Questions about unity

[Philosophos]

Some people want to unite the left to overthrow capitalism some others because they think it's the ONLY way for revolution. Some other people on the other hand don't support this idea and they are totally opposed to it. Why?
Don't they believe that the left has not the power that it would have if it wasn't broken into a thousand parts?
Do they believe that the left can't work with each other because there are so many differences between the tendencies?

To me it doesn't really matter what tendencie you follow as long as you are a communist (with some exceptions ofc as always). Also I see that Marxists and Anarchists (the two main tendencies) are either equally right from some prespectives or equally wrong so what's the point of arguing?

What I want to see with this thread is just why there are people who oppose the Pan-leftism and the rest that want to unite the left.

DISCUUUUS!!!!

[Questionable]

Because "unity" doesn't mean anything if it doesn't solve theoretical questions. If one group of leftists believe in participating in elections and another opposes them, what good does calling for unity do?

I'm personally of the opinion that as capitalism degrades that most tendencies will "melt away" and a new working class theory will emerge that corresponds with the times. But that won't happen on its own, communists still need to be active in theory and in practice.

[Blake's Baby]

I was coming up with a way to answer this by analogy, and decided that one way to look at it is that we all agree that we want a house. So why don't we all unite to build a house? Fine, except that some of us want to build an igloo, some of us want to build a yurt, some of us want to build a New York Brownstone, some of us want to build a Congolese grass-hut, some of us a Borneo longhouse etc. How far are we going to get building 'a house' that anyone could recognise, with some snow blocks, some logs, some bits of Wisconsin stone, a few cow-skins and some grass?

I agree with Questionable that when the revolution begins, most of the questions that divide the putative 'revolutionary left' will be solved by the circumstances pertaining; people will have to adjust their ideologies to fit reality. In the meanwhile... we just do the best we can with what we've got.

Having said all that, many of the rest of the Left Communists in the world think I'm far too hung up on formal 'unity'. I'm definitely one of the panicky ones who is worried we're not doing enough to prepare for the coming combats. But that's unity in pretty specific circumstances - I think 'tendency unity' is one thing and should be fought for, but 'general socialist unity' is just a pipe-dream.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Calls for "Leftist unity" usually mean "vote Hollande" or something like that.

I mean, the whole point of unity is for whatever unified left groups to act together, and that means going along with whatever the biggest group(s) decide.

[nativeabuse]

I was coming up with a way to answer this by analogy, and decided that one way to look at it is that we all agree that we want a house. So why don't we all unite to build a house? Fine, except that some of us want to build an igloo, some of us want to build a yurt, some of us want to build a New York Brownstone, some of us want to build a Congolese grass-hut, some of us a Borneo longhouse etc. How far are we going to get building 'a house' that anyone could recognise, with some snow blocks, some logs, some bits of Wisconsin stone, a few cow-skins and some grass?


I like this analogy, but I think that this analogy needs to be placed in a timeline.

Think about it this way, we are trying to concentrate on what type of house we are going to build, when we have no money/power to get supplies, no construction workers at our disposal, and no land to put it on. And yet we are arguing over what size the windows are going to be and other petty squabbles tendencies like to get into. I am of the opinion personally that whenever it comes time to build the house it is going to be built however the masses end up wanting it to be built anyway, regardless of whatever plans we make in theory. And we will take what we can get.

Why don't we worry about immediate problems like the fact that our presence in most countries is slim to none unless you are counting social democrats. Our groups are plagued by a whole laundry list of problems, everything from bad organization to their divisive nature.

We are all playing armchair revolutionary, but we aren't accomplishing anything by doing it. Opening the phone book to a random page and trying to talk to whoever picks up about communism would be more productive than arguments about theory that we have all heard a million times already.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree, and that's why 'left unity' is a non-starter. If we can't even agree what the problem is, how can we work together for a solution?

Most 'left' groups have an ideology that I regard as actually harmful to the working class and the prospects of establishing a communist society. Why should I work with them? I would be working against the revolution. Why should I do that, for the sake of 'unity'?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I was coming up with a way to answer this by analogy, and decided that one way to look at it is that we all agree that we want a house. So why don't we all unite to build a house? Fine, except that some of us want to build an igloo, some of us want to build a yurt, some of us want to build a New York Brownstone, some of us want to build a Congolese grass-hut, some of us a Borneo longhouse etc. How far are we going to get building 'a house' that anyone could recognise, with some snow blocks, some logs, some bits of Wisconsin stone, a few cow-skins and some grass?

I agree with Questionable that when the revolution begins, most of the questions that divide the putative 'revolutionary left' will be solved by the circumstances pertaining; people will have to adjust their ideologies to fit reality. In the meanwhile... we just do the best we can with what we've got.

Having said all that, many of the rest of the Left Communists in the world think I'm far too hung up on formal 'unity'. I'm definitely one of the panicky ones who is worried we're not doing enough to prepare for the coming combats. But that's unity in pretty specific circumstances - I think 'tendency unity' is one thing and should be fought for, but 'general socialist unity' is just a pipe-dream.
Agreed. Uniting revolutionary forces is very important. But most people who talk about unity of the left don't understand that what happens with vague calls for unity is that it goes to the lowest common denominator -- usually reformist or even liberal program. This actually weakens the left. Unity must be fought for on programmatic grounds. Unity not based on program is unprincipled and never goes anywhere positive. I would go further, splits are a necessary part of the maturing process of revolutionary parties -- well, splits and fusions.

[nativeabuse]

Agreed. Uniting revolutionary forces is very important. But most people who talk about unity of the left don't understand that what happens with vague calls for unity is that it goes to the lowest common denominator -- usually reformist or even liberal program. This actually weakens the left. Unity must be fought for on programmatic grounds. Unity not based on program is unprincipled and never goes anywhere positive. I would go further, splits are a necessary part of the maturing process of revolutionary parties -- well, splits and fusions.

I understand and agree completely that calls for unity usually devolve into reform, but the solution shouldn't be that we scrap unity. We should simply take better care to steer it on the correct path, and keep out those types of people.

I feel like if we had an organization based on the unity between most branches of the ML's and Anarchists combining them all into an all inclusive group like we have on Revleft, that would actually work together with one another, we could actually get around to accomplishing something.

[Blake's Baby]

How can you possibly have 'unity' between Anarchists and MLs? How would that in practice work? Their conceptions about what the revolution is are totally at odds. Try explaining how an organisation (party/not party) that both did and didn't take power over a post-revolutionary state and not-state could function... that's the problem.

[Philosophos]

How can you possibly have 'unity' between Anarchists and MLs? How would that in practice work? Their conceptions about what the revolution is are totally at odds. Try explaining how an organisation (party/not party) that both did and didn't take power over a post-revolutionary state and not-state could function... that's the problem.

So what? Do they have to fight each other whenever it's possible? I say this about the various fights the MLs had with anarchists....

[Blake's Baby]

Given that each side thinks the other is counter-revolutionary, of course they do. Why co-operate with a group who will try to destroy the revolution? Would you co-operate with Nazis?

[Thirsty Crow]

Some people want to unite the left to overthrow capitalism some others because they think it's the ONLY way for revolution. Some other people on the other hand don't support this idea and they are totally opposed to it. Why?
Well, first of all, I disagree with the whole enormous weight placed on the notion of a united left (presumably in a new party). Effective intervention into working class struggles is important, as well as a dissemination of revolutionary ideas, but the crucial factor is the struggle of the class itself. No party and no united left can create struggles or a revolutionary situation.

Secondly, the situation is not so black-and-white. I am opposed to the blindness of unity at any cost and would argue for a unity on grounds of ageed organizational practices and structure and program, with proletarian internationalism functioning as a minimum condition.



Don't they believe that the left has not the power that it would have if it wasn't broken into a thousand parts? What power would that be? Do you think that in this way "the left" could dictate and create struggles?


Do they believe that the left can't work with each other because there are so many differences between the tendencies?
I don't think that joint work is impossible, but that certain groups do not represent the revolutionary alternative at all.


To me it doesn't really matter what tendencie you follow as long as you are a communist (with some exceptions ofc as always).
I agree, but I suspect that we would disagree on what actually makes one a communist.


Also I see that Marxists and Anarchists (the two main tendencies) are either equally right from some prespectives or equally wrong so what's the point of arguing?


I don't uphold this division as something to be employed in the argument about unity.

[Philosophos]

Given that each side thinks the other is counter-revolutionary, of course they do. Why co-operate with a group who will try to destroy the revolution? Would you co-operate with Nazis?

well I don't think it's the same thing. MLs whould never do the things the Nazis did because of a characteristic you have from your birth (being a jew, homosexual, black, tall, short or whatever else). The same goes for anarchs.

Anyway I see your point but I still think that I would prefer to have a left ideology that is different than mine rather than having a capitalist/fascist.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't know whether it makes much difference to be honest, if I was to be executed I don't think I'd be happier it was for being a 'counter-revolutionary underirable' rather than being 'an enemy of the Chosen People'.