Left unity: On what basis if at all?

[CriticalJames]

I think that the CPGB have a great platform, and now I think its a matter of them putting a real amount of effort into achieving some of the goals they've set out in that platform. I'd like to see some constructive talks between left-wing figures to build a future coalition or alliance.

Q edit:
Split from Introductions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hello-united-kingdom-t181348/index.html).

[The Idler]

Hello, don't you think if people wanted to support one of the existing parties, then they would do?

[CriticalJames]

Hello, don't you think if people wanted to support one of the existing parties, then they would do?

I don't think its as simple as that though. The way revolutions and big reforms take place is through a momentum of attention and support - the same momentum that sees support rise and fall for the Labour and Conservative Party. As long as the British left is scattered across many different (often isolated) groups, there won't be a real reason or motivation for people to start supporting these groups.

If there was some form of left unity, then perhaps people would start to see that they actually can make a difference. I think that this feeling of empowerment is crucial for the success of any left-wing movement.

[The Feral Underclass]

If there was some form of left unity, then perhaps people would start to see that they actually can make a difference. I think that this feeling of empowerment is crucial for the success of any left-wing movement.

Left unity projects have existed for decades in various states of struggle. They don't work. Why do you think it would work now?

The issue is not that people are unable to find the right political organisation and that they are fed up with mainstream party politics, it's that they are fed up of politics.

[Q]

Left unity projects have existed for decades in various states of struggle. They don't work. Why do you think it would work now?
Left unity in the UK has had a long history of being based on communists disguising themselves as something else, be it left-labourites, greens, radical trade unionists or whatever. There hasn't been left unity on a communist basis for quite some time now.


The issue is not that people are unable to find the right political organisation and that they are fed up with mainstream party politics, it's that they are fed up of politics.
With that kind of attitude, why are you still involved with politics? Last time I checked anarchism was exactly that.

[CriticalJames]

Relatively to human history, capitalism hasn't been around for that long - socialism even less so. I think its silly to say that the current situation is set in stone, and the progression of our society will be dependent on how progressive movements manifest in the next few decades.

As Q said, people will never be fed up of politics. Politics isn't a niche thing, its the way we organize ourselves and our communities. Everybody has an opinion, even if they think they don't.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Unity is, of course, a positive thing - but it needs to be a unity of communist forces on the basis of a principled programme or, at least, a spectrum of programmatic positions. Building a new Labour party, forming blocs with pseudosocialists like the Platypoids, or simply pretending that our differences do not exist are, I think, bad tactics, that can only lead to further splits down the line.

[The Feral Underclass]

Left unity in the UK has had a long history of being based on communists disguising themselves as something else, be it left-labourites, greens, radical trade unionists or whatever. There hasn't been left unity on a communist basis for quite some time now.

What do you imagine that is going to achieve? Political unity amongst parties isn't suddenly going to mean the working class care about you.


With that kind of attitude, why are you still involved with politics? Last time I checked anarchism was exactly that.

I'm not against political organisation. Political militants should organise, educate themselves, be disciplined and have clear understandings of society and of their strategies. That doesn't mean that I want my fellow workers to be anarchists or for them to care about how I political organise myself.

My role as a militant is to help build confidence, foster solidarity and unite with my class in struggle. In that sense, anarchism is relevant to my class in their everyday struggles, so that they can better fight for their interests. Confidence, solidarity, unity amongst the class, escalation against capital: This is what matters not party organisation or unity.

What difference does it make to the interest of me and my fellow workers for left parties to be united? What relevance does that have to the struggle of our daily lives?

[The Feral Underclass]

As Q said, people will never be fed up of politics. Politics isn't a niche thing, its the way we organize ourselves and our communities. Everybody has an opinion, even if they think they don't.

The point I am making is how you orientate politics as something that is useful for the class.

You are talking about party politics. That isn't relevant to me or my fellow workers. The unity amongst these political organisations will make absolutely no difference to me as a worker.

[Hit The North]

What do you imagine that is going to achieve? Political unity amongst parties isn't suddenly going to mean the working class care about you.


The working class is never going to care about our politics just because they suddenly gain enough consciousness. It's our job to take our ideas to the class and demonstrate them in practice. So presumably a united and coordinated 'Left' will be able to maximise this intervention in the class struggle as a coherent force, rather than an ad hoc collection of disparate groups and individuals.

Personally, I don't think there's any possibility of having a stable long-term united left; as I think that that kind of unity is rare and the harbinger of a revolutionary situation, mainly because its the kind of unity forged in practice and not around speculative party programmes.

Hello, James, btw :)

[The Feral Underclass]

The working class is never going to care about our politics just because they suddenly gain enough consciousness. It's our job to take our ideas to the class and demonstrate them in practice.

Why do the we need to "care about your politics"?


So presumably a united and coordinated 'Left' will be able to maximise this intervention in the class struggle as a coherent force, rather than an ad hoc collection of disparate groups and individuals.

But the intervention you describe is to "demonstrate to the class" that they should "care about your politics."

Demonstrate how? By achieving electoral success? By winning some victory for us? What you're advocating is substitutionism. I mean, what is supposed to happen once we care about your politics? Do we all join this left unity party? And then what?

[Hit The North]

Why do the we need to "care about your politics"?


Well, I said "our" and was including you. But what do you see as the point of you being an anarchist and intervening with other workers in struggle? What are you trying to achieve? Are you just lending muscle power and no brain?


But the intervention you describe is to "demonstrate to the class" that they should "care about your politics."
They should get involved in our politics. Our politics should be their politics. Our politics is a form of advocacy isn't it? That's certainly how my socialist heroes saw it, from Karl Marx to Thomas Mann


Demonstrate how? By achieving electoral success? By winning some victory for us? What you're advocating is substitutionism. I mean, what is supposed to happen once we care about your politics? Do we all join this left unity party? And then what?
There's only substitutionism if the left is not part of the class. But, anyway, as my final paragraph indicated, despite understanding the logic of the left unity argument, I doubt it is achievable - and if it was, on a long-term stable basis, then it would most likely, I agree, lapse into opportunism, bureaucratism and substitutionism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, I said "our" and was including you. But what do you see as the point of you being an anarchist and intervening with other workers in struggle? What are you trying to achieve? Are you just lending muscle power and no brain?

That didn't take long to become personal? And my politics and your politics are likely not the same.

In my posts, I'm trying to differentiate the political level from the social level. By that I mean the work of the political organisation is not the same as the work at the social level.

The point of me being an anarchist is because I believe anarchism provides me with the correct tools to understand society, my class and how best to build confidence of escalation and solidarity against the state and capital amongst my fellow workers.

That doesn't mean that every worker has to be an anarchist or that every worker has to be part of my political organisation. My political organisation is only relevant to other militants who wish to use it as a tool. All the other anarchist organisations joining together wouldn't make any difference to the working class.

On the social level, i.e. the places where capitalism reproduces itself, militants use those tools made available by the political level to build confidence and solidarity and to help escalate conflict against the state and capital.


They should get involved in our politics. Our politics should be their politics. Our politics is a form of advocacy isn't it? That's certainly how my socialist heroes saw it, from Karl Marx to Thomas Mann

Why should they? Why should your politics be the politics of the workers?


There's only substitutionism if the left is not part of the class.

No, substitutionism is where the political organisation substitutes itself for the class. I.e. Leninism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I swear, just like liberals make Stalin look good in comparison, anarchists make substitutionism look positively appealing. Do you think the entire proletariat can spontaneously take action, reactionary strata and all?

[The Feral Underclass]

I swear, just like liberals make Stalin look good in comparison, anarchists make substitutionism look positively appealing. Do you think the entire proletariat can spontaneously take action, reactionary strata and all?

We constantly take spontaneous action. The point is to give it form and content so that it can escalate.

[CriticalJames]

I swear, just like liberals make Stalin look good in comparison, anarchists make substitutionism look positively appealing. Do you think the entire proletariat can spontaneously take action, reactionary strata and all?

One of the effects of living in a society like ours, is that everybody becomes interconnected in some way or another. Whether these connections come in the form of schools, workplaces, universities or neighborhoods - we slowly become aware of issues collectively. Of course, there are many different spheres of relationships that aren't fully interconnected, which makes the romantic notion of the entire proletarian bursting into a glorious revolution unlikely.

What you'll notice though, is that the contradictions of capitalism make it very crisis prone and as each crisis occurs the configuration of society changes in a negative way. For example, most of Europe and the US is suffering because of aggressive austerity programs that are hurting the low-income working people. Furthermore, discontent arises as a result of these crises changing society and eventually this discontent can lead political upheaval.

[Skyhilist]

I swear, just like liberals make Stalin look good in comparison, anarchists make substitutionism look positively appealing. Do you think the entire proletariat can spontaneously take action, reactionary strata and all?

Oh so we're playing that game where we lump everyone together fallaciously according to their tendency. Allow me to join in. Just as liberals make Stalinists look good in comparison, Trotskyists with their newspapers make the popular media look good in comparison.

(PS: I don't actually think this. I'm just trying to show how stupid this is.)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

We constantly take spontaneous action. The point is to give it form and content so that it can escalate.

What I don't like about the way this discussion is being treated is that it negates all agency. It has the inherent discussion that revolutions are thing that just "happen", as if they are forces of history similar to hurricanes and famines. That simply isn't true. Revolutions are many things, on one hand they are the result of when a spark lands in a prairie and the whole field is caught ablaze, and yet on the otherhand, if we want to wield that energy and direct it towards something productive towards the movement to abolish capitalism, we need to be able to create an organization to take this energy and direct it. Because revolutions can fail, and it is not at the level of consciousness but just bad military tactics. For example, this is the battle plan for the October revolution:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D 0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0 %BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0 %BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5_24-25_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_%286-7_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F%29_1917%2C% D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B02.svg/424px-%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D 0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0 %BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0 %BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5_24-25_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_%286-7_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F%29_1917%2C% D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B02.svg.png

Now let's say that they fucked that up, that they were outmaneuvered by the police in that early stage, would the Soviet Union come into existence? Nope. No level of consciousness would have changed that. What is needed is an organization that can deal with the concrete, specific tasks of overthrowing the bourgeois, otherwise such an overthrow might be impossible.

Revolutions don't fall of the sky. Rebellions do, and I'd go even farther. For the people that fetishist soviets or councils, the soviet form is universal to every rebellion, from the nationalist irish rebellion of 1918 to the occupy movement. Soviets and councils almost never result in anything useful and their existence doesn't indicate anything just like how demonstrations don't prove the character of a rebellion either. Revolutions are hard work, and they do not exist within a confined moment but begin and end over a long, protracted effort where a radical transformation spreads from one man to the world.

[Hit The North]

That didn't take long to become personal?


The personal is political.


And my politics and your politics are likely not the same.


Not the same but they have similar principles and common aims.


Why should they? Why should your politics be the politics of the workers?


Well the workers will either have no politics or some politics. Who's politics would you prefer them to have?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh so we're playing that game where we lump everyone together fallaciously according to their tendency. Allow me to join in. Just as liberals make Stalinists look good in comparison, Trotskyists with their newspapers make the popular media look good in comparison.

The popular media has suspiciously few splits, though. Alright, I was overgeneralising, but certain anarchists have made the hue and cry against "substitutionism" the centerpiece of their politics, including TAT.


One of the effects of living in a society like ours, is that everybody becomes interconnected in some way or another. Whether these connections come in the form of schools, workplaces, universities or neighborhoods - we slowly become aware of issues collectively. Of course, there are many different spheres of relationships that aren't fully interconnected, which makes the romantic notion of the entire proletarian bursting into a glorious revolution unlikely.

What you'll notice though, is that the contradictions of capitalism make it very crisis prone and as each crisis occurs the configuration of society changes in a negative way. For example, most of Europe and the US is suffering because of aggressive austerity programs that are hurting the low-income working people. Furthermore, discontent arises as a result of these crises changing society and eventually this discontent can lead political upheaval.

That said, the formation and development of the communist party is part of the general trend toward greater proletarian class consciousness and militancy. And there will always be reactionary layers of the proletariat outside the party. That is what TAT refuses to accept; they glorify spontaneity, but whenever the political action of the workers results in a communist party being organised or strengthened, they cry about substitutionism, a term that I am quite sure no longer means anything. And spontaneous action, without the guidance of a militant party, often founders, or ends up tailing petit-bourgeois developments.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Though considering the discussion of revolutionary politics, I'd like to say that revolutionary politics aren't politics, they are the abolition of politics and the extension of the political to the average man, where every one is able to exert physical force over the direction of their society without being inhibited by the politics of law, order, and legitimate democratic process.

[The Feral Underclass]

The popular media has suspiciously few splits, though. Alright, I was overgeneralising, but certain anarchists have made the hue and cry against "substitutionism" the centerpiece of their politics, including TAT.

You're funny. If people who argue with me on here weren't Leninists, I wouldn't have to talk about substitutionism so much.


That is what TAT refuses to accept

What is this conclusion based upon? Don't just assume things about my politics? Don't just assume that because I've said one thing it means something about something else.

Of course I recognise it, but the fact that there are reactionary elements within the proletariat doesn't justify your prioritisation of party organisation over class organisation.


And spontaneous action, without the guidance of a militant party, often founders, or ends up tailing petit-bourgeois developments.

This is a disingenuous claim. It's not "guidance" you're providing, it's control. But what I don't understand is that if it is not the spontaneous actions of the class that provide the arena for form and content, what is it? The party? If so, how do you dare suggest that substitutionism no longer means anything?

The class must act for itself, otherwise it stands no chance of liberation.

[CriticalJames]

Though considering the discussion of revolutionary politics, I'd like to say that revolutionary politics aren't politics, they are the abolition of politics and the extension of the political to the average man, where every one is able to exert physical force over the direction of their society without being inhibited by the politics of law, order, and legitimate democratic process.

I'd have to disagree with you there. Revolutionary politics is all about a revolution within the political system itself - a revolution that would change its mechanics forever. What you describe is still politics, as decisions and policies still have to be made, but a flavour of politics that is completely accessible to the working man.

One of the biggest struggles faced in the wake a revolution is the transformation of the government, and how that is done will be the deciding factor as to whether or not that revolution was successful.

[The Feral Underclass]

The personal is political.

No, it's just rudeness.


Well the workers will either have no politics or some politics. Who's politics would you prefer them to have?

It doesn't matter what politics they have, providing they are conscious of themselves as workers, confident to escalate conflict to abolish themselves as workers, and in solidarity with each other. What else matters?

[CriticalJames]

No, it's just rudeness.



It doesn't matter what politics they have, providing they are conscious of themselves as workers, confident to escalate conflict and in solidarity with each other. What else matters?

Conflict alone isn't enough to make lives better for the working people. Just look at the French revolution, an uprising that promised freedom and equality to all lead to a war-mongering despot reforming the nation into an autocratic empire. The outcome of these conflicts is often more important than the conflict themselves.

The same can be seen with the Soviet Union. I'm sure that they had the conscious and willingness to escalate conflict in solidarity, however the outcome was a terrible tragedy for the working people in Russia.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This is a disingenuous claim. It's not "guidance" you're providing, it's control. But what I don't understand is that if it is not the spontaneous actions of the class that provide the arena for form and content, what is it? The party? If so, how do you dare suggest that substitutionism no longer means anything?

The class must act for itself, otherwise it stands no chance of liberation.


I'm going to contest this assumption. What is "the class". Now the proletariat exists as an economic relation to the means of production, but in the era of modernity, does it form a coherent social group that organizes on a class basis? What does "the class acting for itself" even mean? I think it is better to imagine the working class as a collection of economic ties to the means of production that doesn't exist as a coherent social unit until it exercises it's power over society. Otherwise it is a layered, disparate group with different and competing interests that can not "act in of it's self"

[The Feral Underclass]

What is "the class".

Those who have to sell their labour.


Now the proletariat exists as an economic relation to the means of production, but in the era of modernity, does it form a coherent social group that organizes on a class basis?

No.


What does "the class acting for itself" even mean?

To abolish itself as a class.


I think it is better to imagine the working class as a collection of economic ties to the means of production that doesn't exist as a coherent social unit until it exercises it's power over society. Otherwise it is a layered, disparate group with different and competing interests that can not "act in of it's self"

What are these competing interests? There are various social groups within the working class, some more privilege than others, some more oppressed and alienated than others, but they have one unifying interest, and that is to abolish themselves as proletarians.

They do that in various stages, but ultimately it concludes with the establishment of communism.

[The Idler]

The irony of the anarchist defending the Marxist perspective against 'Marxists'. All this thread is missing is a quote from the dead German himself

the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule

[Hit The North]

The irony of the anarchist defending the Marxist perspective against 'Marxists'. All this thread is missing is a quote from the dead German himself


the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule



Not a single Marxist has contradicted the old man in this thread so your irony is imaginary.

Did Marx ever argue that the workers should not organise themselves as a party?

[Q]

Since this thread has evolved into something quite different from an introduction, I'll be moving the relevant posts into it's own thread.

Splitting offtopic posts into Theory.

[Manar]

How can there be unity between communist revolutionaries and pawns of Western imperialism like the Trotskyites and ultralefts?

[Q]

How can there be unity between communist revolutionaries and pawns of Western imperialism like the Trotskyites and ultralefts?

This is hardly going to add to the discussion. In fact, it serves to infuriate others.

Verbal warning for a flamebait.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How can there be unity between communist revolutionaries and pawns of Western imperialism like the Trotskyites and ultralefts?

There is a difference of between believing in revolutionary defeatism, and being a "pawn of western imperialism".

I'm a Maoist and even I can make that distinction.

[The Feral Underclass]

How can there be unity between communist revolutionaries and pawns of Western imperialism like the Trotskyites and ultralefts?

Sorry, wut?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anyway, when CA was formed we had a member of The Commune write an article about why we should have more unity amongst the left.

This is our response to him: A response to Adam Ford’s “Why we need collective action, not ‘Collective Action’” (http://libcom.org/blog/response-adam-ford%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cwhy-we-need-collective-action-not-%E2%80%98collective-action%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D-25052012)

It addresses the key themes of this debate and may be of interest.

[Le Socialiste]

The irony of the anarchist defending the Marxist perspective against 'Marxists'. All this thread is missing is a quote from the dead German himself

Speaking of dead Germans:


The Communists...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 lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Leave it to you to find irony where irony doesn't exist.

[blake 3:17]

Left unity in the UK has had a long history of being based on communists disguising themselves as something else, be it left-labourites, greens, radical trade unionists or whatever.

And some of the other Left unity efforts here have been undermined by the fact that there were essentially socialist/communist regroupments disguised as left trade unionism, etc. If they'd been posed as open regroupments that'd be fine.

But people get pissed when they come to a talk on some movement issue and all this bizarre sectarian stuff comes up.

A number of former comrades here in Canada keep pushing for a Labor Notes / TDU project as a way of reforming the labour movement. That's a bad joke and not one that any activist from groups like TDU would push in the Canadian union movement context.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I've seen what looks like two schools of thought in this thread and I admit that I haven't studied your documents. I've only read a little bit of what the CPGB has had to say and I haven't read any of the critiques of left unity so to be honest I don't know exactly where I fit. I find myself half agreeing with the unity folks and half agreeing with the anarchists. So perhaps this thread could use something of a third perspective, and since I've been thinking of this problem without the aid of the various theoretical perspectives that have been presented here perhaps I am actually agreeing with one of you without knowing it, perhaps my thoughts are undeveloped and crude in comparison. But I also think that there shouldn't be a dicotomy in this debate. So here it goes.

First of all, I think that many people mean different things when they say left unity, obviously that much is a truism. But what I see here from what I've read from the CPGB-PCC is an attempt to unite disparate parts of the left under a coherent programme into one party that will be able to fight the political battle on it's own terms.

This isn't a wrong approach. It's a far more nuanced attempt at left unity than the attempts in RESPECT, TUSC and various other projects and the Orthdox Marxists deserve credit in that regard. However, my problem with this approach is that it seems to have a vision of the Communist party as a mainstream party, as one that participates in elections, acts legally, and presents an alternative vision in the mainstream dialogue. I don't this is completely correct. First of all, I said that revolutionary politics are in essense anti-politics but I don't think I fleshed out that argument enough. Lets be clear here, the purpose of a revolutionary party is to abolish capitalism, that we all agree on. However this means that we need to create organs of working class fighting capacity. We need to create factory councils, we need to organize underground and secret communications, we need to organize instruments of duel power but most importantly, we don't need to engage their politics, because our politics should not be bringing the working class to the political battle field, our politics should be about drawing a clear class line between us and the enemy. We don't need to be that smiling face on T.V or the Ron Paul that everyone wishes would win. We need to be with the working class when they riot like in London, Paris, and Sweden to direct that energy into insurgency, we need to serve the people with a clear strategy of direct actions to engage them face-to-face in revolutionary politics and we need to be clear that we aren't the "honest politicians", we are the ones that want to destroy politicians. We don't want to make the proletariat care about politics so they can enter it, we want to turn the indifference and scorn the people have into a coherent political force, in a word, we want to organize their low turnouts into boycotts, we shouldn't want to make them vote for us.

OK maybe I'm wrong in the way I phrased that. I think I could have put that better perhaps. But that's ok, feel free to disect that and I'm sure we can get something coherent out of that through debate.

So if we are to drive for left wing unity it should be with Communism in mind. For example, I agree we need to unite on a programme, because many of us disagree on issues and that's been used as an excuse not to cooperate with eachother when we can because we think we are aiming for divergent goals. So a programme should serve the purpose of defining all parties involved as revolutionary socialists and we need to spend some real time debating over what the concept of Marxism, socialism/communism really are so we can agree that despite our divergent theories, our divergent historical stances, that we all are genuinely striving towards the same goals and therefore can unite on a revolutionary basis without uniting with flat out revisionists or social democrats (as a side note, a person can be wrong without being a revisionist. I don't consider Trotskyites, Hoxhaists, or Orthdox Marxists to be revisionist I just disagree on historical and theoretical issues, I do consider Euro-Communists, Kruschevites, Impossiblists, and "Market Socialists" to be revisionists however) so we can cooperate on a consistent basis. This doesn't mean that I want one big party of the left. I don't think that the CPGB argues that exactly but the implications are there. Now on one hand, we have no need for all of the billion sects that sprouted from 100 year old debates over assine issues. Trotskyites, I don't know what a paoblite is or a Lambaite is, but I have a good feeling that what ever event made your tendencies split has long passed and that you can at least begin to begin a dialogue over how you can merge your parties together while stretching democratic centralism a bit so you can have good healthy public debates where everyone can see them. But many tendencies have radically different conceptions of theory and praxis that won't due. Because I am sorry my Trotskyist comrades , I love you and respect you, but I'll never join an organization that participates in elections. Because as a Maoist it would be as abhorrent to me as my position on Mao's China is to you.

So to be clear, what we need is unity in action freedom of discussion. Yes we probably could afford to merge our parties a wee bit, but at the same time sectarianism can be healthy and there is a perfectly good reason why you don't see Trotskyists in the IMT making a Protracted People's War in Britain, so no, we shouldn't aim for "one big party". But we should try to define our goals and have serious debate over the real issues of what Communism really is to draw a clear, black and white line, between those who are on the side of capital and those who are against it.

And to reiterate what I said in another paragraph that I think I could have phrased better, working class organization comes out of working class action and working class struggle. Merging everything to create a Syriza or even a mainstream SDP type organization simply won't cut it. Our politics is not an alternative to bourgeois politics but rather the end of bourgeois politics.

Perhaps I was unclear there, perhaps I am incomplete and I didn't communicate everything correctly. Or perhaps I am wrong. Fair enough, lets get this debate started. Because this is an issue that we really need to tackle. And it shouldn't be on the vulgar basis that it has taken on both sides previously. It shouldn't be on the basis of one-party-to-rule-them-all or on the basis of dogmatic purity.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'd like to add one more thing. I think that in concrete terms, what is needed is a united front formation that has a clearly defined programe of what Marxism/Communism are. I think we should work towards greater organizational unity but at the same time we should be aware that everyone has a different theory and praxis and respect that. and that while some parties might particiate in elections, some of us might prefer a serve-the-people approach and that is OK, it just means that our unity will be over the aspects where our praxis overlaps and diverge where it does not.

[alexander horas]

Perhaps its me, but I understood anarchy to be the final breakdown of a political society. So unless your goals are rebellion for the sake of rebellion, destruction for the sake of pleasure, etc. I don't see any coherent positive aim for the proletariat. Please if I misunderstand, enlighten me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This isn't a wrong approach. It's a far more nuanced attempt at left unity than the attempts in RESPECT, TUSC and various other projects and the Orthdox Marxists deserve credit in that regard. However, my problem with this approach is that it seems to have a vision of the Communist party as a mainstream party, as one that participates in elections, acts legally, and presents an alternative vision in the mainstream dialogue. I don't this is completely correct. First of all, I said that revolutionary politics are in essense anti-politics but I don't think I fleshed out that argument enough. Lets be clear here, the purpose of a revolutionary party is to abolish capitalism, that we all agree on. However this means that we need to create organs of working class fighting capacity. We need to create factory councils, we need to organize underground and secret communications, we need to organize instruments of duel power but most importantly, we don't need to engage their politics, because our politics should not be bringing the working class to the political battle field, our politics should be about drawing a clear class line between us and the enemy. We don't need to be that smiling face on T.V or the Ron Paul that everyone wishes would win. We need to be with the working class when they riot like in London, Paris, and Sweden to direct that energy into insurgency, we need to serve the people with a clear strategy of direct actions to engage them face-to-face in revolutionary politics and we need to be clear that we aren't the "honest politicians", we are the ones that want to destroy politicians. We don't want to make the proletariat care about politics so they can enter it, we want to turn the indifference and scorn the people have into a coherent political force, in a word, we want to organize their low turnouts into boycotts, we shouldn't want to make them vote for us.

Alright, but electing communist members of parliament can be useful for two reasons. First, the parliament can serve as a tribune for communist propaganda. Second, communist members of parliament can, to a degree, disrupt the functioning the the bourgeois state, and assist with the creation of proletarian organs.

That said, electoral activity should be simply one aspect of the class struggle, and not the most important one, I think. And, depending on the circumstances, perhaps participating in electoral politics is inadvisable. But that is a question of strategy, not principle.


Trotskyites, I don't know what a paoblite is or a Lambaite is, but I have a good feeling that what ever event made your tendencies split has long passed and that you can at least begin to begin a dialogue over how you can merge your parties together while stretching democratic centralism a bit so you can have good healthy public debates where everyone can see them.

I don't think anyone considers themselves a Pabloist, not even Pablo's own International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency (or Marxist Revolutionary, I swear the names of most Trotskyist groups are bloody interchangeable). First, because "Pabloite" has become a slur in Trotskyist circles, and second, because Pablo's main theory of "centuries of deformed workers' states" doesn't look particularly appealing today.

As for Trotskyist unity, first of all, several Trotskyist groups have degenerated into bureaucratic sects. Such sects might even have alright political positions (Healy's sect, for example, basically upheld orthodox Trotskyism, albeit somewhat inconsistently, until Healy started praising the Red Guards and receiving money from various nationalist Arab regimes), but unity with them would be actively harmful. Healy, for example, was able to bully the rest of the ICFI into following his line. I have heard that the British SWP behaved like this in the RESPECT coalition, as well.

Second, our differences, while perhaps hilariously technical on paper, have very real consequences for our political line. In the eighties and the nineties, for example, many Trotskyist groups outright supported the clerical-reactionary Solidarność, the reactionary Yeltsin etc. If the DPR Korea were to fall to the reaction today, would certain sections of the Trotskyist movement cheer for the "democratic" reactionaries? Unfortunately I think they would.

I think that the socialist movement, and Trotskyism in particular, is mainly divided on the issue of the class nature of the Soviet Union and Soviet defencism. That, and the necessity of political changes in the "socialist states", but surely no one thinks that, for example, the DPR Korea is just perfect as it is?

So I think that an alliance between orthodox Trotskyists and, for example, the "Brezhnevites" in the PSL, the WWP and similar groups is plausible. But between orthodox Trotskyists and Hoxhaists, I don't think so, even though I respect the latter group.


So to be clear, what we need is unity in action freedom of discussion. Yes we probably could afford to merge our parties a wee bit, but at the same time sectarianism can be healthy and there is a perfectly good reason why you don't see Trotskyists in the IMT making a Protracted People's War in Britain, so no, we shouldn't aim for "one big party".

But surely, the Protracted People's War is a strategy, just like electoralism or entryism? I think many groups raise strategy to the level of principle, and that leads to inflexibility.

[The Feral Underclass]

Perhaps its me, but I understood anarchy to be the final breakdown of a political society. So unless your goals are rebellion for the sake of rebellion, destruction for the sake of pleasure, etc. I don't see any coherent positive aim for the proletariat. Please if I misunderstand, enlighten me.

No. Anarchy simply refers to a society void of centralised political authority. It is a rejection of the state.

The idea that anarchy means chaos and disorder is a common misconception based on the fact that it's literal translation means "without government" and this concept is difficult for people to imagine without it resulting in some kid of disorder. It's also a tactic used by opponents of anarchists to discredit anarchism.

Anarchism is a political idea with a rich tradition and history and far from advocating destruction and breakdown, it is simply about the re-organisation of society without class, without centralised political authority and without systems of hierarchy.

Anarchism means many other things, especially in a contemporary sense, but the more you learn about anarchism the more these will become obvious.

Here are some texts that you might find useful:

Anarchy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1891/xx/anarchy.htm) by Errico Malatesta

Communism and Anarchy (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/comanar.html) by Peter Kropotkin

Anarchism: It's philosophy and Ideal (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/philandideal.html) by Peter Kropotkin

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm) by Mikhail Bakunin

ABC of Anarchism (http://libcom.org/library/abc-anarchism-alexander-berkman) by Alexander Berkman

Introduction to Anarchist Communism (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/163-introduction-to-anarchist-communism.html) by the Anarchist Federation in Britain

[The Feral Underclass]

I've seen what looks like two schools of thought in this thread and I admit that I haven't studied your documents. I've only read a little bit of what the CPGB has had to say and I haven't read any of the critiques of left unity so to be honest I don't know exactly where I fit. I find myself half agreeing with the unity folks and half agreeing with the anarchists. So perhaps this thread could use something of a third perspective, and since I've been thinking of this problem without the aid of the various theoretical perspectives that have been presented here perhaps I am actually agreeing with one of you without knowing it, perhaps my thoughts are undeveloped and crude in comparison. But I also think that there shouldn't be a dicotomy in this debate. So here it goes.

First of all, I think that many people mean different things when they say left unity, obviously that much is a truism. But what I see here from what I've read from the CPGB-PCC is an attempt to unite disparate parts of the left under a coherent programme into one party that will be able to fight the political battle on it's own terms.

This isn't a wrong approach. It's a far more nuanced attempt at left unity than the attempts in RESPECT, TUSC and various other projects and the Orthdox Marxists deserve credit in that regard. However, my problem with this approach is that it seems to have a vision of the Communist party as a mainstream party, as one that participates in elections, acts legally, and presents an alternative vision in the mainstream dialogue. I don't this is completely correct. First of all, I said that revolutionary politics are in essense anti-politics but I don't think I fleshed out that argument enough. Lets be clear here, the purpose of a revolutionary party is to abolish capitalism, that we all agree on. However this means that we need to create organs of working class fighting capacity. We need to create factory councils, we need to organize underground and secret communications, we need to organize instruments of duel power but most importantly, we don't need to engage their politics, because our politics should not be bringing the working class to the political battle field, our politics should be about drawing a clear class line between us and the enemy. We don't need to be that smiling face on T.V or the Ron Paul that everyone wishes would win. We need to be with the working class when they riot like in London, Paris, and Sweden to direct that energy into insurgency, we need to serve the people with a clear strategy of direct actions to engage them face-to-face in revolutionary politics and we need to be clear that we aren't the "honest politicians", we are the ones that want to destroy politicians. We don't want to make the proletariat care about politics so they can enter it, we want to turn the indifference and scorn the people have into a coherent political force, in a word, we want to organize their low turnouts into boycotts, we shouldn't want to make them vote for us.

OK maybe I'm wrong in the way I phrased that. I think I could have put that better perhaps. But that's ok, feel free to disect that and I'm sure we can get something coherent out of that through debate.

So if we are to drive for left wing unity it should be with Communism in mind. For example, I agree we need to unite on a programme, because many of us disagree on issues and that's been used as an excuse not to cooperate with eachother when we can because we think we are aiming for divergent goals. So a programme should serve the purpose of defining all parties involved as revolutionary socialists and we need to spend some real time debating over what the concept of Marxism, socialism/communism really are so we can agree that despite our divergent theories, our divergent historical stances, that we all are genuinely striving towards the same goals and therefore can unite on a revolutionary basis without uniting with flat out revisionists or social democrats (as a side note, a person can be wrong without being a revisionist. I don't consider Trotskyites, Hoxhaists, or Orthdox Marxists to be revisionist I just disagree on historical and theoretical issues, I do consider Euro-Communists, Kruschevites, Impossiblists, and "Market Socialists" to be revisionists however) so we can cooperate on a consistent basis. This doesn't mean that I want one big party of the left. I don't think that the CPGB argues that exactly but the implications are there. Now on one hand, we have no need for all of the billion sects that sprouted from 100 year old debates over assine issues. Trotskyites, I don't know what a paoblite is or a Lambaite is, but I have a good feeling that what ever event made your tendencies split has long passed and that you can at least begin to begin a dialogue over how you can merge your parties together while stretching democratic centralism a bit so you can have good healthy public debates where everyone can see them. But many tendencies have radically different conceptions of theory and praxis that won't due. Because I am sorry my Trotskyist comrades , I love you and respect you, but I'll never join an organization that participates in elections. Because as a Maoist it would be as abhorrent to me as my position on Mao's China is to you.

So to be clear, what we need is unity in action freedom of discussion. Yes we probably could afford to merge our parties a wee bit, but at the same time sectarianism can be healthy and there is a perfectly good reason why you don't see Trotskyists in the IMT making a Protracted People's War in Britain, so no, we shouldn't aim for "one big party". But we should try to define our goals and have serious debate over the real issues of what Communism really is to draw a clear, black and white line, between those who are on the side of capital and those who are against it.

And to reiterate what I said in another paragraph that I think I could have phrased better, working class organization comes out of working class action and working class struggle. Merging everything to create a Syriza or even a mainstream SDP type organization simply won't cut it. Our politics is not an alternative to bourgeois politics but rather the end of bourgeois politics.

Perhaps I was unclear there, perhaps I am incomplete and I didn't communicate everything correctly. Or perhaps I am wrong. Fair enough, lets get this debate started. Because this is an issue that we really need to tackle. And it shouldn't be on the vulgar basis that it has taken on both sides previously. It shouldn't be on the basis of one-party-to-rule-them-all or on the basis of dogmatic purity.

With a firm and overt critical view on the idea of the party, this is pretty much what CA advocate (as written in the article I posted): Unity in praxis, not unity in organisation, "as active minorities of revolutionaries the aim of our activity should not be to win the confidence of the working class as a political entity, but to use organisation to insert necessary ideas and tactics within social struggles. For this the central issue is not the formal ties between these initiatives and organisations, nor whether there is one or many, but the extent to which they form a harmonious and co-operative praxis"

I love Maoists!

[Tower of Bebel]

When evaluating the development of left unity projects we should keep three things in mind:

* the effect of the current economic and political crises on the attitude of the working class;
* the development of socialist thought (in the broad sense) within left unity projects;
* and the social and organisational background of the people who're uniting.

In Belgium, I first experienced a left unity project in 2006-7. It was mainly build around various groups on the left of social democracy and the trade union leadership. Though it had the potential to appeal to the socialist trade union, it never happened. The project remained centered around a programme and some campaigns concerning poverty (welfare, housing problems, social services, etc.). Instead of addressing the core of the working class, the project started to voice the misery of those who live on the margins of bourgeois society. Socialist ideas were not the mainstay of its programme. While this project had some roots in the north of the country, it never really took of in the south. Eventually the project burst into pieces.

The second project was the unity of various left groupings in the south, which happened in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. Though it had some kind of reformist socialist programme, the project failed to root in the trade unions. The fact that the Labour Party of Belgium (Maoist) refused to embark on this project, just like they did in 2006, was a real problem. Those socialist trade union leaders who felt pressure from below, who were forced to criticize the social-democratic party, restrained from getting involved and used each group (the LPB and the unity project) as a stick to beat the other with. The fact that Belgium had no government for almost two years (and therefor no austerity programme), gave the social-democrats a chance to keep the lid on the boiling pot of class struggle. This made the left unity project succumb to its own internal problems.

A year later, in the north, a more or less cultural unity project came about. Different socialist groups and parties would meet and think of ways to promote the ideas of socialism. It succeeded at getting the LPB and most others around the table, but it was not a political project. I think that the political inertia of the country at that time (having to do with the lack of a government) caused some socialists to turn towards this cultural project.

A few years ago, while the southern unity project had collapsed, a new political unity project was born in the north. At the same time a new federal government started to explain and implement its austerity programme. We've also seen several trade union demonstrations and several struggles over factory closures since then. This explecitely socialist project united various left groups with people who had left social democracy, ending the project that had once tried to push social democracy to the left. Now the crisis was really kicking off in Belgium and this project, though it did not involve the LPB (again), had stronger roots in the socialist trade union. It had and still has socialist policies as its main goal.

Currently, some leaders of the socialist trade union, feeling the pressure from below, start to renounce the policies of their social democratic friends who're in government. While still using the devide between the Maoists and the united groups on the left as a stick to beat both organisations with (those leaders remain bureaucrats after all), they also had to appeal for a strong united left that would voice the needs and complaints of the working class. In the south some other more local left unity projects sprung up in the wake of the local elections. All the different projects and parties (like the LPB) have seen some imput from socialist syndicalists who were either supportive or wanted to become a member.

As you can see, the three factors I mentioned above are starting to come together. While until now all unity projects have failed, the projects themselves are constantly changing on the basis of past experience and the social and political developments that arise from the capitalist crisis and the struggle of the working class. The projects themselves seem pathetic (failures), but they reflect some serious underlying developments.

[The Feral Underclass]

they reflect some serious underlying developments.

Developments for whom though?

[CriticalJames]

When evaluating the development of left unity projects we should keep three things in mind:

* the effect of the current economic and political crises on the attitude of the working class;
* the development of socialist thought (in the broad sense) within left unity projects;
* and the social and organisational background of the people who're uniting.

In Belgium, I first experienced a left unity project in 2006-7. It was mainly build around various groups on the left of social democracy and the trade union leadership. Though it had the potential to appeal to the socialist trade union, it never happened. The project remained centered around a programme and some campaigns concerning poverty (welfare, housing problems, social services, etc.). Instead of addressing the core of the working class, the project started to voice the misery of those who live on the margins of bourgeois society. Socialist ideas were not the mainstay of its programme. While this project had some roots in the north of the country, it never really took of in the south. Eventually the project burst into pieces.

The second project was the unity of various left groupings in the south, which happened in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. Though it had some kind of reformist socialist programme, the project failed to root in the trade unions. The fact that the Labour Party of Belgium (Maoist) refused to embark on this project, just like they did in 2006, was a real problem. Those socialist trade union leaders who felt pressure from below, who were forced to criticize the social-democratic party, restrained from getting involved and used each group (the LPB and the unity project) as a stick to beat the other with. The fact that Belgium had no government for almost two years (and therefor no austerity programme), gave the social-democrats a chance to keep the lid on the boiling pot of class struggle. This made the left unity project succumb to its own internal problems.

A year later, in the north, a more or less cultural unity project came about. Different socialist groups and parties would meet and think of ways to promote the ideas of socialism. It succeeded at getting the LPB and most others around the table, but it was not a political project. I think that the political inertia of the country at that time (having to do with the lack of a government) caused some socialists to turn towards this cultural project.

A few years ago, while the southern unity project had collapsed, a new political unity project was born in the north. At the same time a new federal government started to explain and implement its austerity programme. We've also seen several trade union demonstrations and several struggles over factory closures since then. This explecitely socialist project united various left groups with people who had left social democracy, ending the project that had once tried to push social democracy to the left. Now the crisis was really kicking off in Belgium and this project, though it did not involve the LPB (again), had stronger roots in the socialist trade union. It had and still has socialist policies as its main goal.

Currently, some leaders of the socialist trade union, feeling the pressure from below, start to renounce the policies of their social democratic friends who're in government. While still using the devide between the Maoists and the united groups on the left as a stick to beat both organisations with (those leaders remain bureaucrats after all), they also had to appeal for a strong united left that would voice the needs and complaints of the working class. In the south some other more local left unity projects sprung up in the wake of the local elections. All the different projects and parties (like the LPB) have seen some imput from socialist syndicalists who were either supportive or wanted to become a member.

As you can see, the three factors I mentioned above are starting to come together. While until now all unity projects have failed, the projects themselves are constantly changing on the basis of past experience and the social and political developments that arise from the capitalist crisis and the struggle of the working class. The projects themselves seem pathetic (failures), but they reflect some serious underlying developments.

You raise some very valid points. I think that perhaps the idea of left unity should be replaced with far-left unity. At the moment in the United Kingdom we've got groups like the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, and the Workers Revolutionary party - all of these groups have a similar (though there are some significant differences) platform. At the very least, there could be a successful coalition between at least a few of these mentioned groups. Issues start appearing when left movements begin to compensate their values and goals in exchange for power and wealth being offered by the current governments in power. Groups involved in a left unity should have a dedication to preventing that compensation and aim to achieve a very specific set of goals. As with trade unions, they've had a long history of using the working class as a tool for the empowerment of a few union leaders at the top. The challenges of establishing left unity are to do with deciding which groups share an ideological and political perspective, and which groups are likely to betray the unity and platform for their own goals. The internal struggle between the working classes can often be as bloody as the inter-class revolutionary struggle, however its necessary to fight the former battles as the working class are only powerful in unity.

[Tower of Bebel]

You raise some very valid points. I think that perhaps the idea of left unity should be replaced with far-left unity. At the moment in the United Kingdom we've got groups like the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, and the Workers Revolutionary party - all of these groups have a similar (though there are some significant differences) platform. At the very least, there could be a successful coalition between at least a few of these mentioned groups. Issues start appearing when left movements begin to compensate their values and goals in exchange for power and wealth being offered by the current governments in power. Groups involved in a left unity should have a dedication to preventing that compensation and aim to achieve a very specific set of goals. As with trade unions, they've had a long history of using the working class as a tool for the empowerment of a few union leaders at the top. The challenges of establishing left unity are to do with deciding which groups share an ideological and political perspective, and which groups are likely to betray the unity and platform for their own goals. The internal struggle between the working classes can often be as bloody as the inter-class revolutionary struggle, however its necessary to fight the former battles as the working class are only powerful in unity.
Although the programmes, platforms and individual demands of different groups can, on the surface, look similar, they are riddled with all kinds of shibboleths. I don't think you can create some kind of stable unity on the basis of the principle of the lowest common denominator. However, rapid developments like the class struggle and the capitalist crisis force groups to drop some of them and reinterpret others. This does not only result in some sort of reshuffling of their programmes but also in questioning them. Eventually this gives way to limited openings for socialists to formulate common programmes.

These common programmes are themselves some kind of reflection of the needs and complaints of the working class. These demands arise from the class struggle and the current political, social and economic crisis. Under pressure, the left bureaucracy of the trade union movement is currently becoming one gigantic contradiction (especially the middle layers). They keep the lid on the struggle on one hand while voicing what comming from below on the other hand. New programmatic ideas and slogans (like left unity) are formulated through limited openings, like cracks and bursts in the apparatus of the trade union bureauracy. When the bureaucracy was all-powerful, it had a profoundly reformist effect on the programmes of the left; now this bureaucracy itself has to fall back on a centrist position.

It goes to show how both form the two sides of the same medal, but this remains a highly contradictory process with new syntheses along the way. Marxists, in case one (the reshuffling and questioning of the old shibboleths), have to push for their reinterpretation on the basis of internal struggles and some dialectic connection with the class struggle. In case two (of the class struggle putting pressure on the trade union bureaucracy) Marxists should aid the workers in their struggles based on the organisational skills and political positions (councils, parliament, etc.) they have acquired. Both result in the development of a new leadership for the workers movement.


Developments for whom though?
The effects of current developments are already all-encompassing.

[The Feral Underclass]

^ You forgot to answer my question.

[CriticalJames]

It goes to show how both form the two sides of the same medal, but this remains a highly contradictory process with new syntheses along the way. Marxists, in case one (the reshuffling and questioning of the old shibboleths), have to push for their reinterpretation on the basis of internal struggles and some dialectic connection with the class struggle. In case two (of the class struggle putting pressure on the trade union bureaucracy) Marxists should aid the workers in their struggles based on the organisational skills and political positions (councils, parliament, etc.) they have acquired. Both result in the development of a new leadership for the workers movement.


The effects of current developments are already all-encompassing.

Out of interest, what would you propose a solution to the failure of unity movements? As surely the British left in its current (divided) state can't reach its full potential.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

If we can't unify on an internet forum, then we best forget trying to unify outside of the internet.

One of the problems that makes unity so difficult to achieve between leftists is the 'my ideology is my property' notion where we take an ideology and refute all criticisms of it in a personal way. You see how people take it very personally that someone disagrees with them for example, not helped by the use of ad hominem arguments that definitely drag ideas down to a more personal level.

This, as well as other things, are definitely affected by a lack of understanding surrounding various tendencies. For example, seeing Trotskyists spout nonsense about Anarchism is a common sight for me, they consistently show their poor political education by using arguments that do not relate to correct Anarchist definitions/theory or arguments that show a terribly subjective analysis based on personal experience rather than an analysis based on Anarchism and it's successes around the world. Anarchists too have shown themselves to be poorly educated in political matters by completely ignoring the validity of points raised by their comrades, forgetting that a synthesis of ideas between all tendencies is useful.

All of this just doesn't help us get along, we need to get together and compromise where we can't solve theoretical and practical issues. It's the only way forward.

Oh and people who don't know what Anarchy actually is, preferring to use the bastardised definition (Anarchy = Chaos) aren't fit to post on a forum about unity.

Learn, discuss and remove your sense of pride comrades. There's no room for linear thinking if you want change.

[The Feral Underclass]

The above post notwithstanding, this thread is full of delusion


the British left in its current (divided) state can't reach its full potential.

What is your motivation to unite the left? What is the purpose of this strategy?

[The Feral Underclass]

The effects of current developments are already all-encompassing.

My question was for whom are these developments occurring.

[CriticalJames]

Unity isn't always nesecary, but I think we need more unity in the left than we currently do in the United Kingdom. With so many left wing entities competing for dominance, the individual power of each one is handicapped. Furthermore, it means working class movements are severely limited in the face of huge political conglomerates such as the Labour and Conservative parties.

[The Feral Underclass]

Unity isn't always nesecary, but I think we need more unity in the left than we currently do in the United Kingdom. With so many left wing entities competing for dominance, the individual power of each one is handicapped. Furthermore, it means working class movements are severely limited in the face of huge political conglomerates such as the Labour and Conservative parties.

So you think that the left should be united so they can compete for "dominance together", rather than separately? And so that the lfet can compete with Labour and the Conservative parties? Also, who are left competing for dominance over?

[CriticalJames]

So you think that the left should be united so they can compete for "dominance together", rather than separately? And so that the lfet can compete with Labour and the Conservative parties? Also, who are left competing for dominance over?

For example, in the UK we have at least three parties who brand themselves communist and even who do so as socialist. Without question, a collective of these groups would be much stronger than any one of these parties on their own. Of course some people will say that the flaw with this is that the parties will abandon their platform in favour of more popularity, however as many of our far-left parties share strikingly similar manifestos, surely it would make sense to pool resources and continue the struggle on a more united front?

EDIT: The left, or far-left, are competing against two groups people. Firstly the capitalist groups such as corporations, businesses and lobbys. Secondly the parties that represent the interests of these groups, the Tories, Labour and so on.

[Tower of Bebel]

My question was for whom are these developments occurring.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you asking who's benefiting from these developments, or who's perceiving this development in such a way?


Out of interest, what would you propose a solution to the failure of unity movements? As surely the British left in its current (divided) state can't reach its full potential.
It's no use to impose or even to propose a full-fledged programme for the next-in-line unity project. Nor is it useful to unite for the sake of unity (and to have a programme based on the lowest common denominator). Unity grows (forgive me the mechanical, even opportunist, wording) out of the needs of the class struggle. Allthough it mostly begins with the call or appeal from one person or a particular group (like the one from Ken Loach), most of the time the real underlying cause is some striking development in the workers' movement. This development can remain hidden for a long time, since Minerva's owl takes flight only at dusk, but to me the fact remains that the emancipation of the working class is mirrored by the emancipation of the sectarian/the activist.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do nothing. That we should wait for the right moment before we act. Just like the worker needs to struggle and to indict in order to reveal and get rid of the bureaucratic policies that dominate the workers' movement, the socialist activist continuously needs to push for democratic debate and the healthy development of socialist ideas. Where both tasks colide (say a person is both a trade union representative and a party member), there is an inseparable double task.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you asking who's benefiting from these developments, or who's perceiving this development in such a way?

If you want to use the word "benefiting" then I guess that's what I am asking.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're not answer my questions. I am trying to understand your position and so my questions require specific, direct answers.

Do you think that the left should be united so they can compete for "dominance together", rather than separately?

Do you want the left to be competing with Labour and the Conservative parties?

When you say "dominance" who are the left competing for dominance over?


For example, in the UK we have at least three parties who brand themselves communist and even who do so as socialist. Without question, a collective of these groups would be much stronger than any one of these parties on their own.

On what evidence do you base this assertion?


Of course some people will say that the flaw with this is that the parties will abandon their platform in favour of more popularity, however as many of our far-left parties share strikingly similar manifestos, surely it would make sense to pool resources and continue the struggle on a more united front?

It may seem like it makes sense, but in actual fact the ideas and praxis of these separate organisations are so different that ultimately any unity would be superficial.

Also, without addressing the hierarchical nature of the politics of these organisations, who is ultimately in charge? Do you think the leaders of the SWP and the CPGB could work together on a Central Committee? Do you think Alan Woods and Sean Matgamna or Sean Matgamna and David Brody could all get along with each other?

Aside from all the political problems, what you're suggesting is just practically not possible? Former members of the SWP tried to pull people together to form a new political organisation, sending out invitations to other groups and before the inaugural meeting began they had erupted into argument -- They couldn't even decide who was allowed to come to the fucking thing.

The traditional left have got to get over this wet dream of everyone uniting together, because it isn't going to work. More importantly, it's not even necessary. What is required is unity in praxis, not unity in organisation.


EDIT: The left, or far-left, are competing against two groups people. Firstly the capitalist groups such as corporations, businesses and lobbys. Secondly the parties that represent the interests of these groups, the Tories, Labour and so on.

Competing for what?

[Tower of Bebel]

TAT, since my example was all about cracks in the bureaucratic appartus of the trade union, I would say that both parties (common workers and revolutionary activists) can benefit from such a development, however confused both seem when they express their newly formed ideas for the first time. I must admit that even though this is possible, it doesn't always happen because of contradictions and short-sightedness. I'm inspired, however, by three open lettres from socialist syndicalists (in Belgium) that denounce the bureaucracy, the austerity imposed by the government (lead by a social democratic prime minister), and that express clear signs of a politically educated working class ready for an outburst.

[CriticalJames]

Competing for what?

Competing for political control, surely that's the very foundation of all of these parties? You say unity in praxis and not unity in organization, and I think I agree with you there. As long as these parties are collaborating towards a common effort then they are collectively stronger, however I don't think that collaboration exists.

In fact, I think that through attempts to organize and streamline the far left, socialist movements in the UK have become even more divided. There are different leagues and different alliances and often they abandon collaborative support in sight of strengthening internally.

[The Feral Underclass]

Competing for political control, surely that's the very foundation of all of these parties?

Well precisely, but what difference does it make to establishing communism for a united communist party to weird political control? How is that going to help the working class abolish themselves as workers?


You say unity in praxis and not unity in organization, and I think I agree with you there. As long as these parties are collaborating towards a common effort then they are collectively stronger, however I don't think that collaboration exists.

But we, as various political organisations, don't need to be "collectively stronger" (which uniting wouldn't make us anyway) we need to be better at intervening in struggle. Uniting disparate political organisations isn't going to help that...It's not even possible.


In fact, I think that through attempts to organize and streamline the far left, socialist movements in the UK have become even more divided. There are different leagues and different alliances and often they abandon collaborative support in sight of strengthening internally.

You're putting too much emphasis on the significance of division and not addressing the more important and urgent issue of understanding current class composition and then relating revolutionary ideas and strategies to the every day struggles of the proletariat, in the various forms it takes.

[Luís Henrique]

The irony of the anarchist defending the Marxist perspective against 'Marxists'.

Indeed. And the irony of "Marxists" adopting Bakunin's substitutionist ideas. Oh, Russia...

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Indeed. And the irony of "Marxists" adopting Bakunin's substitutionist ideas. Oh, Russia...

Luís Henrique

What kind of reading of Bakunin did you engage in? One in which your eyes were closed?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Out of interest, what would you propose a solution to the failure of unity movements? As surely the British left in its current (divided) state can't reach its full potential.

How is it a failure to unify, rather than just the way things have developed; rather than just a condition of where workers and radicals are at right now?

The Russian Social Democrats could unify marxist circles because there was a larger movement going on around them that gave a practical reason to unify and try to coordinate. The CNT came out of a generation of pesant and worker struggles; the IWW in the US developed out of the left-socialists, anarchists, and militant trade unionists having a practical reason (and more importantly, actual roots and connections with groups of workers) to organize a radical alternative to the liberal trade-unions.

I support this kind of organic unity because it's not just radicals rearranging the furnature, but represents a connection between class struggle and radicals. But on the other hand there's the unity of the Comintern as tool of Russian policy interests which needed to employ top-down disipline in order to keep groups together even while making deals with Hitler, (in the US) throwing admirable anti-racist campaigns under the bus to make nice with the racists in the Democratic party, or crushing revolutionaries (in the name of "left unity" by the way) in Spain.

I'm pretty sure that the current US or UK left can not achieve all that much by itself, but I don't think that being divided is the source of this - in fact I think much of the division a symptom of a larger impasse in class struggle. Having more coalitions for practicle things, learning to work together better, will help the left have a better, but limited, impact and maybe a larger bullhorn to try and propagandize. This is fine for what it is and I think should be done when it makes sense. But the "potential" that we need to reach as radical workers can't be found only through our own organizing because really small groups of radicals - even combined - can't make class struggle on their own.



Do you want the left to be competing with Labour and the Conservative parties? I don't think the left should compete electorally with Labour and Conservatives, but I do think that we need to compete ideologically with liberal and conservative ideas.

[blake 3:17]

At the moment in the United Kingdom we've got groups like the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, and the Workers Revolutionary party - all of these groups have a similar (though there are some significant differences) platform.

A bunch of groups nobody actually wants to be in? Hitching corpses to corpses aint all that appealing.

I'd encourage people here to take another look at Owen Jones proposal for a 'networked politics' here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/british-politics-urgently-needs-a-new-force--a-movement-on-the-left-to-counter-capitalisms-crisis-8459099.html

I don't agree with Jones on everything, and in many ways his proposal has more in common with certain strands of anarchism than other kinds of leftism...

There's been some interesting moves along this line internationally, in terms of how the exploited and oppressed actually do politics. Much of it is "Popular Frontist" or reformist or totally unscientific socialism, but we can build purist castles and sects off to one side or enter movements and parties in sectarian ways or we can try to build popular resistance. I'm interested in the latter.

[V.Vendetta]

I think we can and must build a united movement of all libertarian leftist tendencies. With this global revolutionary upsurge taking place, it is time to put aside our petty theoretical difference and unite together to spread revolutionary ideas and methods among the international working class.

We need a libertarian socialist international, an organization that can unite anarchist-communists, libertarian marxists, council communists, left-communists, and other libertarian socialist tendencies. This is essential if we are to have any hope of influencing the massive revolutionary ruptures we are witnessing.

All that being said, I see no hope of libertarian socialists being able to 'unite' with leninists, stalinists, and the like. We must at minimum unite on the principle of the self-emancipation of the working class and the direct and democratic rule of the workers themselves. Authoritarian socialists do not adhere to these principles; they may in words, but never in deed.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think we can and must build a united movement of all libertarian leftist tendencies.

Why?


With this global revolutionary upsurge taking place, it is time to put aside our petty theoretical difference and unite together to spread revolutionary ideas and methods among the international working class.

But are the differences petty? And why do we need to be united in order to "spread revolutionary ideas"?


We need a libertarian socialist international, an organization that can unite anarchist-communists, libertarian marxists, council communists, left-communists, and other libertarian socialist tendencies. This is essential if we are to have any hope of influencing the massive revolutionary ruptures we are witnessing.

Why is it essential? Why do you think having such a body would help influence revolutionary ruptures?

[Martin Blank]

This is hardly going to add to the discussion. In fact, it serves to infuriate others.

I almost want a show of hands to see who can still be infuriated or otherwise offended by such a laughable statement. I guess I can't believe someone could actually get pissed off by that kind of twaddle.

Anyway, as to the topic at hand, I think there is a long history of fetishizing the concept of the singular, institutional party. It's a bad habit that self-described Marxists picked up during their time in the Second International and have never really been able to shake. For Marx, the party was its program first; the specific organizational form it took would be dependent on the circumstances that developed. Whether it was one group, a coalition of groups, etc., grouped around a program didn't really matter. For Marx, that concrete unity of various "factions and fractions" on the basis of a program was a party.

The founding document of the communist movement was called the Manifesto of the Communist Partyfor a reason. If Marx and Engels simply sought to unify all those who agreed with their documentinto the Communist League, then they would have called it the Manifesto of the Communist League. But they didn't. The League functioned as a party-faction -- a component of the broader unity of various "factions and fractions" of the class-conscious proletariat into the Communist party-movement, which, in turn, was a component of the broader proletarian party-movement that was united on three central principles: "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat".

As for "left unity", it is not something that can be contrived. This idea that a mass communist party or proletarian party can come out of a series of sterile conferences based on paper agreements is idealist nonsense. Any real, meaningful unity of communist and/or proletarian forces will be a consequence -- an organic by-product -- of the above process. That is, it will be through joint political activity on the basis of a principled communist program of action that unity of communist forces will come about. To put it another way, by fighting for workers' unity on a revolutionary basis through consistently revolutionary and communist work in the class struggle you will achieve a meaningful and lasting unity of communists.

There is no royal road to achieving this, whether you call it regroupment, rapprochement, left unity, left refoundation or whatever. Building a solid communist party and revolutionary proletarian movement cannot be done through get-rich-quick schemes. Do your job as revolutionaries and everything else will seem to fall into place.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I almost want a show of hands to see who can still be infuriated or otherwise offended by such a laughable statement. I guess I can't believe someone could actually get pissed off by that kind of twaddle.

I don't think the comrade was personally ticked, just advocating that possibility for others.


Anyway, as to the topic at hand, I think there is a long history of fetishizing the concept of the singular, institutional party. It's a bad habit that self-described Marxists picked up during their time in the Second International and have never really been able to shake.

There has certainly been a long history of fetishizing the concept of the singular party. However, if anything else, comrade, there has been a political deficit in emphasizing the concept of the "institutional" party-movement.

[Though I still haven't found a neologism to replace the i-word, you get my drift.]


There is no royal road to achieving this, whether you call it regroupment, rapprochement, left unity, left refoundation or whatever. Building a solid communist party and revolutionary proletarian movement cannot be done through get-rich-quick schemes. Do your job as revolutionaries and everything else will seem to fall into place.

That ties in to my second statement: that this political deficit on "institutionalism" has led time and again to get-rich-quick schemes that have failed time and again. The perceived separation of "party" and "movement" has become worse than a bad habit, too.

In short, anti-sectarian unity must have a demographically working-class character, a solidly left-of-social-democracy political orientation, and an "institutional" approach to permanent political organization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In short, anti-sectarian unity must have a demographically working-class character, a solidly left-of-social-democracy political orientation, and an "institutional" approach to permanent political organization.

Time and again I am accused of making a personal attack on you for bringing this up, but EVERY time I ask this question, it is in good faith and for a reason - if you are an institutionalist, then why are you on a forum that seeks to abolish capitalism?

Because - and correct me if i'm wrong - is the whole premise of the institutional political/economic movement not to overthrow the existing order, but to infiltrate, reform and seek to manage the existing institutions of capital?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd have a hard time getting past defenders of "actual existing socialism" for left unity. I love Marxist-Leninists and the fact that many of their parties such as the KKE are really revolutionary and strong, but they just annoy me beyond end about defending the USSR, Cuba, etc. (that's probably the only criticism of Marxism-Leninism I have). If their is a united communist party, I would have a lot of trouble getting over this issue.

[Brutus]

So you don't criticise their support for a one party state and socialism in one country?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you don't criticise their support for a one party state and socialism in one country?

My stance on a one-party state depends on the nature of the rest of the system. It's a bit more complicated than yes or no. But generally I would say no just to be safe, so to say. Honestly, if genuine Marxism-Leninism was put into practice, which would mean there is socialism and democracy (I'd argue Stalin did not implement Marxism-Leninism), I'd support it fully.

I support socialism in one country, also.

Edit: forget what I have said about the one party state...

[Q]

Because - and correct me if i'm wrong - is the whole premise of the institutional political/economic movement not to overthrow the existing order, but to infiltrate, reform and seek to manage the existing institutions of capital?
No, not at all. The point is to build up proletarian institutions, able to build the working class as a class with its own political agenda, that is, the fight for its revolutionary self-emancipation through the fight for communism.

It somewhat amazes me that you never even grasped this basic point. If you attack your opponents, at least understand them first, or make an effort to do so.

[Brutus]

I support socialism in one country
Why the abandonment of proletarian internationalism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, not at all. The point is to build up proletarian institutions, able to build the working class as a class with its own political agenda, that is, the fight for its revolutionary self-emancipation through the fight for communism.

It somewhat amazes me that you never even grasped this basic point. If you attack your opponents, at least understand them first, or make an effort to do so.

Am I getting confused between two types of institutionalism, then? I am thinking of the institutionalism of Veblen et al. That particular school (Veblen, Galbraith etc.) has always struck me as anti-neoclassical, rather than anti-capitalist.

Related to the second point, I believe i'm not the only person to find it hard to understand the salient points of DNZ's theories. It's quite a task.

[Hit The North]

No, not at all. The point is to build up proletarian institutions, able to build the working class as a class with its own political agenda, that is, the fight for its revolutionary self-emancipation through the fight for communism.

It somewhat amazes me that you never even grasped this basic point. If you attack your opponents, at least understand them first, or make an effort to do so.

So what would be an example of a proletarian institution?

[The Feral Underclass]

If you attack your opponents, at least understand them first, or make an effort to do so.

Erm, I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to do, Mr Grump.

[Luís Henrique]

I almost want a show of hands to see who can still be infuriated or otherwise offended by such a laughable statement. I guess I can't believe someone could actually get pissed off by that kind of twaddle.

I am certainly not offended...

... but my intelligence is.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Am I getting confused between two types of institutionalism, then? I am thinking of the institutionalism of Veblen et al. That particular school (Veblen, Galbraith etc.) has always struck me as anti-neoclassical, rather than anti-capitalist.

Related to the second point, I believe i'm not the only person to find it hard to understand the salient points of DNZ's theories. It's quite a task.

Yes, there are two distinct types of institutionalism, but both can be inspired by institutions theory: working within existing institutional frameworks, and building up new ones as alternatives. The pre-war SPD didn't "infiltrate" the existing institutions of capital, but built up institutions of its own (Alternative Culture). That's what I've always been posting about when critiquing councilism, spontaneism, ultra-left fetishes, etc.


So what would be an example of a proletarian institution?

Um, a large food bank? A permanent network of recreational clubs? An apparatus for labour law services? A party school?

[Akshay!]

I think Left Unity between orthodox Trotskyists and various kinds of Marxist-Leninists is possible. But not with anarchists, liberals, social democrats, Khrushchevites, etc..

[Hit The North]

Um, a large food bank? A permanent network of recreational clubs?

Well we already have food banks operating at a local level and what would be the point of a network of recreational clubs?


An apparatus for labour law services?


We already have them, they're called trade unions.

Anyway, none of the above carry much in the way of revolutionary activity so I don't see the point. None of it worked for the Second International.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Die Neue Zeit;2633641]Yes, there are two distinct types of institutionalism, but both can be inspired by institutions theory: working within existing institutional frameworks, and building up new ones as alternatives. The pre-war SPD didn't "infiltrate" the existing institutions of capital, but built up institutions of its own (Alternative Culture). That's what I've always been posting about when critiquing councilism, spontaneism, ultra-left fetishes, etc.

OK, thanks for clarifying. Institutionalism can be a bit hard to pin down. The problem I see with saying 'working within existing institutional frameworks, and building up new ones as alternatives' is mainly that:

it doesn't really pin down institutionalism as a revolutionary theory, since someone could focus almost exclusively on 'working within existing institutional frameworks', i.e. reformism, and claim the theoretical mantle of institutionalism.


Um, a large food bank? A permanent network of recreational clubs? An apparatus for labour law services?

Would you still want these to exist under Socialism? Correct me if i'm wrong but, in developed capitalist nations at least, are food banks not normally a sign that something is wrong with the economy? In short, capitalist economies can already, in normal times, feed their populations using less desperate mechanisms than food banks, so my question would be: what do you see as being the rationale behind any potential demand for food banks, aside from ideological fetishes?

As we have discussed before, permanent networks of recreational clubs already exist; that they don't fly a red flag and stop lessons/activities to discuss the merits of some political paper, concept or construct is irrelevant, really.

An apparatus for labour law services, as mentioned above, already exists in at least some form via the existence of trades unions. And again I must ask, what relevance does this particular demand for labour law services have for revolutionary theory? Presumably, we are viewing this as a policy tool for managing capital 'better', rather than a revolutionary or even a transitional demand (since presumably under a socialist society there would be no need for legal services distinct to 'labour', since there will cease to be such a division of labour. If we are to view these ideas for theory/policy as consistent with Institutional thoery, does this not provide evidence of the non-revolutionary character of the Institutional school?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

You know, I know it is a bit foolish to be proud of one's tendency. But I can not help but to smile when I read this beauty:
http://redbannermlm.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/revolutionaries-must-take-a-stand/


Present advocacy of “Left Unity” is for the promotion of an unprincipled and spurious adherence to liberal opportunism which seeks to negate ideological struggle and combat the advancement of a revolutionary proletarian line. That is not to say there are tactical positions that “The Left” can unite around to accomplish specific goals, but we must regard this as strictly tactics and not a foundation for a permanent basis as there are lines of demarcations that separate the revolutionaries from the opportunists. Mao Zedong touches upon this point in his essay Combat Liberalism:

“But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.”

Our comrades who call for “Left Unity” in terms of forming a united front to end capitalism are in fact as Mao said rejecting ideological struggle. To these comrades ideological debate should be shunned because “we are all Marxists”, they take an agnostic stand on revisionism and are completely unaware of the foundations of their errors in this regard. When we refuse to engage in ideological debate out of not seeking to offend the person or risk a quarrel, then we are not only taking a paternalistic attitude towards our opponent and treating them as if they were children, but also show our lack of confidence in our own revolutionary line and demonstrate our inability to articulate it coherently. To arrive at the point of unity from the standpoint that “we are all Marxists” or “we are all Leninists” or even that “we are all socialists”is to not take upon ourselves the tasks of making comradely criticisms which we as Communists have a duty to ourselves to make of others as well as ourselves. As Mao Zedong once again in his wisdom tells us:

“Be resolute, fear no sacrifice and surmount every difficulty to win victory.” – Mao Zedong, The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains


Against seemingly insurmountable odds both Marx and Lenin, unlike our comrades who shun criticism, were willing to take it upon themselves to fight against errors and outright opportunism in the workers movement. In fact Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program is a perfect demonstration of Marx’s concerns over unification with opportunism. In this case the unification of the German Left represented by the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP) or the Eisenachers as they were called, led by August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, and the General German Workers’ Association influenced by the ideas of Ferdinand Lassalle to form the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. The Lassalleans can be regarded as the first reformist-revisionists and economists.

In a letter to August Bebel, Friedrich Engels goes into detail about the concessions to opportunism that the SDAP has already given to the Lassalleans and his frustration at a purely one-sided capitulation to opportunism:

“All these things have been done by our people to oblige the Lassalleans. And what have the others conceded? That a host of somewhat muddled and purely democratic demands should figure in the programme, some of them being of a purely fashionable nature — for instance “legislation by the people” such as exists in Switzerland and does more harm than good, if it can be said to do anything at all. Administration by the people — that would at least be something. Similarly omitted is the first prerequisite of all liberty — that all officials be responsible for all their official actions to every citizen before the ordinary courts and in accordance with common law. That demands such as freedom of science and freedom of conscience figure in every liberal bourgeois programme and seem a trifle out of place here is something I shall not enlarge upon.”
- Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau

Lenin also dealt with this in his criticism of Leon Trotsky’s Borba, a “non factional journal”, in his essay Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity. In this work Lenin deals with the question of superficial unity as a manifestation of opportunism:

“Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness, for his patent for “non-factionalism”, as we shall soon see in greater detail, is merely a patent to flit freely to and fro, from one group to another.

To sum up:

1) Trotsky does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreements among the various Marxist trends and groups, although these disagreements run through the twenty years’ history of Social Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);

2) Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;

3) Under cover of “non-factionalism” Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles, and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.

All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless.”

We should view the words “factionalism” as synonymous with sectarianism in this regard, and this is what those who seek to “unite” politically divergent groups base their thesis on, a manifestation of a superficial struggle against sectarianism. There is a distinct line between sectarianism and taking a principled stand against opportunism:

“You accuse us of being splitters when all that we see in front of us in the arena of the working-class movement in Russia is liquidationism. So you think that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong?”

It is no sin to unite with real friends to attack real enemies, on the contrary it is a great error to unite with real enemies and expect them to be counted on as friends.

There is no ground zero in ideological foundations. All tendencies whether they are revolutionary or revisionist and opportunist have basis in the material world and are but mere expansions of previous knowledge. In this essence nothing is completely “new” so to speak, and neither is the notion of “Left Unity”. With this in mind, in the 21st Century we are seeing a sort of reincarnation of the old battles of revolutionaries against opportunism take place. In Greece the KKE formed a human shield to protect the State from anarchists. In Brazil the Communist Party of Brazil which has aligned itself with the ruling Workers Party and remained complicit in it’s neo-liberal policies has labeled the protests there as “fascist”. In Ecuador the opportunists remain apologists for the growing authoritarianism of the Correa regime, even as it targets and imprisons members of the PCMLE, UNE, FEUE, and even former Assembly members for the MPD as “terrorists”.



In the United States these opportunists manifest themselves in the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO-Fight Back), Workers World Party as well as the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). All have shown through statements support for the ruling cliques in Brazil, Iran, Syria, Russia, the revisionists in Greece and Turkey, as well as the slavish support for the rest of the “pink tide” in Latin America. Ultimately their politics manifest themselves as an upholding of the status-quo, a genuine conservative attitude and skepticism towards the rising of the masses and limit themselves to strictly legalist means. These are the lines of demarcations revolutionaries stand from in opposition to the revisionists, to unite with this lot would drag ourselves to support their “struggles” and “campaigns”. This is not sectarianism, to be sectarian would be to stand in firm opposition to the uprising of the people which is no further demonstrated by the revisionists. As is the case of the CPUSA and CPI(Marxist) in its call for state violence to suppress the Communist Party of India(Maoist). In a Facebook post the CPUSA condemned the assasination of Mahendra Karma, the leader of the Salwa Judum death squads in the state of Chhattisgarh, India via a statement from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). In this statement there was no mention of the concentration camps that the Salwa Judum rounded up villagers into, the rapes, murders and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people that the Salwa Judum and Mahendra Karma were responsible for. In fact the statement actually calls for “democratic[sic] forces to fight the politics of violence by the Maoists.” One finds no greater sectarians than the Right Opportunists.

In contrast, a correct stand against sectarianism would be to support the Peoples’ Wars in India, Nepal, and the Philippines which the Hoxhaists of the ICMLPO have done despite their ideological aversion to Maoism. As the Workers Communist Party of Denmark states:

“Where Maoist parties, as in Nepal and the Philippines, are heading this revolutionary struggle, and have obtained considerable progress, it would be not only sectarian, but also positively reactionary, not to support them.”

Coming back to the United States once again we see the sectarianism present more so in the ranks of Right Opportunism in the PSL’s backing of Roseanne Barr, as opposed to any other socialist candidates who cling to the fantasy of socialism through a ballot box. This same group along with most of the other Right Opportunists have apologized for the atrocities committed by the Derg in Ethiopia, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere including the revisionist regime in China. The CPUSA’s historic “anti-monopolist”stance is also in line with the opportunistic stand taken by FRSO (Fight Back)in the 2008 Presidential elections, where a “Defeat McCain” line was adopted, and the election of Barack Obama as one that would “create a better political climate for the anti-war, immigrant rights, labor and national movements.”
In similar ways the “anti-revisionist” or rather Anti-Webb factions of the CPUSA which present themselves in the online journal Marxism-Leninism Today and National Council of Communists, USA (NCCUSA) also are token supporters of international revisionism, historical Soviet social-imperialism as well as upholders of the now deceased Right Opportunists Gus Hall and his mentor William Z. Foster.

Our answer to revisionism must be clear and direct as Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we must take a stand which recognizes this is not a uni-polar world, that while America imperialism is indeed the primary imperialism that it today it has been severely weakened for the past 40 years. It has been losing ground in Africa, Asia and Latin America to China, which aspires to be an imperialist power in its own right. The U.S. in it’s invasion of Iraq was opposed by Russia as well as its allies in France and Germany with Spain later withdrawing. By taking the stand of U.S. imperialism being the only monolithic force in the world the Right Opportunists take a position in defense of the status quo, in opposition to change anywhere outside of the centers of capital. There are already fundamental differences here with our movement and that of opportunism. That which seeks to overthrow all existing conditions which sees another world as possible and those which play the role of cheerleader for bureaucratic capitalism and authoritarian despots in the periphery nations. Lines of demarcations must be drawn and a principled two line struggle against opportunism must take place as a prerequisite for any talks of “unity” on the Left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well we already have food banks operating at a local level

But they don't politicize. Politicization isn't part of their "mission, vision, and values."


and what would be the point of a network of recreational clubs?

See above.


We already have them, they're called trade unions.

Labour lawyers and labour law paralegals don't provide the same services trade unions do.


Anyway, none of the above carry much in the way of revolutionary activity so I don't see the point. None of it worked for the Second International.

As has been proven time and again, your orientation towards quick-fix burnouts hasn't achieved politicization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

OK, thanks for clarifying. Institutionalism can be a bit hard to pin down. The problem I see with saying 'working within existing institutional frameworks, and building up new ones as alternatives' is mainly that:

it doesn't really pin down institutionalism as a revolutionary theory, since someone could focus almost exclusively on 'working within existing institutional frameworks', i.e. reformism, and claim the theoretical mantle of institutionalism.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "institutionalism," because of the -ism at the end. Institutions theory sounds better. Most "institutionalism" schools operate on that "working within" premise, anyway.


Would you still want these to exist under Socialism? Correct me if i'm wrong but, in developed capitalist nations at least, are food banks not normally a sign that something is wrong with the economy? In short, capitalist economies can already, in normal times, feed their populations using less desperate mechanisms than food banks, so my question would be: what do you see as being the rationale behind any potential demand for food banks, aside from ideological fetishes?

All these institutions serve a political purpose until the "transition to socialism" has achieved its objectives. I say "institutions" and not "permanent organizations" also because "institutions" have an authoritative value amongst the broader masses.

Again, it goes back to avoiding quick fixes and effecting political "evangelism."


As we have discussed before, permanent networks of recreational clubs already exist; that they don't fly a red flag and stop lessons/activities to discuss the merits of some political paper, concept or construct is irrelevant, really.

And that's the problem. I don't focus on the "fly a red flag part, but the absence of the latter part is problematic for those of us who are comrades.


An apparatus for labour law services, as mentioned above, already exists in at least some form via the existence of trades unions.

See my response above to Hit The North.


And again I must ask, what relevance does this particular demand for labour law services have for revolutionary theory? Presumably, we are viewing this as a policy tool for managing capital 'better', rather than a revolutionary or even a transitional demand (since presumably under a socialist society there would be no need for legal services distinct to 'labour', since there will cease to be such a division of labour. If we are to view these ideas for theory/policy as consistent with Institutional thoery, does this not provide evidence of the non-revolutionary character of the Institutional school?

Where did political demands come in? An Alternative Culture provision of labour law services isn't a demand, but a social service like food banks. Do trade unions organize all the work behind a class-action labour lawsuit, for instance? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/disgruntled-young-workers-t181695/index.html)

Oh, and another worker-class institution that comes to mind is a vast apparatus of gun clubs, like the ones organized by the NRA. They make for quite impressive proto-militias. :)

[G4b3n]

I think we should embrace as much unity as possible. Though we should reject revisionists (which I am sure everyone is in favor of) and radical authoritarians i.e, totalitarians.

[Akshay!]

I think we should embrace as much unity as possible. Though we should reject .. radical authoritarians i.e, totalitarians.

What do you mean by "totalitarian"?? People who're against Pacifism and will use Any Means Necessary to emancipate this world from imperialism and capitalist exploitation? People who would support torturing, say Bush or Blair, if that furthers the goals of the revolution? People who wouldn't mind murdering millions of counter-revolutionaries? Is that "totalitarian" enough?

[Ele'ill]

What do you mean by "totalitarian"?? People who're against Pacifism and will use Any Means Necessary to emancipate this world from imperialism and capitalist exploitation? People who would support torturing, say Bush or Blair, if that furthers the goals of the revolution? People who wouldn't mind murdering millions of counter-revolutionaries? Is that "totalitarian" enough?

First, 'this world' as in the people in it, aren't going to be force emancipated or forced to self-emancipate. I am unsure what the rest of your post is trying to say.

[Akshay!]

First, 'this world' as in the people in it, aren't going to be force emancipated or forced to self-emancipate. I am unsure what the rest of your post is trying to say.

I think most oppressed people (and I'm NOT talking about some upper-middle class kid living in the US who thought communism would be a good idea) will emancipate themselves.

Nobody needs to "force" them to do anything. Historical conditions, which include their respective means of production, social relations created as a result of those historical conditions, their place in the society, their class interests etc.. will "force" (if you will) them to fight for their emancipation.

Now, what about the counter-revolutionaries? They will not only be FORCED, if they take the side of the capitalists and try to prevent the working class to take power, they will, if required, be KILLED.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Now, what about the counter-revolutionaries? They will not only be FORCED, if they take the side of the capitalists and try to prevent the working class to take power, they will, if required, be KILLED.

No, they won't. This is just an example of your ideological fetish for violence and revenge. The mass of the working class will democratically decide what happens during and after a revolutionary period.

Shows your contempt for proletarian democracy that you've already decided what is going to happen. Nice! :rolleyes:

[G4b3n]

What do you mean by "totalitarian"?? People who're against Pacifism and will use Any Means Necessary to emancipate this world from imperialism and capitalist exploitation? People who would support torturing, say Bush or Blair, if that furthers the goals of the revolution? People who wouldn't mind murdering millions of counter-revolutionaries? Is that "totalitarian" enough?

I am ashamed to say that your political ideology even resembles mine. Because my theories come from love of working people and rational opposition to their oppressors. It seems that you base your blind pseudo-marxian totalitarianism on vengeance and hate. I would classify you as just as unfit to influence a revolution as the most reactionary bourgeois.

[Akshay!]

No, they won't. This is just an example of your ideological fetish for violence and revenge. The mass of the working class will democratically decide what happens during and after a revolutionary period. Shows your contempt for proletarian democracy that you've already decided what is going to happen. Nice! :rolleyes:

Do you know how to read? Then how can you miss the words "if required"??? :confused:


I am ashamed to say that your political ideology even resembles mine. Because my theories come from love of working people and rational opposition to their oppressors. It seems that you base your blind pseudo-marxian totalitarianism on vengeance and hate. I would classify you as just as unfit to influence a revolution as the most reactionary bourgeois.

See, that's the problem! You ought to read Friedrich Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". Here you're referring to Utopian Socialism which every Marxist in his right mind should oppose.

And if you have a problem with me being opposed to Pacifism, read Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology"

[Martin Blank]

The extent to which the working class will use force will depend on two things: 1) the actions of the ruling classes and their armed defenders, and 2) how the proletariat, as the class in power, decides to respond. While it would be wonderful if the ruling classes simply gave up the ghost and left power peacefully, do any of us really expect them to do that?

It would be naive, in my opinion, to expect the ruling classes to go quietly. We've already seen how willing they are to use the armed forces of the state and paid hirelings to attack peaceful reformist movements. When the time arrives for revolution, we should anticipate that we as workers will be met with the full force of the state (minus whatever defectors and neutral elements can be cultivated hitherto). We should anticipate the presence of armed reaction in the streets and prepare accordingly. And, yes, this means people will die. It also means that there will be the inevitable "excesses" as angry workers exact revenge on the dispossessed ruling classes and their state, as well as acts of individual terror against these elements. No organ of the revolution will necessarily be able to prevent some of these acts from occurring, unless one anticipates a completely micromanaged seizure of power.

[Brutus]

To paraphrase DNZ: Akshay has "really shown his inner Sorel."

[The Feral Underclass]

And if you have a problem with me being opposed to Pacifism, read Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology"

You take your views from anarchists, do you?

[Akshay!]

You take your views from anarchists, do you?

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. :lol:

[Brutus]

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. :lol:

Not if it's digital- then it's broke.

[hatzel]

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. :lol:

Oh, c'mon now...there's no reason to call yourself a dead clock. Where's the self-esteem gone, buddy?

[G4b3n]

Do you know how to read? Then how can you miss the words "if required"??? :confused:



See, that's the problem! You ought to read Friedrich Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". Here you're referring to Utopian Socialism which every Marxist in his right mind should oppose.

And if you have a problem with me being opposed to Pacifism, read Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology"

I would like you point out where Marx or Engels advocated for the murder and torture of the defeated bourgeois in revolutionary or post revolutionary society. I am not advocating pacifism as I am not a pacifist. I believe in self defense and the use of violence in certain situations, but it should be rational and justified. I have read my share of Engels, I am not advocating for "Utopian" socialism.

I can only prayer that no revolution is lead by Stalinist such as you who wish to see the streets flood red with the blood of the bourgeoisie.

[Akshay!]

I would like you point out where Marx or Engels advocated for the murder and torture of the defeated bourgeois in revolutionary or post revolutionary society. I am not advocating pacifism as I am not a pacifist. I believe in self defense and the use of violence in certain situations, but it should be rational and justified. I have read my share of Engels, I am not advocating for "Utopian" socialism.

Again, you missed the "if required" part. :)

The working class will take power By Any Means Necessary - but it's unlikely (probably even impossible) that the bourgeoisie gives up power peacefully - in which case we Must use any form of violence, and force, which results in the emancipation of the proletariat.

Here are some quotes of Marx and Engels on violence -

“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”

“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.

“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.”
(Source - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm)


The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.



The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
(Source - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm)


"Had the autonomists," he wrote, "contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction." (p.39)
(Source - Engels' On Authority)

And I could go on...

[Brutus]

Everyone here is aware that the revolution will be violent. Marx isn't advocating torture here, he's advocating terror- as do most of us.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Everyone here is aware that the revolution will be violent. Marx isn't advocating torture here, he's advocating terror- as do most of us.

Why would you want terror?

[Brutus]

Why would you want terror?

To crush the counter revolution. I'd love to see your alternatives to this.

[Fourth Internationalist]

To crush the counter revolution. I'd love to see your alternatives to this.

A non-terrorist method of self-defence and justified violence.

[Brutus]

A non-terrorist method of self-defence and justified violence.

The terror is self defence. I take it you oppose Robespierre too?

[Fourth Internationalist]

The terror is self defence. I take it you oppose Robespierre too?

Terror is not self-defence. And I have no opinion of Robespierre.

[Brutus]

So not allowing the counter revolution to rape and pillage isn't self defence?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So not allowing the counter revolution to rape and pillage isn't self defence?

But not allowing them wouldn't be terror, it'd just self defense and justified violence.

[Brutus]

Terror is required to stop them from doing that.
Dzerzhinksy was just as instrumental in crushing the whites as Trotsky was.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think normal violent attacks would be sufficient enough.