A unified left?

[nopasaran]

Hey there, as a relatively new leftist (since the end of 2011) I'm just curious as to what everybody thinks about the hope of a unified/united left?


In-fighting and sectarianism seems to be the most notorious stumbling-block for the left and often leads to our demise (e.g in the Spanish civil war). Personally I lean towards anarcho-communism, but I would happily fight alongside anti-capitalist comrades from any tendency if it meant creating an effective fighting force. I acknowledge, however, that this attitude has historically landed many loyal leftists in betrayal and persecution/executions by their Leninist counterparts (and very occasionally vice-versa)

To what extent do you think it is important to compromise and/or cooperate? For me it seems absolutely essential if we ever want to be a capable force, but I am also concerned by the prospect of post-revolution persecution..

[blake 3:17]

It's something I've been an advocating for a long time. There've been many different attempt internationally and some have been more successful than others. Some have worked temporarily and then imploded.

I've tended that find that unity in action, and really working with people in a friendly positive way, produces greater genuine unity, than simple mergers of organizations.

[MarxSchmarx]

what i'll call the fractal nature of sectarianism is also a problem. For instance, not only is the left divided between trots, anarchists, stalinists, maoists, left coms etc... but each of these groups are themselves divided.

This presents a problem, because suppose anarchist group A wants to invite trot group B to join its coalition. Ok it seems like a start, right? but trot group C sees this as an opportunity to highlight how trot group B "betrayed" trotskyism and so on. So this provides an incentive for trot group B to be wary of working with anarchist group A.

Now maybe one way to try to mitigate this is to have all the trot groups should get together first, all the anarchist groups should get together, and then there should be some grand coalition on top of all this. Perhaps such intermediate level unity or at least networking is feasible in the short term. SOme religions follow this model - for instance if I'm not mistaken I think the various orthodox churches in Greece, Africa, Russia, etc... have some kind of regular meeting or mechanism to let them speak as Orthodox and then talk to the catholics and the protestants.

[Deity]

We need this. Not to be cheesy, but we are all brothers and sisters in the fight against capitalism. Every tendency has the same end goal: The end of capitalism. If we can realize this and get more cooperation going it would be much more likely that our differences could be handled civilly after Capitalism is no more.

[nopasaran]

To MarxSchmarx, I understand your point here. But instead of bringing together existing groups, perhaps a new one should be formed whose ONLY official aim is the abolition of capitalism through the unity of all anti-capitalists? Of course it would have to be vehemently opposed to infighting - different groups within could pressure the system by whatever means they deem most appropriate.

Forgive me if this is simplistic or just plain absurd, I know the idea has plenty of holes, it's a thought that I can't get out of my head

[nopasaran]

to Deity, I could not agree more comrade

even if it is practically difficult, surely it is worth our struggle

[vizzek]

we dont have as much in common as some would like to think...plus i'm not even sure what an aggregate mass of leftists (whoever that's supposed to include) would be able to achieve, if anything.

[nopasaran]

we dont have as much in common as some would like to think...plus i'm not even sure what an aggregate mass of leftists (whoever that's supposed to include) would be able to achieve, if anything.



Care to elaborate on that point?

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the primary goal of most on revleft is the end of capitalism, does that not unite us to at least some degree?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

It's something I worry about often, especially when I look at the list of registered parties in the UK.

On the Left, there are -

Respect
Alliance for Green Socialism
Alliance for Workers' Liberty
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
Democratic Labour Party
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Independent Working Class Association
International Socialist Group
Left Unity
New Communist Party of Britain
Peace and Progress Party
Permanent Revolution (UK)
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labour Party
Socialist Party (England and Wales)
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Resistance
Socialist Workers Party
Spartacist League of Britain
Workers Power
Workers' Revolutionary Party
And more, including regional parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

On the Right -

UKIP
British National Party
British Democratic Party
British Peoples Party
National Front
British National Socialist Movement
It's disconcerting that they are so many parties on the left verus a smaller number of parties on the right, who seem to have greater electoral support and member numbers.
I've no solutions, just a depressing observation :(

[Per Levy]

i dont think to highly about "left unity", i mean i get what a lot of people hope it would achieve but i think except getting a few more votes at an election it will bring nothing. the "left", and i will include here all partys and groups and indivduals who are commies and anarchs that dont see themselfs as leftists, will always be weak as long as the working class is weak. no united party will change that, especially not a party that will be plagued by so much infighting over tactics, party structure and what not. it would be doomed right from the start.


On the Left, there are -

Respect
Alliance for Green Socialism
Alliance for Workers' Liberty
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
Democratic Labour Party
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Independent Working Class Association
International Socialist Group
Left Unity
New Communist Party of Britain
Peace and Progress Party
Permanent Revolution (UK)
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labour Party
Socialist Party (England and Wales)
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Resistance
Socialist Workers Party
Spartacist League of Britain
Workers Power
Workers' Revolutionary Party



seeing all these partys i have the to say the bolded one is quite the joker.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Now maybe one way to try to mitigate this is to have all the trot groups should get together first[...]

I think the odds of that happening are minuscule, at best. And I'm not sure this is something bad, to be honest. Of course I support left unity, in principle, but many Trotskyist groups have outright horrible politics. I would be wary of a left unity coalition including the SEP, for example. Even the saner Trotskyist groups tend to deviate to liberalism occasionally. For example, during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I think only the ICL/IBT/IG/RR and maybe the IMT didn't side with Yeltsin.

[Eniac]

"Are you a Communist?”
“No I am an anti-fascist.”
“For a long time?”
“Since I have understood fascism."

from Hemingway's For whom the bell tolls.

and in that fashion I support unified left as all anti - fascist fought for a common goal - fall of fascism, in the same manner should the anti - capitalists fight for the same goal, commies, trots and anarchists all the same.

as for trotskysm I don't know much about it but what I gathered on wiki pretty much states it in early 20th century Russia, and claims that revolution from feudal to socialistic society can go all in one shot, with no pause for capitalism, which is today absolutely irrelevant, since we're in a cappie society.
I think we need the international workingmen's association, as it was in the days of Marx and Engels - a global union of working men instead of hundreds of little unions that have no head and no tail. The capitalist mode of production is in our, workingmen hands completely, and with a global union, a global strike may appear, and with strike on a global level we can make the world stop spinning for the capitalists and crush the system that simple. From there I assume chaos will burst and the union of working men on a global scale can become army of working men and the forcible overthrow of all social conditions is pretty much sure thing.

It is all very simple, and a bearded man has said it all, a long time ago - Working men of all countries, unite!

[nopasaran]

Just to clarify, I'm not really talking about any sort of coalition of registered parties such as 'Left Unity' in the UK. I'm not about winning votes, you're right that is futile.
I guess the idea is strengthening the working class and attacking exploiters as a united community of individuals- working together in tolerance as each tendency uses different means of fighting capitalism - united by that one aim.
Some sort of united direct-action group is probably more accurate to what I am trying to describe (forgive me, I am new to this). like antifascist action- 'anticapitalist action'? Hahaha



I know it's far-fetched.. but I think there is little to be gained from defeatist rhetoric such as 'we'll never get along'/'it's too complex' etc etc. I'm willing to be proved wrong though!

[Durruti's friend]

A united left sounds like a good idea, but it's impossible in practice. Different brands of leftist thought have different tactics and ideas on how to fight capitalism, and some of those differ very much from one another.

For instance, anarchists and ML's have diametrically different ideas on organizing and it would be impossible for them to unite. If there was nothing to argue about there would be no tendencies in the first place. Fascists don't have that sort of problem, because they don't really have a theory.

Leftist groups can (and should) cooperate on stuff like anti-fascism or during strikes and riots, but can't work together on "preparing a revolution" because of different theories.

[Tim Cornelis]

Care to elaborate on that point?

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the primary goal of most on revleft is the end of capitalism, does that not unite us to at least some degree?

Just because you aim to abolish capitalism does not mean your actions will get you there. I think many strategies are a dead-end and many 'Marxists' interpretation of the proletarian dictatorship is not actually that, and will not result in communism. So cooperating with them would not produce desirable results, and the disagreement on the course of our joint movement would lead to it splitting up again in innumerable sects. I think many demands and programmes made and articulated by, in general, Leninists is highly problematic.

As for ideologies I have a close affinity with, orthodox Marxism, left-communism, and anarchism, these each have their problems as well. Many left communists ostensibly prefer isolation over participation for puritan reasons; and many anarchists object (implicitly usually) to formal structures and often have "liberal" elements within them (lifestylism instead of class struggle).
So I'd wish for left unity between these three ideologies, but this is unrealistic. Usually platformists favour formal structures, and in many ways I'm a platformist, but their platformism also disallows for unity with non-anarcho-communists.

I'm currently in an organisation -- Breakthrough -- with both anarchists and Marxists, but we're incredibly small.

[Dear Leader]

The problem comes down to the fact that it is fruitless for the various left sects to combine. A truly revolutionary situation, in which the question of socialism and proletarian class dictatorship is posed, is the only situation in which the truly anti-capitalist, socialist, left can work together. We seen that in the form of factions in the Bolshevik Party early in the revolution in Russia, the involvement of Anarchists in the workers councils, etc.

Yes, the truly anti-capitalist socialists will work together when the time comes, not before.

[Q]

Sectarianism is the politics where the organisation is build around a common set of ideas, such as: theories, a common conception of history, a common "method" that defines the core of the organisations' work or an extensive "platform". Given the diverse currents within the working class movement, lasting genuine unity can never be build on this basis, indeed our class can never develop on this basis. Not only groups, but each individual is different, with their own views, experiences, abilities, etc.

What we need instead then is a programmatic view on unity: A concise document that describes how we go from where we are today toward proletarian political power and, beyond that, to communism. On this basis then, a free flow of ideas can occur that define strategy and tactics. If these debates are done publicly, before the eyes of the entire working class, they also have an educational function and positively invite the more advanced layers of the working class (those that think about politics) to participate themselves.

What we need then is "unity in diversity" where the uniting body of ideas is never a finished product but a continuous process. Only within such an open process can the politics of communism - that is, the politics of the collective of our class and humanity in the final analysis - take root and can all sectarianism, opportunism and other problems be tackled.

[Q]

The problem comes down to the fact that it is fruitless for the various left sects to combine. A truly revolutionary situation, in which the question of socialism and proletarian class dictatorship is posed, is the only situation in which the truly anti-capitalist, socialist, left can work together. We seen that in the form of factions in the Bolshevik Party early in the revolution in Russia, the involvement of Anarchists in the workers councils, etc.

Yes, the truly anti-capitalist socialists will work together when the time comes, not before.

Such a purely spontaneist view will not solve the authority problem (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618) when a revolutionary crisis is actually happening. Building a party-movement that forms our class takes time - think in years or even decades, not in days or months. Only considering this question during a revolutionary crisis is a proven recipe for failure.

[Dear Leader]

Such a purely spontaneist view will not solve the authority problem (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618) when a revolutionary crisis is actually happening. Building a party-movement that forms our class takes time - think in years or even decades, not in days or months. Only considering this question during a revolutionary crisis is a proven recipe for failure.
This is a failed notion taken from the 2nd international style social democracy, which not only proved a failure, but lead to the demise of the socialist movement in Germany.

The question can only be considered in a revolutionary situation. At which time the workers are actively engaged and actually able to be organized around a truly socialist program by a truly socialist party. Such a party may develop from a sect, or may originate in the revolutionary situation. If it, however, subordinates the will of the proletariat to the will of the party bureaucracy, we will see yet another failed attempt. Such a failure will be a great lesson for the proletariat, but a success will prove ever more fruitless.

[nopasaran]

There is a lot of food for thought here, really appreciate your responses.

Two last questions for now-

If the left is impossible to unite then why unite online? On revleft? (this is not an attack, I’m genuinely curious)

If the left is impossible to unite, do you think the separate groups in your areas really have the potential to instigate revolution on their own? I mean, divided, I can’t see the Aus Communist party, the socialist alliance, the ASF or the IWW realistically overthrowing capitalism any time soon.. or even making any substantial difference at all to be entirely honest. Nor can I see myself passionately supporting any of them in their current fractured and minuscule states of existence. If sectarianism is indeed inevitable, it seems like a bit of a dead end for anticapitalism?

[nopasaran]

and one more haha

when it comes to case of the individual worker, is not a dizzying array of competing left-wing parties and organisations off-putting for most? And therefore counterproductive?
It certainly was when I was a factory worker and still new to politics, most of my colleagues were apolitical or conservative mainly as a result of the left being too convoluted.

[Q]

This is a failed notion taken from the 2nd international style social democracy, which not only proved a failure, but lead to the demise of the socialist movement in Germany.
Well, right back at ya: All revolutionary situations which had no mass party-movement - France 1968, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979, to name but a few - failed and all had the problem of authority I explain in my blogpost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618) that I also linked to in my previous post.

So, using the argument "well, the SPD was a failure" (which, when people use that, always seems to forget that it rather succeeded in Russia, at least partially) is not enough. Not to mention that you're completely avoiding the white elephant in the room - the question of political authority.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, the question is also "Unity on what basis?"
Like, let's look at the attempts of Black Communists in America to unite with the Settler-led CPUSA: it was a disaster! The CPUSA dismantled the armed sharecroppers movement, refused to effectively challenge the Italian fascist invasion of Ethiopia (lest they piss off their Italian base), threw black workers under the bus in the unions, etc.
So, "unity" that means placing one segment of the class ahead of another is clearly no good at all - this is borne out by the consequences that are evident in the US at present (where mass poverty and incarceration of the black working class is key to the power of the American bourgeoisie).
What about unity with organizations with different class bases? Without flogging a dead horse, I'd like to point to various left organizations leading sections of the working class in to unity with petite-bourgeois social democratic parties. That track record should speak for itself.

So, unity? Sure, in the abstract, it's a great idea.
In practice? It's not so easy . . .

[Tim Cornelis]

There is a lot of food for thought here, really appreciate your responses.

Two last questions for now-

If the left is impossible to unite then why unite online? On revleft? (this is not an attack, I’m genuinely curious)

If the left is impossible to unite, do you think the separate groups in your areas really have the potential to instigate revolution on their own? I mean, divided, I can’t see the Aus Communist party, the socialist alliance, the ASF or the IWW realistically overthrowing capitalism any time soon.. or even making any substantial difference at all to be entirely honest. Nor can I see myself passionately supporting any of them in their current fractured and minuscule states of existence. If sectarianism is indeed inevitable, it seems like a bit of a dead end for anticapitalism?and one more haha

when it comes to case of the individual worker, is not a dizzying array of competing left-wing parties and organisations off-putting for most? And therefore counterproductive?
It certainly was when I was a factory worker and still new to politics, most of my colleagues were apolitical or conservative mainly as a result of the left being too convoluted.

On revleft we do not work towards common goals, we merely discuss. Which is possible.
Socialist and communist parties never instigate revolutions (save for maybe the Maoists through people's war), they merely participate in them. And through this hope to keep the revolution on a revolutionary road. At a certain point the subjective preconditions for revolution come together through a vast array of usually unspecified and unknown external factors (which we thus cannot influence) and we enter a potentially revolutionary situation. Q mentioned a few above in a different context, Portugal 1974, France 1968, and there have been many more and there are many more to come. Often these revolutionary situations come together spontaneously and unexpectedly as the elements for a perfect storm gather. If I remember correctly, Lenin said "many of us [the older generation] will not witness the revolution" months before the revolution began. Who knows, maybe next month the social conditions hit a critical point in, say, Portugal, or Italy, and all of a sudden workers' committees are being formed (probably not though). At which point I can see Trotskyists, anarchists, and left-communists work together to keep their eyes on the revolution and proletarian emancipation.
We have to prepare for such a revolutionary situation, not seek to instigate them (as this is impossible and would thus work disillusioning).
And yes, many far-left parties can be confusing to workers, but usually workers join the party or organisation that is dominant in their particular area, without the ideological baggage or specifics. We also cannot expect some far-leftist sect to dissolve itself and its tendency to leave more room for others.

[Dear Leader]

Well, right back at ya: All revolutionary situations which had no mass party-movement - France 1968, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979, to name but a few - failed and all had the problem of authority I explain in my blogpost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618) that I also linked to in my previous post.

So, using the argument "well, the SPD was a failure" (which, when people use that, always seems to forget that it rather succeeded in Russia, at least partially) is not enough. Not to mention that you're completely avoiding the white elephant in the room - the question of political authority.
I'm not arguing against a revolutionary party, guy. Nor am I particularly arguing for one. It's a failure to analyze the situation which brings about the conclusion that these events failed due to the lack of a "mass party" -- or the lack of a Leninist Vanguard party as Tony Cliff would suggest. However, we CAN assert that the SPD formula DID fail, and failed because of its form, not because of mainly outside factors. The failures of these revolutionary situations lay much deeper than "THERE WAS NO MASS PARTY! IT WOULD HAVE WENT SWIMMINGLY IF THERE WAS!"

The SPD formula wasn't the formula followed by the Bolsheviks, post 1917.

[RedMaterialist]

One aspect of the fractionalism on the left may be that there is no revolutionary crisis facing the working class, so there is no reason for workers to look to the left for leadership. As long as late stage capitalism can provide some work, entertainment, food, social security, health care, etc., then a revolution will continue to be postponed.

I suspect that in Russia in the decade before 1917 there were probably many splintered leftist groups. But in 1917 the revolution concentrated everybody's minds and solidified the left into two main groups, the Bolsheviks and the Social Democrat Mensheviks.

Then in 1929 when the working class realized capitalism was on the verge of destroying society, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party became coherent voices for many working class people. The revolution was averted by Keynesian economics and the welfare state, and the working class in the U.S. was then re-educated and indoctrinated into violent anti-socialism and anti-communism.

The problem with the left is that they want to lead working people and society into socialism, but the people have not yet developed into a revolutionary class. It is only when this development has been reached that socialists can demonstrate to the working class where it needs to go and the interests it shares with all working people. As Marx said, only the proletariat can destroy capitalism, the communists and socialists can only offer advice.

The left will stay fragmented until the working class needs its services. "You say you want a revolution?" Who was John Lennon talking to? Not the working class, but rather the leftist psuedo-intellectuals of the 60s who had already been brainwashed by a two decades of anti-communism. I know. I was one of them.

[RedMaterialist]

and one more haha

when it comes to case of the individual worker, is not a dizzying array of competing left-wing parties and organisations off-putting for most? And therefore counterproductive?
It certainly was when I was a factory worker and still new to politics, most of my colleagues were apolitical or conservative mainly as a result of the left being too convoluted.

I think you are right. The working class will remain conservative until conditions of extreme unemployment, widespread poverty, maybe even starvation, forces it into being a revolutionary class. It looks like they will take one of two choices: fascism and barbarity or socialism. Lenin and socialism (later hijacked) or Hitler and fascism.

But I think your question assumes that the working class is waiting for a coherent and unified left to lead them. But I don't think that is how it works. The working class will first become revolutionary before it can become an organized revolutionary class. As Rosa Luxembourg said, the revolution cannot be dialed up or set for next Monday morning.

This is not to say the left should not continue to work for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism along with demanding various concessions from the capitalist class. We also need a coherent socialist theory, but how can that be achieved without access to the public media. Can you imagine a Socialist News radio talk show right next on the dial to Fox News?

RevLeft exists because it is cheap to run and it gets nobody's attention except for a few radicals. Now if we could just get Rush Limbaugh to go on a rant about RevLeft.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

There is a lot of food for thought here, really appreciate your responses.

Two last questions for now-

If the left is impossible to unite then why unite online? On revleft? (this is not an attack, I’m genuinely curious)

If the left is impossible to unite, do you think the separate groups in your areas really have the potential to instigate revolution on their own? I mean, divided, I can’t see the Aus Communist party, the socialist alliance, the ASF or the IWW realistically overthrowing capitalism any time soon.. or even making any substantial difference at all to be entirely honest. Nor can I see myself passionately supporting any of them in their current fractured and minuscule states of existence. If sectarianism is indeed inevitable, it seems like a bit of a dead end for anticapitalism?
Because discussion/argument is good. It helps people to clarify their thoughts. It is not a substitute for organizing. You can learn stuff on this site if you pay attention. I know that I have.

[blake 3:17]

There are various questions of 'lines' -- what Q was talking about sectarianism as being. I'd disagree with Q a bit on program -- opportunities for emancipation happen erratically and chaotically. In the course of actual struggle and survival, programs will be chucked, discarded and recreated.


and one more haha

when it comes to case of the individual worker, is not a dizzying array of competing left-wing parties and organisations off-putting for most? And therefore counterproductive?
It certainly was when I was a factory worker and still new to politics, most of my colleagues were apolitical or conservative mainly as a result of the left being too convoluted.

Totally agreed, 10000000000000% The radical/revolutionary Left looks like a total joke to most people in part because of that. I've been on the far Left for more than 20 years, am highly literate (if not always so smart), often know the groups and individuals and currents in dispute, and CANNOT figure out the difference between position A, B, C, D, E, etc.

And a whole bunch of empty talk is exactly what working people want and need to escape from.

[Eniac]

so what you guys are saying is something along the lines of we just wait until proleteriat evolves into a revolutionary class, and it can't possibly be sped up.
What do we do politically until then?
And shouldn't we strive for unified leftist movements so that once the revolution comes it doesn't turn into mindless slaughter ending up in capitalism.
Historically is it to late for a revolution, is the left thought too advanced and simply cannot be united, because let's say the revolution happens, what then, then we shall start killing each other?!?

[Craig_J]

I think it's a certainty one day. Whether in our life time or not is a certain matter.

The way I see it is if you look at Marx he predicted scoiety's evolution through epoch's.

- First you have ancient society - with slaves being exploited by slave owners
- Then you have feudal society - with serfs and servants being exploited by their masters
- Then you have capitalist society - with the bourgeosie exploiting the proletariat.
- Then you have socalist society - where society beings to become communist
- Then finally you have communist society - the last stage of the evolution of society. The final stage so to speak.

I think that eventually, through conciousness raising and people realising that we ARE capable of having equal society we will drift over to the left. The capitalist epoch will end. BUT we will be left (no pun intended) with different elftist orginisations competing against each other. Eventually some of these will die out and we'll be left (again no pun intended) with the best leftist system, the one that works.

I'm an anarcho-communist but I don't think we can drift straight into that. I believe in anarcho-syndicalism so to speak as part of the eovloutionary process of society. Once the next generation are brought up in a more equal society, as opposed to a oppresive capitalist society, we will begin to drift of towards anarcho-communism and I believe that will be the final epoch.

[melvin]

We need this. Not to be cheesy, but we are all brothers and sisters in the fight against capitalism. Every tendency has the same end goal: The end of capitalism.there are leftists who's alternative is not too much better. I don't want unity with them.


If we can realize this and get more cooperation going it would be much more likely that our differences could be handled civilly after Capitalism is no more.the lessons of history tell us that unity doesn't make all leftists act civilly towards one another after one group has accomplished it's goal.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

as for trotskysm I don't know much about it but what I gathered on wiki pretty much states it in early 20th century Russia, and claims that revolution from feudal to socialistic society can go all in one shot, with no pause for capitalism, which is today absolutely irrelevant, since we're in a cappie society.

Yet the historical tasks of bourgeois democracy have not been entirely accomplished. The democratic demands of women, of national minorities, of oppressed races, of LGBT people, etc., remain unfulfilled. In certain regions of the world, feudal barbarity has not entirely disappeared (consider the oppression of the dalit and the adivasi in India). Certain socialist groups think that the bourgeoisie or other social groups can accomplish the tasks of the democratic revolution, and that the socialist revolution represents another stage. Not the Trotskyists. To us the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be fully accomplished by the class-conscious proletariat.

In any case, of course it would be better if we could have a unified mass party instead of the current jungle of acronyms. But this should not blind us to the realities of the situation.

First of all, certain "left" groups are only tangentially related to our boring, traditional mode of struggle. Speaking as an orthodox Trotskyist, for example, I can certainly see how my thought and means of struggle relate to that of a, say, Brezhnevite. All tankie psychopaths are brothers. Furthermore, I can sort of see where a third-campist, a Hoxhaist, or revolutionary anarchist is coming from. But primitivists? Tiqqunists (who do not exist)? I can't quite say what makes both me and those people part of the same "left". Probably nothing but the name.

Second, some groups are horribly backward on social issues. Many proletarians are bigoted as well, and we should engage them as individuals, but this does not mean we should tolerate alleged "socialists" spewing racist, misogynist, queerphobic nonsense. The SEP is pretty much like that (I've heard the nickname "red klansmen"), and their predecessors in the Workers' Revolutionary Party were even worse.

Third, some groups are compromised. The aforementioned Workers' Revolutionary Party received financial support from various Arab despots, often informing on Arab communists in return. The CPUSA is for all intents and purposes a Democrat front group, and not a particularly effective one. The CPI organised death squads to defend corporate interest in India. Etc. etc. Examples like that are too fucking numerous.

Fourth, some groups are absolutely frightening. Again, I can't not mention the WRP and its inimitable Gerry Healy, who would allegedly coerce female members into having sex with him repeatedly. The RCPUSA has become little more than a cult around their chairman, Bob Avakian. And so on, and so on.

Fifth, some groups have horrible political lines. I mean, obviously each group thinks that other groups have an incorrect line, but some groups are openly or covertly reformist, support imperialist projects etc. Here I would mention the allegedly Trotskyist "Platypus" group.

Sixth, some groups have absolutely horrible analyses. This might seem petty, but horrible analysis usually translated into a horrible political line. I am reminded of the eternally wavering United Secretariat, which went as far as supporting the clerical-reactionary Solidarnoscz in Poland, because their previous enthusiastic support for various guerrilla movements had failed, and Stalinophobia was the new USec shibboleth.

So yes, perhaps we should unite. But not until and not unless these major differences are resolved.

[blake 3:17]

@Semendyaev -- I agree with the first part of your post (mostly & kind of), but in naming ALL THE CRIMES OF THE LEFT (or a partial run down), it seems to me to be excluding any possible Left regroupment or Left unity.

I joined the USFI in 1994 as part of the majority/regroupment tendency -- it just always seemed stupid when I was being attacked by some random Spart for supporting Solidarnosc WTF??? I was a little kid who didn't know a communist from a composter when that was going down.

I'm more concerned about trusting people than on any proper line.

[Vercingetorix]

The nature of revolutionary thought makes unity impossible.

The Revolutionary fights because fighting is all there is left to do. They end up sacrificing lives, theirs, their friends, their families, and this makes compromise impossible.

See the Irish civil war as a good example, or the purges in the soviet union, or the Whisky Rebellion in the US, or the great terror after the French revolution and the deaths of former revolutionary leaders.

A united left is only possible outside of a revolutionary mindset.

I was at Occupy Wall St for a year, in New York City. We saw the exact same fragmentation there.

It is only when people start talking about reform, compromise, and progress as a way to achieve our goals that people become willing to come to the table. As an Anarcho-Communist, I would throw my lot in with the Anarchists, seeing them as more likely to respect my individual liberty than Leninist forces. I like Marx, and I think he did a great job of outlining why capitalism is a con job. I like Bakunin as well.

But when you get to the vanguard party guys, you see purges.

That makes me very suspicious of the people who glorify their actions and want to emulate them.

I'm all for solidarity, and I don't think anyone on this forum is likely to want to purge me, but if you look at some of the people in revolutionary movements, it would have been better for certain assholes to have been taken out before they could have killed our fellow leftists for not being ideologically pure enough.

[Geiseric]

@Semendyaev -- I agree with the first part of your post (mostly & kind of), but in naming ALL THE CRIMES OF THE LEFT (or a partial run down), it seems to me to be excluding any possible Left regroupment or Left unity.

I joined the USFI in 1994 as part of the majority/regroupment tendency -- it just always seemed stupid when I was being attacked by some random Spart for supporting Solidarnosc WTF??? I was a little kid who didn't know a communist from a composter when that was going down.

I'm more concerned about trusting people than on any proper line.

Lol the sparts. one of them gave me the sink eye and called me a reformist at a demonstration i was at then proceeded to sell their shitty newspaper which I wouldn't buy for more than a quarter and used as a shin guard in soccer the next day. They seriously are like vultures they hang out around our table at events our people planned out and try to recruit.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the odds of that happening are minuscule, at best. And I'm not sure this is something bad, to be honest. Of course I support left unity, in principle, but many Trotskyist groups have outright horrible politics. I would be wary of a left unity coalition including the SEP, for example. Even the saner Trotskyist groups tend to deviate to liberalism occasionally. For example, during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I think only the ICL/IBT/IG/RR and maybe the IMT didn't side with Yeltsin.

Not being a Trotskyist, my sense is that a lot of the sorry Trot groups have their horrible politics in large part because of sectarianism, though, not in spite of it. if the Trots ever got together and had to work in coalition with other leftists, they probably won't be so nonchalant about spewing nonsense and it would be harder for personalities to dominate. Sometimes consensus is surprisingly easier in bigger groups.

I don't think it's a good idea to blend groups and try to have the "one big left party" or some such. But coordinating actions and pragmatic, loosely coupled coalitions have advantages, particularly at this stage of the struggle, and sectarianism prevents us from pursuing such strategies.

If disunity within subgroups of the left prevents broader unity across subgroups, then maybe if Trot groups were forced to work together, then I think it's reasonable that they'd also learn how to deal with say anarchist groups more effectively in the process.

[Lucretia]

Yet the historical tasks of bourgeois democracy have not been entirely accomplished. The democratic demands of women, of national minorities, of oppressed races, of LGBT people, etc., remain unfulfilled. In certain regions of the world, feudal barbarity has not entirely disappeared (consider the oppression of the dalit and the adivasi in India). Certain socialist groups think that the bourgeoisie or other social groups can accomplish the tasks of the democratic revolution, and that the socialist revolution represents another stage. Not the Trotskyists. To us the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be fully accomplished by the class-conscious proletariat.

In any case, of course it would be better if we could have a unified mass party instead of the current jungle of acronyms. But this should not blind us to the realities of the situation.

First of all, certain "left" groups are only tangentially related to our boring, traditional mode of struggle. Speaking as an orthodox Trotskyist, for example, I can certainly see how my thought and means of struggle relate to that of a, say, Brezhnevite. All tankie psychopaths are brothers. Furthermore, I can sort of see where a third-campist, a Hoxhaist, or revolutionary anarchist is coming from. But primitivists? Tiqqunists (who do not exist)? I can't quite say what makes both me and those people part of the same "left". Probably nothing but the name.

Second, some groups are horribly backward on social issues. Many proletarians are bigoted as well, and we should engage them as individuals, but this does not mean we should tolerate alleged "socialists" spewing racist, misogynist, queerphobic nonsense. The SEP is pretty much like that (I've heard the nickname "red klansmen"), and their predecessors in the Workers' Revolutionary Party were even worse.

Third, some groups are compromised. The aforementioned Workers' Revolutionary Party received financial support from various Arab despots, often informing on Arab communists in return. The CPUSA is for all intents and purposes a Democrat front group, and not a particularly effective one. The CPI organised death squads to defend corporate interest in India. Etc. etc. Examples like that are too fucking numerous.

Fourth, some groups are absolutely frightening. Again, I can't not mention the WRP and its inimitable Gerry Healy, who would allegedly coerce female members into having sex with him repeatedly. The RCPUSA has become little more than a cult around their chairman, Bob Avakian. And so on, and so on.

Fifth, some groups have horrible political lines. I mean, obviously each group thinks that other groups have an incorrect line, but some groups are openly or covertly reformist, support imperialist projects etc. Here I would mention the allegedly Trotskyist "Platypus" group.

Sixth, some groups have absolutely horrible analyses. This might seem petty, but horrible analysis usually translated into a horrible political line. I am reminded of the eternally wavering United Secretariat, which went as far as supporting the clerical-reactionary Solidarnoscz in Poland, because their previous enthusiastic support for various guerrilla movements had failed, and Stalinophobia was the new USec shibboleth.

So yes, perhaps we should unite. But not until and not unless these major differences are resolved.

Basically this is a very detailed version of what I would emphasize. Unity is only as important as the program or political principles around which people are united, and as an abstraction means very little. Unity around a reformist-bourgeois program for example, is hardly something worth supporting.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

@Semendyaev -- I agree with the first part of your post (mostly & kind of), but in naming ALL THE CRIMES OF THE LEFT (or a partial run down), it seems to me to be excluding any possible Left regroupment or Left unity.

I joined the USFI in 1994 as part of the majority/regroupment tendency -- it just always seemed stupid when I was being attacked by some random Spart for supporting Solidarnosc WTF??? I was a little kid who didn't know a communist from a composter when that was going down.

I'm more concerned about trusting people than on any proper line.

I'm not sure the two can be separated, at least not to the extent that you suggest. Alright, decent people can adhere to horrible lines, and the correct line can be defended by horrible people (I think Logan is a good example). That said, I'm sure that, for example, most SEP or WRP members did not start as raving racists and homophobes. The organisations they are part of affect them. This is how O'Neil describes the development of a culture of bigotry in the RCPUSA:

«When the national leadership of the RU was trying to unify a broad range of local collectives into a single national organization, they decided not to standardize all lines from the top down, but rather to win folks over at the base. In 1972, if memory serves, I attended an East Coast regional meeting, at which the national leaders, including those from our region, were eager to for us adopt a position against lesbians and gays being admitted to the RU (and one against smoking marijuana, as well). Out of, say, 40 people present, I think eight of us voted against gay exclusion.

I am very proud of that vote. I am not so proud of what happened next.


The internal culture of the RU and the early RCP became increasingly homophobic. Fag jokes, implications of limp-wristedness and the whole nasty package were common currency in the group, and only rarely criticized or even commented on. The tone was set from the top levels of the organization. Not surprisingly, male leaders and cadre tended to behave worse that their female counterparts. I fell into this easily enough.


Politically, gay and lesbian groups and activists, part of a vibrant and challenging new social movement, were regarded with derision or as agents of bourgeois ideology in the workers’ movement. Communists and others who allied with them were considered weak and suspect.


When I was asked to help in the drafting of a programme to be debated and adopted at the founding congress of the RCP, I did so. I recall the drafting of the section of the programme on decadence, which the RCP enshrined at that congress, formally embracing the line it has carried like an albatross for a quarter of a century. (Since the very existence of this first programme is not mentioned in the new document, I have included the 1975 section on “homosexuality” in an appendix, along with the language from the 1981 programme.) The drafters, myself included, laughed about the comparison with drug addiction and prostitution and about the declaration that “homosexuals and others who are caught up in these things will be re-educated to be productive members of society.” We knew damn well that formulation implied reeducation camps--and we thought it was funny.»

That said, treating every member of an organisation gone off the rails like scum is worse than criminal, it's idiotic. I am sure that there are decent, revolutionary people even in groups like the SEP, and they should be won over to a more consistent revolutionary line. In this sense, we can talk of "unity" - we want to regroup consistently revolutionary communists under a correct line, or at least a narrow spectrum of revolutionary positions. But "left unity", in the sense in which the term has been used in this thread, means unity with the SEP leaders and senior cadres that have thoroughly internalised seppie insanity.

Anyway, the USec is several orders of magnitude saner than the current remnants of the old International Committee, but even in this case, I think my analysis stands. It was wrong of the Spartacists you mention to treat you like a little Germain or Pablo. What they should have done, I think, is to discuss the matter over with you, to show you why support for Solidarnoscz was incorrect from a Marxist perspective etc. etc. That was the original plan of the Spartacist League - to win over comrades from centrist and reformist organisations. If they really do go around beating people up, they aren't doing a very good job.

But unity with the USec leadership would have been impossible, I think. It contained some cool people, but in the end, their line was so volatile and it often seemed to tail student fads in Europe.


Not being a Trotskyist, my sense is that a lot of the sorry Trot groups have their horrible politics in large part because of sectarianism, though, not in spite of it. if the Trots ever got together and had to work in coalition with other leftists, they probably won't be so nonchalant about spewing nonsense and it would be harder for personalities to dominate. Sometimes consensus is surprisingly easier in bigger groups.

Alright, but take the United Secretariat, mentioned above. It's a fairly big group, and more than that, it was the result of an attempt at a sort of "Trotskyist unity", being the merger of the old Pabloite International Secretariat and the more moderate elements of the former International Committee. Their politics are still awful, though. The RESPECT coalition was also a fairly large, multi-tendency thing, but they still foundered. And so on, and so on.

[Per Levy]

What do we do politically until then?

the same as in the last 70 years, creating small shitty partys who proclaim themselfs to be the vanguard of the proletariat and anyone not in their party to be revisionist or whatever. worked wonders. but seriously what is "the left" to do to "speed up revolution"? how would that be achieved?


Lol the sparts. one of them gave me the sink eye and called me a reformist at a demonstration

well from reading you posts on revleft, i have to say that spart was spot on.

[Eniac]

So yes, perhaps we should unite. But not until and not unless these major differences are resolved.

Shouldn't we work towards that, then?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Shouldn't we work towards that, then?

Well, yes. But that can't be done on the basis of unprincipled coalitions. I refer to the example of the SEP again; simply mechanically assimilating this group into a left coalition, along with its leadership and senior cadres, would simply entrench the incorrect attitudes and practices.

[Eniac]

I'm thinking of some third party Communist organization that wouldn't have actual political programme or power, and just bring Communists, individuals not organizations, together.
Kind of Communist Church... Hell, I can imagine myself going there every Sunday to listen parts of capital and manifesto.
hahahaha

seriously now, wouldn't organization designed simply for surpassing the differences we have (as we, communists, should have no prejudice, and all men are brothers) and bringing Communist teachings closer be a good idea, hopefully effective.

The worst thing possible is to have division amongst us, because remember we once fought side to side with the bourgeoisie against the feudalists, and we plan to destroy them, what can guarantee we won't destroy us, when the time comes.

In the name of Marx, Engels and the classless society, Amen.

[MarxSchmarx]

Semendyaev the problem with your analysis is that whilst the groups you cite claim to varying degrees to have overcome the sectarian divisions, they have clearly not. THis is a good example of where praxis may fall short of ideology.

I don't think the groups you cited tried in "good faith" to unite the various Trot fronts. They wanted to be the top dog among many, and that desire doesn't make them any less sectarian in my view.

[blake 3:17]

But when you get to the vanguard party guys, you see purges.

That makes me very suspicious of the people who glorify their actions and want to emulate them.

It has taken me a long time to take these types of criticisms of Leninism as seriously as they should be taken.

I've been in quasi-Leninist socialism from below , sorta-anti-vanguard and a couple of anarchist groups and the same dynamics are in place. The small "a" anarchists came out the best.

[Geiseric]

We need a working class party, fuck this sectarian crap. I'm in a group that understands how United fronts work, a concept that all sectarians don't fully appreciate.

[blake 3:17]

The RESPECT coalition was also a fairly large, multi-tendency thing, but they still foundered. And so on, and so on.

I had hopes for the Socialist Alliance, RESPECT, the SSP. All effed up. I had much bigger hopes on Lula's PT & then Chavez actually started doing it! So WTF

Q posted a really interesting piece on Party of Communist Refoundation that I think came from someone from the CWI, and seemed pretty on. I'd supported Sinistra Critica from a distance, signing petitions against participation if the Afghan war, blah blah, which was a tendency and then now a separate party.

I've been in a part of several regroupments or regroupment exercises in the last 15 years. I always want them to work and they've been less screwed up then what came before, but new challenges emerge, and we get stuck again.

I'll take improvement where I find it but also won't be stuck in endless pointless meetings.

[Brutus]

On the 'left unity' party Dennis mentioned:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/962/left-unity-anti-sectarian-sectarianism

Also covers other attempts at British left unity

[Sotionov]

I don't see how can a unified left exist, when a lot of leftist tendencies are explicitly oppossed to other- eg. libertarian leftists consider vanguardist leftist capitalists, communists consider market socialists capitalists.

[Dobomo]

Hey there, as a relatively new leftist (since the end of 2011) I'm just curious as to what everybody thinks about the hope of a unified/united left?


In-fighting and sectarianism seems to be the most notorious stumbling-block for the left and often leads to our demise (e.g in the Spanish civil war). Personally I lean towards anarcho-communism, but I would happily fight alongside anti-capitalist comrades from any tendency if it meant creating an effective fighting force. I acknowledge, however, that this attitude has historically landed many loyal leftists in betrayal and persecution/executions by their Leninist counterparts (and very occasionally vice-versa)

To what extent do you think it is important to compromise and/or cooperate? For me it seems absolutely essential if we ever want to be a capable force, but I am also concerned by the prospect of post-revolution persecution..

Hey nopasaran, what are your thoughts on the unity process in australia between the two largest trot groups and the sucessful merger between the revolutionary socialist party and Socialist Alternative?

Soon a bunch of anarchists are also meeting to discuss federation in Melb whats ur thoughts on that?

I feel like your talking about vague forms of unity between anti capitalists when there are already concrete proposals on the table that are currently being discussed whether thats between trots or the anarchists. Do you think there inadequite or a step backwards or forwards for the far left?

In Australia there isnt a anti capistalist movement or a reformist movement for revolutionaries to try and unify around. All there is is a bunch of trots a few anarchists. I see unity between trots and anarchists as highly unrealistic. We can work togethor. It is possible. We do do it around palestine, refugee and anti cuts campaigns. But being in the same organisation is totally different. there are clear theoritical differences we have that arent an issue when discussing unity with other socialist groups.

[Dear Leader]

What do you want with Unity? A huge party full of people who hate each other? A party full of people who outright reject each others notions of the party? Or do you just propose that these groups maybe get together from time to time to talk about things, and do things?

What is this unity?

[Dropdead]

Isn't it impossible to ''unite'' the left? I don't think anarchists like M-L alot.. Atleast the anarchists I knew back when I was anarchist all hated everything except ''pure marxism'' (lol)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Or do you just propose that these groups maybe get together from time to time to talk about things, and do things?

This is probably a good idea. :thumbup1:

Especially insofar as it doesn't mean binding everyone involved to the lowest common political denominators, allows for autonomous leadership among various communist groups, etc. There shouldn't be any reason that communists of diverse perspectives can't hash things out, even if this results as much in clarifying disagreements as it does in agreements. Certainly, "the left" (which I use loosely to include those who would reject the label) would benefit from understanding and developing real critiques of each others perspectives instead of lighting up straw men all the time.

Case in point, I was once accosted by a ________ist who, having not bothered to show up to see me speak, denounced my chauvinist line on Quebec . . . a line that I myself had rejected twenty minutes earlier (in fact, rejected years earlier, leading to my small part in a split in the communist party!). While we would certainly still disagree on the question at hand (his party seem to have taken their queues from Nègres blancs d'Amérique, which hasn't exactly aged well), there might actually be some insight possible if the question was discussed on an honest basis. Similarly, who knows what practical activity we might have been able to agree to undertake.

[Eniac]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a wonderful thought has occurred to me.

If I understood things properly, all "schools" of communism desire equal final product, that is stateless, classless society, right?
And all of those schools are derived from Marx + fellow who analyzed status quo of his time and applied Marxism in the best manner he knew, and there we have various revolutionaries as Lenin, Trotsky, we have similar thing with Proudhon and Bakhunin and anarchists who desire the same bloody goal. And their analysis is mainly circumstantial, however good it may be.
Now as all these indisputably great men lived in different phases of capitalism and in different circumstances of perticular phases of capitalism, and perceive different problems as crucial, do we not live in different phases, and incarnations of capitalism ourselves, because of the globalization was so rapid we have Asian, African and a good part of Eastern European countries fucked up by early capitalism rapidly trying to become developed?
And therefore we all desire the same - Communist society, even MLs and anarchists, trots and orthodox, and our preferred method of getting there, or rather our method of socialist revolution differs in circumstances be it our own life's problems we perceive and find crucial or of some of those fellows who lived before us.
So unified left can and should be organized in such a way that modern day Communists rewrite Communist theory applied to our era, that is that we find differences in circumstances in different places of the earth and, naturally, apply different solutions.

No Communist idea is wrong, I conclude, just solves different types of problems which appear in different types of times and places on our lovely, watery and soon red planet.

[redmarxist90]

I would like to say that in the past month or so there has been attempts made by AWl to try and get organising a more unified left. Recieved an email about a letter or somthing along those lines that had been sent to various organisations on the left in the uk here is the link to it:

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/05/01/how-make-left-unity (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/05/01/how-make-left-unity)

[Q]

I would like to say that in the past month or so there has been attempts made by AWl to try and get organising a more unified left. Recieved an email about a letter or somthing along those lines that had been sent to various organisations on the left in the uk here is the link to it:

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/05/01/how-make-left-unity (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/05/01/how-make-left-unity)

As Paul Demarty points out in his "AWL: Pull the other one (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/962/awl-pull-the-other-one)":

In responding to a concrete call for unity such as yours, however, two questions need to be considered: who will it unite, and on what political basis?
As to the who: No other groups seem to be interested. As to the why: Debating the pro-imperialist politics of this group is not being allowed.

As such, this can hardly be taken seriously. As Paul concludes:

We are happy to work with AWL comrades on matters in the movement where our views accord in any case - no “transitional organisation” is necessary for that. A thorough and open break with the sectarian method you use and pro-imperialist politics you espouse - and the leading clique which maintains both - are preconditions for any ‘unity’ overture from your organisation to be taken in good faith. Until then, the only possible response to such approaches is extreme scepticism.

[Geiseric]

If the left wasn't so weak due to stalinisms legacy and imperialist propaganda against communism I don't think we'd be in such a bind.

Marxists need to revisit their roots and stop revising huge, central concepts as though scientific socialism is a subjective thing. Ideas such as PSLs rediculous two worlds theory, as well as ultraleftism as a whole need to be stamped out accross the board if an actual working class party is to be formed. Overall trotskyists need to re read the transitional program and take it literally as well.

[redmarxist90]

As Paul Demarty points out in his "AWL: Pull the other one (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/962/awl-pull-the-other-one)":

As to the who: No other groups seem to be interested. As to the why: Debating the pro-imperialist politics of this group is not being allowed.

As such, this can hardly be taken seriously. As Paul concludes:

Thanks, at the minute just learning and looking around seeing what I could participate in more etc... and came across them and the article. Thought I would just post saying there has been a recent attempt.

[blake 3:17]

As much as I dislike AWL's politics on international questions I'd happily work with them on other stuff.

The last unity project I was involved with got really bogged down in some 'maximalist' issues -- most of which there was either relative consensus or hairsplitting debates which were deeply confusing. You need to be principled but flexible. But get moving!

[Q]

As much as I dislike AWL's politics on international questions I'd happily work with them on other stuff.

The last unity project I was involved with got really bogged down in some 'maximalist' issues -- most of which there was either relative consensus or hairsplitting debates which were deeply confusing. You need to be principled but flexible. But get moving!

In general I concur with the call to "get moving!", many issues can be resolved once the process starts running. I don't know the AWL first hand, but if they indeed rule out discussion on certain "sensitive" topics beforehand then that might become a real issue further down the line. I mean, what would a left unity group's position on a future war on Iran (to name but one example) be if we may not openly debate it and where maybe a significant part of the initiative has a pro-imperialist position? That can only lead to a split then.

So yes, we need to "get moving", but on the other hand have free and frank discussions on where we should be moving towards.