deny it because there is no "left" in most countries, though there are a few sects here and there but they don't mean anything at all.



But it will forever be irrelevant, because communism is an act of the proletarian class itselfIt's irrelevant now because it doesn't exist.


The intellectuals and 'activists' that make up the left would be forgotten in a revolution by the proletariat.A communist revolution can only be, by definition, carried out by communists. What logically follows from this is that "the left", i.e, the communists, are the ones who are carrying out the revolution. How can communists forget about themselves?



We can see this not only today (with worker insurrections around the world and even Occupy Wall Street), but also throughout history. The Bolsheviks didn't agitate towards revolution in Russia, but were left in the dust when the proletariat actually mobilized on its own. The shock of actual revolutionary movement left the Russian Marxists scrambling to capture the revolutionary energy of the Russian proletariat. Not only are you adept at bastardizing Marx's writings, but you're also adept at bastardizing Russian history.


There isn't a "common interest" amongst the left, though. You have Stalinists on one side, who think socialism is possible within the confines of capital, and 'ultra-lefts' on the other who basically reject every single position the Stalinists hold. Do you really expect those two to be united? Swept aside, yes, but not united.



Also, the bourgeoisie is not united ideologically, and it's not some conspiratorial sect. Your position contradicts the basic Marxist understanding of class. Sort of, yes.


But no one does that. I simply realize that the proletariat is the sole driving force for its own emancipation. I reject the notion that "the left" needs to step in and hold its hand. The point I'm trying to make is that left unity won't accomplish anything, as the left is irrelevant to communism.Communism doesn't exist outside of "the left". How can you not see the stupidity in what you're saying?



@l'Enfermé - I mostly put the Marx quote there to demonstrate how many so-called Marxists don't understand what communism is. I honestly don't care that much about his supposed advocacy of a mass party. Some need to stop canonizing the words of people who died over 100 years ago.Yes, fellow Marxists, listen to this:

Don't give a shit about what Marx.

Ok, that makes sense, I suppose.

Marx died 130 years ago, yes. Newton published Principia 325 years ago, yet his law of universal gravitation still stands, and his 3 laws of motion still form the basis of classical mechanics. 150 years have passed since The Origin of Species was published, yet evolution is still real. It's been over 2,400 years since the Greeks have agreed that the Earth is rather spherical, yet the Earth is still not flat. 107 years has passed since Einstein said that E = mc2, yet E still equals mc2. How many years have passed since Kepler kicked it? When I was in school, his 3 laws of planetary motion were still considered valid except for in very rare situations.

The passage of 130 years since Marx's death does not somehow magically dissipate his genius. I'm sorry Marx isn't "new" enough for you, but this is revleft.com and not hipsters.com

[Ravachol]

We prefer the social-democracy of Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht and Lafargue to the social-democracy of Ebert and Noske, buddy.

Yet it was the social democracy of your beloved pre-war SPD that gave birth to Ebert and Noske, who then eliminated the dissident remnants of that same SPD (who broke with social-democracy in any sensible use of the word) before digging their own graves as well.



We got our winner here. They are the only "true" anti-capitalists.

We're all unknowingly just cappies with red flags.

You seem to confuse lip service and ideology with historical functioning. Just because someone waves a red flag and talks about revolution, doesn't mean that they cannot act as part of the counter revolution. In fact, history has shown that the most stable bulwark of the counter revolution has always been with those who waved the red flag against the red flag, regardless of what they themselves believed to be doing.

[Drosophila]

Concerning the original topic, it's a strawman. Comrades don't "idealize" left unity, otherwise we'd be in bed with state loyalists.

Is it a straw man? My intent was to directly address the fetishization of "left unity" by so many "comrades" here and elsewhere. From what I know you in some degree support a united left, so why not defend your position?



[...]

I don't disagree.



If the proletariat knew it's being "screwed over" everyone wouldn't consider themselves part of this all-encompassing "middle class" buddy.

Not really. 15.1% of people in the US alone live below the poverty line. 59.1% of Americans live off a wage. 11.4% of Americans belong to unions. How many of these people do you think go to work everyday thinking that their boss is being fair? This doesn't even take into account the entire world proletariat, which just recently has been a force of revolt (miner struggles, factory sabotage in India, etc.)


If something is a working class "agency" it by definition can't be seperated from the working class since it's made up of proletarians. Most parties aren't made up entirely of workers. Mostly just students and petit-bourgeois intellectuals trying to roleplay Trotsky and/or Lenin.


The "revolutionary proletariat" is the "left", "the party", "communists", and so on. Otherwise it's not revolutionary.Are you saying that the proletariat can't be revolutionary unless it labels itself "communist?"


You should deny it because there is no "left" in most countries, though there are a few sects here and there but they don't mean anything at all.It's ugly, but it's there.



It's irrelevant now because it doesn't exist. Yes it does. People are pretty fixed on the left-right spectrum.


A communist revolution can only be, by definition, carried out by communists. What logically follows from this is that "the left", i.e, the communists, are the ones who are carrying out the revolution. How can communists forget about themselves?See above.


Not only are you adept at bastardizing Marx's writings, but you're also adept at bastardizing Russian history.The soviets formed on their own, strikes happened on their own, etc. The actual uprising wasn't done by any party. The proletariat happens to have the ability to organize on its own. You don't seem to realize this.

But let's talk about the here-and-now for a change.


Communism doesn't exist outside of "the left". How can you not see the stupidity in what you're saying?Again, communism is not an ideology or doctrine. It isn't some uniting set of principles.


Yes, fellow Marxists, listen to this:

Don't give a shit about what Marx.

Ok, that makes sense, I suppose.

Marx died 130 years ago, yes. Newton published Principia 325 years ago, yet his law of universal gravitation still stands, and his 3 laws of motion still form the basis of classical mechanics. 150 years have passed since The Origin of Species was published, yet evolution is still real. It's been over 2,400 years since the Greeks have agreed that the Earth is rather spherical, yet the Earth is still not flat. 107 years has passed since Einstein said that E = mc2, yet E still equals mc2. How many years have passed since Kepler kicked it? When I was in school, his 3 laws of planetary motion were still considered valid except for in very rare situations.

The passage of 130 years since Marx's death does not somehow magically dissipate his genius. I'm sorry Marx isn't "new" enough for you, but this is revleft.com and not hipsters.comHaha, wow. You're comparing Marx to Newton, who was a contributor to the natural sciences and not comparable to Marx at all. Stop it with this silly hero worship. Even Newton's theories were subjected to revision, not because he was an idiot, but because he was wrong. All you're doing here is elevating Marx to some god-like state where he's not allowed to be countered in any way. If one thing's awesome about anarchists, it's that they lack what you're doing here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is it a straw man? My intent was to directly address the fetishization of "left unity" by so many "comrades" here and elsewhere. From what I know you in some degree support a united left, so why not defend your position?

I do support a united worker-class left, but I don't idealize it like how you're purporting it.


How many of these people do you think go to work everyday thinking that their boss is being fair? This doesn't even take into account the entire world proletariat, which just recently has been a force of revolt (miner struggles, factory sabotage in India, etc.)

How many of these people do you think go to work everyday and bother to care?


Most parties aren't made up entirely of workers. Mostly just students and petit-bourgeois intellectuals trying to roleplay Trotsky and/or Lenin.

Correction: most current parties, and I have issues.


Stop it with this silly hero worship. Even Newton's theories were subjected to revision, not because he was an idiot, but because he was wrong. All you're doing here is elevating Marx to some god-like state where he's not allowed to be countered in any way. If one thing's awesome about anarchists, it's that they lack what you're doing here.

We're not the ones doing the hero worship, or have you conveniently forgotten my criticism of Marx's understanding of "party" as having been "primordial"?

[l'Enfermé]

Yet it was the social democracy of your beloved pre-war SPD that gave birth to Ebert and Noske, who then eliminated the dissident remnants of that same SPD (who broke with social-democracy in any sensible use of the word) before digging their own graves as well.

Yes, yes, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Mehring, Levi and others from what became the Spartakusbund "broke with social-democracy" in 1914, in any sensible use of the word. Of course.

Funnily enough, they all joined the Independent Social-Democratic Party in 1918. Renegades! Did they "unbreak" with the Social-Democracy? Damn renegades! :lol:

And then Luxemburg and Liebknecht and Levi and Mehring and all the rest must have broke with Social-Democracy again, "in any sensible use of the word" of course, in December of 1918, when they split to found the KPD, yes? How inconsistent of them!

Did the Spartacists "un-break" with the Social-Democracy again when they participated in the January Uprising, which was mainly an USPD affair(the whole thing was started, by the way, when Ebert dismissed the Berlin police chief, Emil Eichorn, an USPDer who was active in the SPD for 40 years by then)? Did they "un-break" with the Social-Democracy again when they merged with the USPD in 1920(at its 1920 Halle congress, the Independent Social-Democratic Party voted to join the Comintern and to merge with the much-smaller KPD to form the VKPD, but a minority of the party, the right-wing, split off and formed their own USPD).

Renegades!

But all that doesn't matter. Your whole argument is merely a straw man.

[Rafiq]

A social-democrat is trying to talk about legitimacy? You left that behind at Verdun, Ypres, and the Somme.

It's like a person who fucks up on spelling the word "Fuckwit" (if that is a word) and then, when called out, proceeds to call the person a "Fukkwit". You're doing nothing but proving me correct.


Social-democracy has proven to be a universal failure. It's absurd that this is even a matter of discussion It hasn't ever succeeded. The Bolsheviks don't count. Even your hero Lars Lih, whose work I strongly suspect you have never even read, admits that a standard social-democratic model party could not be fully applied in Russia until the overthrow of Czarism.


Lars Lih is not my "hero", I have never read Lars Lih beyond a few paragraphs and pages (which I enjoyed). I'm lazy in a lot of regards but I plan on it. So you are correct in your suspicions. The fact that few people on this thread, on this site know what "social democracy" meant on in that historical context (yet you did) demonstrates not only your dishonesty, but your intellectual cowardice. To call me a social democrat in the 21st century is laughable, and revokes you of any legitimacy. Still, I challenge you. I want you to find one post of mine that could possibly signify I am a social democrat in any sense. Do it. If you can't, then you don't have to admit you are a worthless pile of dishonest shit, it would be rendered an objective fact.


As a proponent of an ideology that makes even Stalinism look revolutionary, you're not really in much of a position to make a judgement of any kind. All you've done is simply regurgitate the phrases and slogans of your master without even understanding the context or background material from which they came.


Marxism is not an ideology and never was. Have I regurgitated phrases and slogans? Find one. I am an Orthodox Marxist, yes. If you could find a post by me, and no one else, me, which could compel one to think that "I iz not revoluionariez nough" even by Anarchist standards feel free to find one to validate yourself, or to prove your validity to everyone in this thread. If you cannot, refer to the above sentences I made. Time and time again I have rejected this notion of "ultra-leftism", I have always had great disdain for this term. Time and time again I have denounced parties like the KKE and their Eurocommunist counterparts as bourgeois and social democratic (in the modern sense). You have known this. And you have always concurred with me (until your abrupt flip flop). And now, you accuse me of reformism and what not?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lately I've been reading here and elsewhere promotion of the concept of "left unity." Many seem to think that the biggest obstacle to revolution is the fact that "the left" is divided over trivial issues., and that somehow, if the left were to unite, the proletariat could gain momentum and move towards revolution. In the past few weeks, I've finally come to realize that this notion of "left unity" is a complete farce. I felt that it would be appropriate to start a thread attacking this issue directly.

We must start off by defining just what "the left" actually is. If so many want to unite it, then surely it's something of importance, right? Wrong. "The left" is used to describe so many different lines of thought that it may as well be a useless term. Liberals claim to be on the left, as do reformists and even some neoconservatives. But the "pan-leftists" who so fetishize left unity often only seek to unite the true left - the tendencies you see prevalent around the revolutionary left (Trotskyism, "Marxism-Leninism," Maoism, Anarchism, Left-Communism, etc.). Still, the union of these tendencies would not only be a monumental task, but a pointless task.

Here's where the real kicker comes in. Left unity is a worthless cause. It really doesn't matter whether or not the left is united. This is because the left has nothing to do with communism. Communism is not a doctrine, an ideology, or a set of principles. Thus, there is no reason to unite the left, since there is nothing concrete that it could work towards. As Marx himself said in The German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." See any mention of "the left" in there? Of course not, because both Marx and Engels realized that the proletarian class had to be the sole driving force for revolution. They realized that the proletariat couldn't be represented through some vague "left" coalition or party. ( I realize that the words of Marx & Engels are not gold, but it's a bit odd for the people who hold them to be their ideological founders not to understand what their actual positions were.) The countless sects that make up the modern-day left are not, and will never be, a force for proletarian revolution. This is because the proletariat, the revolutionary force of communism, is fundamentally separate from the left. When the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the parties out there that claim to be "vanguards" will be left in the dust. The working class, the proletariat, is the sole driving force of communism. No sect out there, no matter what its principles and strategies, can ever hope to agitate or carry the proletariat through communism. Thus, ambitions of uniting "the left" are completely baseless. Since the proletariat must mobilize on its own and carry out revolution by itself, a united left will do nothing to assist the cause of proletarian revolution. When (if) the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the left will sink even further into irrelevance and impotence.

In short, the left is not and will never be a force for revolution. It is a meaningless collection of contradictory ideologies that is fundamentally separate from the proletariat.
I agree that left unity is a worthless concept. You lose right after that. Quoting Marx from the time of German Ideology about parties or the mechanism for revolution is not that pertinent. His activities suggest that he very well knew the need for the subjective intervention by revolutionaries in proletarian struggle. False unity on the left is a recipe for disaster. If you can arrive at principled agreeement, fine, no need for separate organizations. But usually "unity" always comes at the cost of revolutionary program. It falls to the lowest common denominator, usually reformism.

The world proletariat has had lots of experience fighting "on its own." And it leads to defeats. The one time it did not, was in Russia, in 1917. Seems there was some kind of Leninist vanguard party there if I recall. The formation of Soviets was relatively spontaneous, certainly not the idea of the Bolsheviks. What would have happened without the Bolsheviks? It is not even clear that the Tsar would not have been back in power by January. Perhaps a Kadet led government supported by French imperialism -- that is the best case scenario -- and it would have been ugly.

You are right, though about this: in a revolutionary upsurge, most of the small left groups will be irrelevant. A handful will rise to the occasion and become revolutionary parties or fuse with larger revolutionary groupings. In some places new parties will form. But there is a screaming need for a conscious Leninist vanguard to lead future revolutions -- to retain the lessons that have been learned at great cost by the world working class (again and again and again and again. . . ).

[Ravachol]

Yes, yes, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Mehring, Levi and others from what became the Spartakusbund "broke with social-democracy" in 1914, in any sensible use of the word. Of course.

Funnily enough, they all joined the Independent Social-Democratic Party in 1918. Renegades! Did they "unbreak" with the Social-Democracy? Damn renegades! :lol:

And then Luxemburg and Liebknecht and Levi and Mehring and all the rest must have broke with Social-Democracy again, "in any sensible use of the word" of course, in December of 1918, when they split to found the KPD, yes? How inconsistent of them!

Did the Spartacists "un-break" with the Social-Democracy again when they participated in the January Uprising, which was mainly an USPD affair(the whole thing was started, by the way, when Ebert dismissed the Berlin police chief, Emil Eichorn, an USPDer who was active in the SPD for 40 years by then)? Did they "un-break" with the Social-Democracy again when they merged with the USPD in 1920(at its 1920 Halle congress, the Independent Social-Democratic Party voted to join the Comintern and to merge with the much-smaller KPD to form the VKPD, but a minority of the party, the right-wing, split off and formed their own USPD).

Renegades!

But all that doesn't matter. Your whole argument is merely a straw man.

No, obviously you're right. The politics and advocated strategy of Luxemburg, Liebknecht, etc. were completely congruent with those of the pre-war SPD. How silly of me. :rolleyes:

[l'Enfermé]

No, obviously you're right. The politics and advocated strategy of Luxemburg, Liebknecht, etc. were completely congruent with those of the pre-war SPD. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
http://lazytraders.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/straw-man.jpg

And again, you're full of shit. This Luxemburg of yours co-founded the Polish Social-Democracy and was one of its main leaders for 25 years. She was the main theoretician of an entire wing of the SPD for almost 20. After her supposed "break" with Social-Democracy, she joined a Social-Democractic party and didn't leave it until a few weeks before her murder, and even during the events of her murder, the January Uprising, she and her party were working hand-in-hand with Social-Democrats.

This is all because there was no break in any meaningful sense of the word. Hell, she still even calls Bebel "our leader" in the Junius Pamphlet. According to Luxemburg, she and her comrades were carrying on the legacy of the Social-Democracy, which collapsed in August 1914(says Luxemburg).

And yes, the politics and the "advocated strategy" of the Spartacists were completely congruent with those of the pre-war SPD left-wing, though adjusted for the revolutionary period which was ushered by the world war. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Was Luxemburg not a revolutionary before 1914?

[Comrade Samuel]

The left today is just a hodge-podge of various positions, most of them irrelevant to the present day. The left is separate from working class struggle because it is neither a part nor an extension of the working class. The Russian Marxists didn't make the revolution or even play a significant role in it. All they tried to do was capture the energy of the actual revolutionaries. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's simply wrong to assert that the Russian proletariat couldn't move forward without them.

None of those hold much ground when you realize that the only way to achieve them is through a revolution. If the left can't agree on how to carry out that revolution, then anti-capitalism, anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc. aren't going to prove anything.

Sorry, but 'ultra-leftists' comprise a massive part of "the left." Kind of odd how you claim "left unity" while saying that you don't expect one of the biggest left tendencies to unite.

But what you claimed was basically just "look, the bourgeoisie can unite! Why can't we?" There isn't a concrete bourgeois ideology, as they already are the ruling class.

nope

You still haven't shown why left unity is so important.



But it's not semantics. Here's your quote: "Well to be honest friend I doubt Marx and Engles would have appreciated so-called "revolutionaries" sitting around with their thumbs in their asses hoping that class consciousness will just appear out of thin air."

That makes it seem like we are actual revolutionaries - engaging in "the revolution" through our discussions and whatnot. There is a big difference between being a revolutionary and advocating revolution.
The problem arises when leftists think that they can imbue the working class with some sort of "consciousness." This just results in what we see in the existing left parties. Everyone wants to be the workers' vanguard, yet they all sit around wondering why there are so few workers in their ranks. People who think "consciousness" needs to come from without underestimates the working class and holds an elitist view towards it.

?

To quote another user:

Revolutionary =/= advocate of revolution- noted


So let me get this right: you think that the spreading of revolutionary ideas and the organization of workers into a party run upon prolatarate democracy with the intent of one day establishing a society without a state or hierarchy is elitist? There is no underestimation of the working class here- it is merely accepting the obvious fact that revolutionary ideas cannot be learned unless they are taught and that simply hoping the agitated masses just decide to radicalize will not accomplish anything. Last I checked locally there is no party hoping to become the vanguard in the United States- the CPUSA gave that dream up in the 30's to become apologists for the democrats. I'm not so well versed with the goings of the rest of the world but the CPGB-ML, KPRF, the Communist Party of China and SYRIZA don't sound like better alternatives from what I hear and these are the biggest and most relevant "communist" parties I know of.

As for the part that you simply replied to with "?" you certainly don't hold a favorable opinion on the idea of a vanguard party or socialism in one country so I ask you what is your grand sheme to speed up the revolution? sitting at starbucks is clearly not cutting it.

You seem to mistake me as an apologist for bourgeois democracy- I said there is a growing fascist problem and you said not to worry about it so again I ask why?

[GoddessCleoLover]

http://lazytraders.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/straw-man.jpg

And again, you're full of shit. This Luxemburg of yours co-founded the Polish Social-Democracy and was one of its main leaders for 25 years. She was the main theoretician of an entire wing of the SPD for almost 20. After her supposed "break" with Social-Democracy, she joined a Social-Democractic party and didn't leave it until a few weeks before her murder, and even during the events of her murder, the January Uprising, she and her party were working hand-in-hand with Social-Democrats.

This is all because there was no break in any meaningful sense of the word. Hell, she still even calls Bebel "our leader" in the Junius Pamphlet. According to Luxemburg, she and her comrades were carrying on the legacy of the Social-Democracy, which collapsed in August 1914(says Luxemburg).

And yes, the politics and the "advocated strategy" of the Spartacists were completely congruent with those of the pre-war SPD left-wing, though adjusted for the revolutionary period which was ushered by the world war. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Was Luxemburg not a revolutionary before 1914?

This is historiographically incorrect. Rosa Luxemburg had warned Socialists for years that Karl Kautsky was really a reformist and not a revolutionary.

[l'Enfermé]

Not really. 15.1% of people in the US alone live below the poverty line. 59.1% of Americans live off a wage. 11.4% of Americans belong to unions. How many of these people do you think go to work everyday thinking that their boss is being fair? This doesn't even take into account the entire world proletariat, which just recently has been a force of revolt (miner struggles, factory sabotage in India, etc.)
What does that have to do with anything? The boss being fair or unfair doesn't matter in the least. Not even 1 percent of the American proletariat


Most parties aren't made up entirely of workers. Mostly just students and petit-bourgeois intellectuals trying to roleplay Trotsky and/or Lenin.Why are you telling me this? When do I ever say anything flattering about all these sects?

These sects, are not "worker's agencies", which makes it even more important to create actual "worker's agencies".


Are you saying that the proletariat can't be revolutionary unless it labels itself "communist?"
Why "labels"? I don't care about labels.

But yes. Only communists are genuinely revolutionary under capitalism.


It's ugly, but it's there.A few hundred or a thousand people here and there, in countries with tens of millions of people. There are currently 500 million people in the EU. I would say that, in the 21st century, we could start talking about an actual "left" in the EU if we had at least 500,000 communists.


Yes it does. People are pretty fixed on the left-right spectrum. What?


The soviets formed on their own, strikes happened on their own, etc.Yeah, and what did these wonderful Soviets do without the Bolsheviks? Hmm, collaborate with the bourgeoisie, promote "defense of the fatherland" and chauvinism and such wonderful things(and the Soviets of 1917, by the way, were formed mostly by the Mensheviks or were based on local Menshevik organisations after 1914). The Soviets were completely impotent and absolutely worthless until the Bolsheviks exploited them. We're talking about the same Soviets which declared the Provisional Government to have "unlimited power" after the July Days.

"Every class struggle is a political struggle"(The Communist Manifesto), strikes are genuine class struggle only under very exceptional circumstances when they aren't given a political flavour by a party-movement.


The actual uprising wasn't done by any party. The proletariat happens to have the ability to organize on its own. You don't seem to realize this.
Again, communism is not an ideology or doctrine. It isn't some uniting set of principles.I didn't say that communism is an ideology, or that communism is a doctrine, or that communism is a "uniting set of principles".

The GI quote, which you thought helps your argument, calls communism a "real movement". If communism is a movement, then the movement is made up of individuals. These individuals, of course, being communists. Logically, then, not only is "the left"(and by this we mean the total sum of all the various flavours of communists)not "irrelevant to communism", as you stated, but there is no communism at all without "the left".

This is the logical conclusion of your premise, comrade.


Haha, wow. You're comparing Marx to Newton, who was a contributor to the natural sciences and not comparable to Marx at all. Stop it with this silly hero worship. Even Newton's theories were subjected to revision, not because he was an idiot, but because he was wrong. All you're doing here is elevating Marx to some god-like state where he's not allowed to be countered in any way. If one thing's awesome about anarchists, it's that they lack what you're doing here.I'm not ashamed of my adherence to Marxist doctrine. I wouldn't call myself a Marxist otherwise.

[Lucretia]

Lately I've been reading here and elsewhere promotion of the concept of "left unity." Many seem to think that the biggest obstacle to revolution is the fact that "the left" is divided over trivial issues., and that somehow, if the left were to unite, the proletariat could gain momentum and move towards revolution. In the past few weeks, I've finally come to realize that this notion of "left unity" is a complete farce. I felt that it would be appropriate to start a thread attacking this issue directly.

We must start off by defining just what "the left" actually is. If so many want to unite it, then surely it's something of importance, right? Wrong. "The left" is used to describe so many different lines of thought that it may as well be a useless term. Liberals claim to be on the left, as do reformists and even some neoconservatives. But the "pan-leftists" who so fetishize left unity often only seek to unite the true left - the tendencies you see prevalent around the revolutionary left (Trotskyism, "Marxism-Leninism," Maoism, Anarchism, Left-Communism, etc.). Still, the union of these tendencies would not only be a monumental task, but a pointless task.

Here's where the real kicker comes in. Left unity is a worthless cause. It really doesn't matter whether or not the left is united. This is because the left has nothing to do with communism. Communism is not a doctrine, an ideology, or a set of principles. Thus, there is no reason to unite the left, since there is nothing concrete that it could work towards. As Marx himself said in The German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." See any mention of "the left" in there? Of course not, because both Marx and Engels realized that the proletarian class had to be the sole driving force for revolution. They realized that the proletariat couldn't be represented through some vague "left" coalition or party. ( I realize that the words of Marx & Engels are not gold, but it's a bit odd for the people who hold them to be their ideological founders not to understand what their actual positions were.) The countless sects that make up the modern-day left are not, and will never be, a force for proletarian revolution. This is because the proletariat, the revolutionary force of communism, is fundamentally separate from the left. When the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the parties out there that claim to be "vanguards" will be left in the dust. The working class, the proletariat, is the sole driving force of communism. No sect out there, no matter what its principles and strategies, can ever hope to agitate or carry the proletariat through communism. Thus, ambitions of uniting "the left" are completely baseless. Since the proletariat must mobilize on its own and carry out revolution by itself, a united left will do nothing to assist the cause of proletarian revolution. When (if) the proletariat mobilizes for revolution, the left will sink even further into irrelevance and impotence.

In short, the left is not and will never be a force for revolution. It is a meaningless collection of contradictory ideologies that is fundamentally separate from the proletariat.

I think it would be fruitful to hear members of the ISO respond to this, since on this forum they explicitly represent the immediate goal of their organization as "building a broad left."