Splits and Sectarianism in The Left

[No War But Cold War]

Why does the left have more infighting than say fascists? Is it purely because our ideas are more complex or is it something else?

[The Idler]

Because people identify as political because they believe they are doing the right thing (moral crusaders to some extent and relying on gut instinct even on the left) and generally being left takes a bit more independent thinking and bloody-mindedness. The rest are just wannabee Trotskys falling out over whose vanguard is the true one. Accusations of sectarian are thrown around almost as liberally as unity, but a lot of leftists don't even understand anti-substitutionism and putting the class before the party.

[roy]

fascism, for instance, doesn't encompass anywhere near the range of ideas that the radical left does. leftists can be anything from anarcho-communists to Maoists, who are practically opposites, while fascists stand for more or less the same shit.

[ind_com]

Why does the left have more infighting than say fascists? Is it purely because our ideas are more complex or is it something else?

It is because of the nature of class-struggle within these movements. The underlying struggles behind splits in fascist or other capitalist movements are intra-ruling class. But the leftist movement splits both due to inter class and intra class struggle. The leftist groups that are petty bourgeois in nature split due to meaningless ego-clashes justified by bizarre political stands, the leftist groups that are conscious and disguised representatives of the bourgeoisie split due to material reasons and division of power. The groups that are proletarian in nature split from each other due to variation in strategy and tactics, or separate themselves from treacherous bourgeois factions, which also reflects class struggle in the society. When bourgeois leftist groups reach an understanding on the division of power and benefits, or recognize the need to fight proletarian revolutions together, they join hands with each other and similar reactionary organizations. On the other hand, when proletarian groups reach a common stand through practice and negotiation, they too join to form more powerful organizations.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

fascism, for instance, doesn't encompass anywhere near the range of ideas that the radical left does. leftists can be anything from anarcho-communists to Maoists, who are practically opposites, while fascists stand for more or less the same shit.

I wouldn't say this is true: there are White Nationalists, White Separatists, White Supreamicists, Hitlerites (Neo-Nazis), Strasserists (Neo-Nazis), National Anarchists, Skinheads, etc...

While all of these identifications share much of the same end-goal ("Racially pure society") there means of achieving it are no different than the Left, meaning, they each have their own ideological path and beliefs. For instance, the White Nationalists and White Separatists, though they obviously by and large have racist, fascist views, it is not a guarantee that all will (some odd balls exist). Then there is the struggle between the two Neo-Nazi monikers (Strasserism and Hitlerism) which I classify as the Far-Right's version of Stalin-VS-Trotsky. Then the National Anarchists believe in the race theory through a sort of quasi tribe system (to put it lightly), while Skinheads, though often associated with fascism, can in fact be anti-fascist, while those who are fascist have their own lifestyle and political thought which overlaps with other fascist tendencies.

The left is certainly divided, I have heard stories of Trots and Maoists fighting ech other while Nazis looked on distributing their leaflets, but this does not mean the radical right is anymore coherent as their sectarianism often comes to bloodshed and street fighting.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it may be because our 'ideas' are untestable. Socialist society will not come into being until after the overthrow of capitalism, which has never happened, so there's still lots of convincing needs to be done that *this* (as opposed to *that*) political practice is more likely to help us get there.

Revolution, I think, will prove a lot of tendencies wrong and if (when) the world revolution begins, those tendencies that at least in part embody some answers for the working class, will have to co-operate.