Leftist Infighting

[The Vox Populi]

Leftist infighting is getting us virtually no where! I personally see this as the most important struggles we face, whether we are communist or anarchist we are all basically leftist. Just as Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided can not stand." To many times we turn on each other weapons in hand, all over a single defeat. We just need to stop! The only competition we should have is trying to out organize each other, we all have the same primary goal, and that is the defeat of the Bourgeoise not each other. Lol we can go at each other later. Knock out the party purges and lose the desire to erase your ex-comrade. Winning is difficult, but we need each other, because no matter what our beliefs, we are all comrades under the left.

Solidarity shouldn't be just for communists or just for anarchists, it should be so for the entire left.

[Red Economist]

I voted together, but I think it will only ever be a majority of the left that can work together in the near future- not the entireity. they'd have to swallow alot of pride to overcome past differences and some would be left behind.

[Jonesan]

I'm finding it more and more impossible to work with Marxist-Leninists because they seem so dogmatic about their beliefs. Anyone who challenges or even questions the authoritarian nature of the USSR is labeled a "liberal revisionist" and dismissed.

I would like the left to unite on most things, and I feel that we could if only some of us could drop the constant need to bicker over minuscule details that could be worked out through workers' councils after the revolution anyway.

[Bardo]

^A lot of the Marxist-Leninists I've associated with have understood the authoritarian nature of the USSR and have criticized a lot of it's actions. The same goes for Maoists who openly criticize Mao and aspects of the Chinese revolution. In my experience, its usually when someone tries to whitewash history or analyze things from a moralist perspective without applying proper context that they get dismissed as a liberal, etc.

I voted together, because it's necessary. Different organizations can do their own thing in their own way, but a more unified left is necessary in the grand scheme of things.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I voted "together" but I put a big invisible asterisk on it. Heterogeneousness in ideas is important, getting together to advocate certain specific ideas or ways forward is also important IMO. But while being able to have disagreements and different ideas, I think ultimately radicals do need some level of coordination. In an actual revolution a level of coordination among workers in the uprising is a must IMO and is the basis for a counter-power in society: in a mass revolt, workers will need to come together to organize some kind of defense, organize distribution and their own information networks. A lot of this can be "spontanious" like in Egypt where people created neighborhood defense out of necissity and the protest at the square created a physical organizing hub where medics and others could set up and help keep the movement going. (A lot of this wasn't spontanious for the protesters who'd been working in semi-underground groups and had some networks already set up). But on a region-wide level, we can not just all come to a square and work things out, so there will need to be some more formal or organized methods too. Radicals and radical networks and parties can play a big part in this - even a decisive part.

As for infighting, yeah I don't think that's useful and I don't think that is the same as just having disagreements. On the current left, I think it's a symptom of a bit of inwardness of focus - people having debates in public over things that you have to be a radical - even a particular thread of radical - to understand; it's insular, it's disconnected from the realities of the class struggle as it exists (or at least doesn't exist in an offensive sense for the working class in most places).

However I'm a bit skeptical of the idea of unity for the sake of unity. I think on a certain level it confuses the radical movement as it exists now for the class movement. There are a lot of groups with only minor practical differences that could work more together, but there is also no basis for unity in general for some political trends. Anarchist and Marxist "sects" or affinity groups or small democratic collectives or whatever you want to call them are not grouped together on the basis of a relation to an existing class movement, they are grouped around affinities (either theorhetical or tactical). To just try and unite all these affinity groupings in the abstract, just seems like unity for the sake of unity, not an organic practical unity. When things like Occupy emerge, despite differences, groups with a non-sectarian approach can work together while having different views, because there is an organic unity of the goal of stengthening that movement. In my experience, it's when movements decline that people start pointing fingers and some of the more ugly and useless crap comes out.

But even without a larger class movement to give the radical movement "shape", I think there is a great deal of room and benifit for radicals working together on broader projects - practical (or coalition) unity in movements and strikes should go without saying for any radicals oriented on these things.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There are some irreconcilable differences between different groups in the radical spectrum that make it nearly impossible to organise effectively or even come to the same conclusions about what it is we should organise towards. That doesn't mean I wouldn't happily march alongside anyone I consider a revolutionary or support an occupation/strike but that's merely one aspect of the revolutionary struggle.

I would say that we need to stop the sectarian, bitter insults that occasionally fly to and fro. It's not a welcoming environment for anyone new to revolutionary socialism and puts people off; even if it's a legitimate observation and criticism.

[Blake's Baby]

I vote option 4 - 'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible.

Oh, there wasn't an option 4.

[Le Socialiste]

I think JH and GMM have touched on some important points here, namely that unity for the mere sake of unity isn't a feasible or sustainable venture, but a heightened disposition toward and willingness to engage in greater collaborative efforts can help build the kind of network many are looking for. This doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to existing differences - indeed, I think any present or potential future project working towards this needs to be willing to engage these differences on a wider and more interactive level; that is, if it wants to sustain a healthy and open atmosphere more conducive to the free interchange of ideas. What this does not create an opening for, however, is the rabid sectarianism or 'frontism' so prevalent in the movement. Of course, this is itself a symptom of a much deeper problem facing the Left. Jimmie is correct to identify this as an "inwardness of focus." I think this takes some priority in terms of what we need to tackle first, as it helps fuel the sectarian character of these organizations, shaping the theoretical content of said groupings and having a direct impact on the ways in which the Left relates to the working-class.

[Brutus]

I vote option 4 - 'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible.

Oh, there wasn't an option 4.

Agreed.

[Per Levy]

I voted together, but I think it will only ever be a majority of the left that can work together in the near future- not the entireity. they'd have to swallow alot of pride to overcome past differences and some would be left behind.

it has nothing to do with pride but with totally contrary views on tactics, politcs and organization.

[Jimmie Higgins]

'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible.I'm not really sure what folks mean when they make this argument. Do you mean the distinction between a left which is seperate from the working class and the class itself?

[Quail]

I'd work with anyone who shared a common goal. The problem is that some tendencies and organisations just have completely irreconcilable political differences. There are certain sections of "the left" which, without fail, try to control every struggle they're a part of for their own political gain (such as getting more members) which in the end just chokes and destroys the movement. It's frustrating and I don't want to work with people like that because their tactics are ineffective and counterproductive.

[Luís Henrique]

I vote option 4 - 'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible.

Oh, there wasn't an option 4.

And by what method do you deem the Left should be destroyed?

Luís Henrique

[helot]

I often forget 'the left' exists tbh. We travel in different circles. Here it seems 'the left' is obsessed with clinging to the coat tails of the labour party, even supposedly revolutionary groups. I'm not up for that, it offers nothing to the working class other than recuperation. The only ones with any sense are the anarchists who atleast try to reach out to the wider class and build.

Sure, i'd work with people who share a common goal but considering the left's ineptitude it's more likely to be apolitical workers i work with than the rest of the left.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

As much as it's possible to, left-wing groups and parties should always try to work together and co-operate. Not always possible or feasible, of course (tendency wars and fundamental differences in tactics etc will always play a big part).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

the whole thing's a joke, Marx even said that the working class wouldn't be a united class if they were separated amongst different parties and sects (perhaps we could say cults in many instances lol).

i reckon one of the main issues of the left is dogma and i don't see how two different dogmatic groups can work together. some of the dogmatic thinking you see in the left actually acts as a barrier for their efficiency as revolutionary groups, given that their assertions are so rigid and often end up stuck in the past.

'things are in a constant state of flux and motion', why don't revolutionary leftists understand this and adapt, rather than fighting about aspects of the ussr or who was 'better' out of lenin and trotsky. who cares? there are many thinkers whose work can provide insight to the world as it works today and as it will work tomorrow. i prefer an amalgamation of theory in whatever contexts they relate to or provide insight to, as such i work with various groups on various issues. i get embarrassed when i'm at meetings and see spew and the swp trying to 'lead' the whole initiative until, ultimately, nothing gets done.

anyway i put that i don't care because i'm not interested in the dogmatic bickering of various groups, i'm only interested in people that WILL work together. the people who should work together don't because of their ideological hang-ups. its a bit like the following.

iS-0Az7dgRY

[ind_com]

Together, under the leadership of Maoists, of course. :D

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not really sure what folks mean when they make this argument. Do you mean the distinction between a left which is seperate from the working class and the class itself?

No, I mean a 'left' which is part of the capitalist apparatus. The left wing of capital. Stalinism is after all social-democracy with bayonets, and Trotskyism is Stalinism without bayonets. It's all part of the bourgeois political apparatus, it's there to dragoon the working class into supporting this or that fraction of capital, as the thread on nationalism currently demonstrates - "NO, Turkish Communist who opposes the Turkish State, you should be grateful to Nice Mr Ataturk who murdered Armenians and Turkish Communists, for he prevented Greeks from possibly murdering Armenians and Turkish Communists, and definitely murdering people nearby is better than possibly murdering them far away".



And by what method do you deem the Left should be destroyed?

Luís Henrique

I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death.

If that's not possible, I'd hope that those on 'the Left' realise that their time is better spent growing potatoes or building model aeroplanes, and go and do something more useful/fulfilling.

Bottom of my list would be some Godzilla-like creature attacking a 'Pan-Left International Love-In Refundation Conference' or something of that nature - presumably, something like that would happen in a large building, and I wouldn't want a useful building like that to be destroyed if it could be avoided.



I'd work with anyone who shared a common goal. The problem is that some tendencies and organisations just have completely irreconcilable political differences. There are certain sections of "the left" which, without fail, try to control every struggle they're a part of for their own political gain (such as getting more members) which in the end just chokes and destroys the movement. It's frustrating and I don't want to work with people like that because their tactics are ineffective and counterproductive.

This, exactly. But what is 'a common goal'? You may say your aim is destroying capitalism and the state, but if your actions are taking control of a local protest movement to sell papers or get a power-base for the next council elections or take over a union, then your 'goal' doesn't matter for shit. Therefore, I don't believe that we have a 'common goal' (not you Quail, you're alright in my book, I'm sure your goal is destruction of capitalism and the state).

[Tim Cornelis]

I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death.

If that's not possible, I'd hope that those on 'the Left' realise that their time is better spent growing potatoes or building model aeroplanes, and go and do something more useful/fulfilling.

Bottom of my list would be some Godzilla-like creature attacking a 'Pan-Left International Love-In Refundation Conference' or something of that nature - presumably, something like that would happen in a large building, and I wouldn't want a useful building like that to be destroyed if it could be avoided.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/520/691/c9a.png

Check your privilege brah. Not everyone has this luxury position that they can disregard left politics and do "something fulfilling". Seriously, this is a very arrogant position to uphold and it reeks of "being edgy."

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/520/691/c9a.png

Check your privilege brah. Not everyone has this luxury position that they can disregard left politics and do "something fulfilling". Seriously, this is a very arrogant position to uphold and it reeks of "being edgy."

i think he's being tongue-in-cheek and talking about how futile much of the left's endeavor actually is.

[Blake's Baby]

i think he's being tongue-in-cheek and talking about how futile much of the left's endeavor actually is.

No, really I'm talking about how the majority of 'the Left' is part of capitalism's political apparatus.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, really I'm talking about how the majority of 'the Left' is part of capitalism's political apparatus.

i meant the joke about building toy aeroplanes etc which the other guy took literally but i agree with your overall sentiment

[Blake's Baby]

I really don't know what Tim's got against model aeroplanes to be honest, or why he thinks people can't 'avoid' being part of leftist politics. It's relatively easy not to go to leftist meetings and not to sell leftist papers and not to get involved in the ridiculous pantomime that passes for politics among the majority of 'the left'.

[Comrade Samuel]

I voted together.

While I continue to identify as a Marxist-Leninist and still advocate the establishment of a socialist state I see no reason why the various factions within the left can't cooperate at least until we know capitalism has been eradicated- we should focus less on 'how' and more on combating our common enemy. Sure, some tactics are more effective than others but as long as the goal is accomplished who cares if it's with a state or without?

[Tim Cornelis]

I really don't know what Tim's got against model aeroplanes to be honest, or why he thinks people can't 'avoid' being part of leftist politics. It's relatively easy not to go to leftist meetings and not to sell leftist papers and not to get involved in the ridiculous pantomime that passes for politics among the majority of 'the left'.

Okay so you go and tell, say, the Landless Workers' Movement to stop everything they do. The modest progress they have made in constructing a movement capable of addressing the social interests of its members, facilitating real communities, and building a participatory democracy of 1,500,000 people, and completely disregard it, and stop cooperative farming and be reduced to unemployment without support of a mass movement...
And something similar applies to leftist movements all over the globe.


I voted together.

While I continue to identify as a Marxist-Leninist and still advocate the establishment of a socialist state I see no reason why the various factions within the left can't cooperate at least until we know capitalism has been eradicated- we should focus less on 'how' and more on combating our common enemy.

Because I don't want a socialist state, so we cannot cooperate towards that end. What has historically been defined as a socialist state is capitalism to me.

[Blake's Baby]

Okay so you go and tell, say, the Landless Workers' Movement to stop everything they do...

Okay so you go and say re-read the parts of my posts where I say 'majority of what passes for the Left', and decide that I mean everything that passes for the left; why not do that, Tim?

[Comrade Samuel]

Because I don't want a socialist state, so we cannot cooperate towards that end. What has historically been defined as a socialist state is capitalism to me.

And historically speaking you may very well have a case that is at least worth arguing but I'm sorry to inform everybody that Stalin and Mao are dead and gone.

20th century "communism" can effectively be summed up as the west (and various reactionary elements) successfully poisoning what started off as a massive and genuine worker's movement and then watching it die slowly over the coarse of many years. Today, capitalism's flaws are more apparent than ever with stories of horrific working conditions in the 3rd world spreading like wildfire across the Internet via liberal and radical networks alike- the struggles of the prolateriate can no longer be swept under the rug as they have been in the past. The point is that in today's interconnected world a very broad range of leftists can communicate and organize as we never could during the 20th century. The establishment of a modern, non-isolated and most of all functioning socialist state is just one of the many tactics that can lead to our ideology's eventual triumph.

It should not necessarily be a goal to work towards but rather an option that should be used if and when possible.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^ you're not much of a marxist if you blame the failures of 20th century 'communism' entirely on the west.

[Tim Cornelis]

Okay so you go and say re-read the parts of my posts where I say 'majority of what passes for the Left', and decide that I mean everything that passes for the left; why not do that, Tim?

I read only these two sentences:
"I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death."
"I vote option 4 - 'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible."
And overlooked the post about the "Left of Capital". Still ,the Landless Workers' Movement is the left of capital supporting the Workers' Party. I still critically support them and don't think they should disband or build miniature airplanes instead -- and them not having the money to do so anyway.

[Luís Henrique]

Okay so you go and say re-read the parts of my posts where I say 'majority of what passes for the Left', and decide that I mean everything that passes for the left; why not do that, Tim?

I fear that the Landless Movement alone is bigger than "the majority of what passes for the left", and consequently that what passes for the majority of the left isn't its majority at all.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Left unity is, as I said in an earlier thread, a nice sentiment. Unfortunately, any attempt to apply this sentiment in concrete political practice runs into difficulties fairly quickly.

First of all, many "left" and "post-left" groups simply do not share the same goal. The goals of a Trotskyist, for example, have little to do with the goals of a primitivist or technocrat.

And even if two groups share the same goal, their analysis of the concrete situation in the world can differ wildly. Again, orthodox Trotskyist theory is simply incompatible with anarchism or left communism.

And even if two groups share the same goals and roughly the same theory, their tactics can be quite different. I think, for example, that the tactics employed by most of the left are outright suicidal. Of course, they consider me a crazy sectarian. What would unity between us accomplish? It wouldn't stop them from trying to rush things, and it wouldn't stop me from denouncing what I see as petite-bourgeois movements.

It's late, perhaps I'm being too negative. But what you term the infighting between leftist groups has real roots in the political positions of various groups, and at times it serves a useful purpose - sane, coherent criticism is always positive.

[Luís Henrique]

I read only these two sentences:
"I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death."
"I vote option 4 - 'the Left' should be destroyed as soon as possible."
And overlooked the post about the "Left of Capital". Still ,the Landless Workers' Movement is the left of capital supporting the Workers' Party. I still critically support them and don't think they should disband or build miniature airplanes instead -- and them not having the money to do so anyway.

Yes, if we take things in such a way, no doubt the Landless Movement is (in) the left wing of capital - as most working class movements necessarily are. But since the only actual options are engaging with real working class movements - which, due to the widespread reformist ideology that pervades the working class are unlikely to be anything better than the left wing of capital - or engaging in "the left", ie, the masturbatory movement of the disgruntled petty bourgeoisie around itself, which naturally concludes in the realisation that it is tantamount to aeromodelism or potato culture... or rather, since nothing is revolutionary, that we should do nothing... I think I will stick with the left wing of capital, instead of with its "far left wing", which is no less ridiculous at all, no less useful in maintaining bourgeois hegemony, and no less deserving of destruction by working class derision.

Luís Henrique

[Dropdead]

No, I mean a 'left' which is part of the capitalist apparatus. The left wing of capital. Stalinism is after all social-democracy with bayonets, and Trotskyism is Stalinism without bayonets. It's all part of the bourgeois political apparatus, it's there to dragoon the working class into supporting this or that fraction of capital, as the thread on nationalism currently demonstrates - "NO, Turkish Communist who opposes the Turkish State, you should be grateful to Nice Mr Ataturk who murdered Armenians and Turkish Communists, for he prevented Greeks from possibly murdering Armenians and Turkish Communists, and definitely murdering people nearby is better than possibly murdering them far away".




I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death.

If that's not possible, I'd hope that those on 'the Left' realise that their time is better spent growing potatoes or building model aeroplanes, and go and do something more useful/fulfilling.

Bottom of my list would be some Godzilla-like creature attacking a 'Pan-Left International Love-In Refundation Conference' or something of that nature - presumably, something like that would happen in a large building, and I wouldn't want a useful building like that to be destroyed if it could be avoided.




This, exactly. But what is 'a common goal'? You may say your aim is destroying capitalism and the state, but if your actions are taking control of a local protest movement to sell papers or get a power-base for the next council elections or take over a union, then your 'goal' doesn't matter for shit. Therefore, I don't believe that we have a 'common goal' (not you Quail, you're alright in my book, I'm sure your goal is destruction of capitalism and the state).

You are the reason the left can't unite and never will be able to unite.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You are the reason the left can't unite and never will be able to unite.

Perhaps that is not entirely bad; I mean, I usually respect leftcoms as persons but sometimes I think that uniting with them would have the same effect on Leninist groups as uniting with a noose. Our standpoints are just too different.

[Nevsky]

No, really I'm talking about how the majority of 'the Left' is part of capitalism's political apparatus.

Your definition of capitalism and its supposed natural allies on "the left" still confuses me. Now social-democrats I can understand, they are on the left of the liberal-capitalist spectrum of politics, they never claim to actually want to change the state of society in a radical way.

But "stalinists" (and trotskyists, too???) are part of capitalism's apparatus? Seriously? All the leninist tendencies were/are heavily anti-captalist, socialist currents, both in name and in practice.

[Ele'ill]

I couldn't pick one of the options (with a heavy gravitation towards 'destroying' the-left). If something looks interesting I'll take part in it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You are the reason the left can't unite and never will be able to unite.
no YOU are :blink:

[Captain]

Personally I think that in a way, infighting makes us stronger, because if we are criticized by our fellow leftist, than that's one argument we find a solution to and can use in a future argument against the real enemy. But at the same time I agree that some infighting is detrimental, we should have only constructive criticism for us considered as left wing supporters. I also agree that too many times we argue with each other over one simple defeat at the hands of the true enemy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd advocate the working class realising it's a useless joke and ignoring it to death.As opposed to now when masses of workers are in Stalinist parties? I think you got your wish, so now what? We're living in a time of high class consiousness and revolutionary struggles of workers acting as a class towards self-emancipation?

It seems to me that this formulation is just the petty-"Vanguards" syndrome in reverse. Small groups who think that if everyone followed their "pure" ideas, then class struggle would be automatic... if only all those other small groups with less pure ideas weren't misleading the tens of workers who support them! Instead, the "destroy the left" position seems to inverse this and argue it would be better if workers didn't listen to impure ideas of tiny groups, then struggle would autmatically be in a better place.

Both of these views seem to argue that the ideas of revolutionaries are more important than a class movement.


If that's not possible, I'd hope that those on 'the Left' realise that their time is better spent growing potatoes or building model aeroplanes, and go and do something more useful/fulfilling.So do you believe that everyone becomes revolutionary at once, in lock-step? Probably not. So then when workers adopt revolutionary ideas at different times, they should just academically understand those ideas and then put them away and wait for the rest of the class? Because if they then try and act on those ideas or improve their condition - since they are still a minority, they can only possibly make a "war of position" where they make some kind of gain, defeat some kind of attack, build more confidence in revolutionary tactics and ideas among more people... in other words they would be "a left". But then if they have ideas different than yours, they should be destroyed?


Bottom of my list would be some Godzilla-like creature attacking a 'Pan-Left International Love-In Refundation Conference' or something of that nature - presumably, something like that would happen in a large building, and I wouldn't want a useful building like that to be destroyed if it could be avoided.:rolleyes:Or you could support fascists for the same end which is the social equivalent of a Godzilla-like creature for radical and working class organizations. "First Godzilla, then US!"

McCarthyism did a good job of isolating the shitty ideas of the US CP from the working-class... it also destroyed any potential for Trotskysists, Syndicalists, or Anarchists or even rank and file militants from organizing alternatives to the CP let alone to business-unionsism.

So the left is pretty much destroyed as it is. So first, if they are just irrelevant to class struggle, why care if they are destroyed at all? Why even talk about them? And if it's benificial for the left not to have any influence or roots among workers, how are we in a good position now, where can we go from here?

[Martin Blank]

I voted "Don't care", and IMO it's the only sane choice.

Look, sitting here hand-wringing about the decrepit state of the so-called "Left" is ridiculous, as is the idealist wishful thinking behind the entire concept of "left unity". We are in a time where most of the countries in the world today are not in the grips of a revolutionary fervor. To be blunt, observing the work of most self-described socialists, communists and anarchists in most countries today is about as exciting as watching paint dry. As a result, there is no real material basis in these places for drawing together genuinely revolutionary elements into a single fighting force. There is only the idealist article of faith that says most "leftists" agree on things and, thus, they should be grouped together like so many lemons in the produce aisle.

The reality, however, is quite different. Any meaningful unification of genuinely revolutionary forces is going to rest on the application of program to the class struggle, not forging (all entendres intentional) an agreement on how many Bolsheviks can dance on the head of a pin. To put it another way, if different organizations can be brought together through a series of struggles based on the same principled outlook, goals and methods of activity, then the historical and doctrinal questions will naturally be settled out as their common work draws the groups together. But that united organization, in the final analysis, is merely a by-product of the united action that allowed them to coalesce in the first place.

This is why I chose "Don't care". If there is to be a unification of genuinely revolutionary forces, it will happen organically. It will not come about through a series of sterile conferences motivated by some idealist belief that it's only what is in your head and heart that counts -- no matter how hard one might try to will such unity into existence. Ultimately, it will be history (i.e., the class struggle) that decides when the time is right.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't buy the argument that 'doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing'.

First because 'not doing harm' is better than 'doing harm' and therefore if those are your only two choices, 'not doing harm' (ie doing nothing, or building model aeroplanes, or a bit of light horticulture) is obviously the better option; second, because the choice isn't between 'doing the wrong thing' and 'doing nothing', there is always 'doing the right thing'.

No, 'the Left' is not irrelevant to the class struggle, sadly it still has quite a hold on a lot of working class people. In Turkey right now, 'the Left' in the shape of the Stalinist parties is out in Taksim Square. Good; I'm glad that they are. But, the CHP are also there; so being in Taksim Square does not make one a 'revolutionary' - just an 'opositionist'.

But where are 'the unions' (also part of 'the Left')? Last week workers from the working class districts of Istanbul were demanding 'general strike, general resistance'. Where is it? There has been no attempt at a general mobilisation of the class. Why not? Is it because the working class in Turkey is actually quite happy with Erdogan's government (probably not, given the demands last week)? Is it because the working class is cowardly, while some students, environental protestors and liberals close to the opposition are very brave (probably not, given last week's events)? Is it because the unions act for capital not the working class (errm, well now...)?


You are the reason the left can't unite and never will be able to unite.

Good, if it did it would be an even greater barrier to the working class coming to consciousness of itself as the only class in capitalism with the potential to overthrow the system and replace it with something better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't buy the argument that 'doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing'.Because taking a wrong turn can be altered or reversed potentially, but sitting in one spot will never allow someone to reach their destination even if they confidantly claim know the correct route.

I disagree that in general, radicals trying to figure out how to re-establish working class militant tactics and popularizing revolutionary politics, is the wrong thing (even if subjectivly many groups or even whole tendancies have the wrong approach or views from my perspective). As a class movement develops, some level of "bad ideas" or wrong approaches are just unavoidable - how are radicals and class militants and the class in general supposed to learn otherwise? From dictates by people who claim to have the monopoly on pure ideas?

I don't understand how you see class consiousness developing if it isn't from workers trying various methods and building up their own power, or counter-power, or resistance or whatnot.

[Per Levy]

But "stalinists" (and trotskyists, too???) are part of capitalism's apparatus? Seriously?

seriously, yes. have you actually looked at the politics of many communist and socialist partys? many of whom ally themselfs with social democratic partys(like in germany where trots and stalinists are all in the social democratic "die linke") or are nothing else then social democratic in practise anyway.


All the leninist tendencies were/are heavily anti-captalist, socialist currents, both in name and in practice.

like the trot partys who were in favour of voting for the muslim brotherhood? like marxist-leninst partys joining social democratic gouvernments?

[Luís Henrique]

I don't buy the argument that 'doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing'.

Thanks for putting it in such a precise and striking way.

Yes, that is the question. My answer to it is precisely the opposite. Doing the wrong thing is the only way to learn how to do the "right" thing. That's how science works, after all.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks for putting it in such a precise and striking way.

Yes, that is the question. My answer to it is precisely the opposite. Doing the wrong thing is the only way to learn how to do the "right" thing. That's how science works, after all.

Luís Henrique

But we have examples to learn from. The failures of previous waves of revolutionary activity have provided a wealth of lessons. Constantly trying to re-apply the failed tactics and indeed situations of previous waves is not science; it's religion, or madness, or sabotage. But it isn't scientific socialism.



Your definition of capitalism and its supposed natural allies on "the left" still confuses me. Now social-democrats I can understand, they are on the left of the liberal-capitalist spectrum of politics, they never claim to actually want to change the state of society in a radical way.

But "stalinists" (and trotskyists, too???) are part of capitalism's apparatus? Seriously? All the leninist tendencies were/are heavily anti-captalist, socialist currents, both in name and in practice.

Sorry Nevsky, didn't see you down there.

Yeah, Stalinists and Trotskyists too. I don't see any difference between Stalinism and social-democracy, except I'd rather live in the latter than the former as I judge I'd be marginally safer. But as both are systems for administering the capitalist state, there's not a lot to chose between them. Now, there's never been a 'Trotskyist state' but that's not the point. They'd be happy to administer the capitalist state so they're still part of the apparatus. There were a lot of Trotskyists in the social-democratic parties in Europe in the 1970s-80s and they didn't have a problem administering capitalism for the local state.

'In name' they're different but we really have to disagree how different they were 'in practice'.

[Luís Henrique]

But we have examples to learn from. The failures of previous waves of revolutionary activity have provided a wealth of lessons. Constantly trying to re-apply the failed tactics and indeed situations of previous waves is not science; it's religion, or madness, or sabotage. But it isn't scientific socialism.

Yeah, and how can people know about the failures (and successes) of previous waves of revolutionary activity?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Going back to the accounts and arguments and having a look, then trying to apply the lessons to the situations we're in now.

You know this.

[Luís Henrique]

Going back to the accounts and arguments and having a look, then trying to apply the lessons to the situations we're in now.

You know this.

I think I do.

But who goes back to the accounts and arguments and have a look?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

We do.

What's the point?

[Luís Henrique]

We do.

What's the point?

"We", who?

Luís Henrique

[Anti-Traditional]

Left Unity is only important if you want ''The Left (C)'' to take power. Personally I'd rather see the working class take power.

[Blake's Baby]

"We", who?

Luís Henrique

'We', workers.

'We', people interested in politics.

'We', people who want capitalism destroyed.

'We', people who want to become the new bureaucratic elite administering capital.

[Luís Henrique]

'We', workers.

'We', people interested in politics.

'We', people who want capitalism destroyed.

'We', people who want to become the new bureaucratic elite administering capital.

And I suppose when all those "we" go back to the accounts and arguments and look at things, we see the same things and learn the same lessons? They are, I suppose, transparent and obvious, and no one on their sane minds would ever reach different conclusions?

Luís Henrique

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

the whole thing's a joke, Marx even said that the working class wouldn't be a united class if they were separated amongst different parties and sects (perhaps we could say cults in many instances lol).

i reckon one of the main issues of the left is dogma and i don't see how two different dogmatic groups can work together. some of the dogmatic thinking you see in the left actually acts as a barrier for their efficiency as revolutionary groups, given that their assertions are so rigid and often end up stuck in the past.

'things are in a constant state of flux and motion', why don't revolutionary leftists understand this and adapt, rather than fighting about aspects of the ussr or who was 'better' out of lenin and trotsky. who cares? there are many thinkers whose work can provide insight to the world as it works today and as it will work tomorrow. i prefer an amalgamation of theory in whatever contexts they relate to or provide insight to, as such i work with various groups on various issues. i get embarrassed when i'm at meetings and see spew and the swp trying to 'lead' the whole initiative until, ultimately, nothing gets done.

anyway i put that i don't care because i'm not interested in the dogmatic bickering of various groups, i'm only interested in people that WILL work together. the people who should work together don't because of their ideological hang-ups. its a bit like the following.

iS-0Az7dgRY
Do we really need to have this discussion? Comrades, the question of unity per se is a red herring. Unity around what program? What tactics?

Why do you have to look at history??? It is how you can get some kind of grip on the present, comrade. Unity for its own sake is bullshit. It has caused a multitude of catastrophes for the working class over the last 125 years. And here's a little history lesson: The German left was united in the SPD before WWI. There were many revolutionaries in the party, including Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebnichkt. The were helpless against the reformist wing of the party that voted war credits to the Kaiser -- even though, on paper, this was against the policy of the SPD. Had the revolutionaries split earlier (say 1905 versus 1918), the German Revolution would have had a much better chance of success. If you think this is totally irrelevant to today, well, I don't know what to tell you. "Unity" is the clarion call of reformists and dimwits. Being unified around a non-revolutionary program is antithetical to making a revolution.

[Luisrah]

Unity of the Left would be nice but I don't see Trotskyists allying with Stalinists, MLs with Leftcoms or Anarchists with any of the rest.

Almost 100 years have passed since Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Maybe it's time for another big, in-depth analysis of capitalism in today's conditions. The first volume of Das Kapital is from 1867. Lenin's Imperialism (...) is from 1916. That's a 49 year difference.
That means that it has passed double the time and maybe a new analysis on capitalism would produce a new tendency that could be accepted by more leftists in common.

Perhaps it could even be the fact that the analyses we have of capitalism are outdated that stimulates such big division in the left.
Times are certainly different now and since conditions are also different, the method for destroying this different capitalism could be different, therefore eliminating big divisions between tendencies.

Just a thought

[helot]

or Anarchists with any of the rest.


As an anarchist I'd happily work with leftcoms, they generally have sense and are committed to the workers emancipating themselves. I'd love for left coms to be in my city it'd mean i can work with people that won't be clinging to the coat tails of the labour party (i'm looking at you, local trots!)

[Blake's Baby]

I was about to say that as a Left Comm, I would, and indeed do work with Anarchists and Council Communists, and would work with Impossiblists (and have done). I even work with Trotskyists when I have to.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I was about to say that as a Left Comm, I would, and indeed do work with Anarchists and Council Communists, and would work with Impossiblists (and have done). I even work with Trotskyists when I have to.
How can you stand it?:grin:

Of course, working with those that you are not in complete programmatic agreement with is absolutely necessary. That is a far cry from "unity." Would you throw liberals out of a demo against fascists? Of course not. The communist tactic of United Fronts has been endlessly twisted and abused by reformists -- however, it is always true that you unite with others around common action upon which you can agree. As long as there is freedom to criticize the other parties involved and to promote a revolutionary program. But that's different from joining endless lowest-common-denominator coalitions, or even worse, forming parties that are more concerned with numbers and unity than program. James Cannon, the US Trotskyist always fulminated against "get rich quick" schemes. He was so right.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do we really need to have this discussion? Comrades, the question of unity per se is a red herring. Unity around what program? What tactics?yes, and even further, can can a program or tactics for class self emancipation be developed in the absence of broader class movements and struggle.




Almost 100 years have passed since Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Maybe it's time for another big, in-depth analysis of capitalism in today's conditions. The first volume of Das Kapital is from 1867. Lenin's Imperialism (...) is from 1916. That's a 49 year difference.
That means that it has passed double the time and maybe a new analysis on capitalism would produce a new tendency that could be accepted by more leftists in common.i don't think we can think our way to a revolutionary movement. People have made tons of observations about capitalism and changes in it... Many insights, and many wrong claims of some major fundamental shift for better or worse in capitalism. But how can we know if these ideas are useful? We can only know in as far as they help us (radicals) understand things in order to relate better to the class struggle; and help us (the working class) fight for self emancipation more effectively.

[Jimmie Higgins]

like the trot partys who were in favour of voting for the muslim brotherhood? like marxist-leninst partys joining social democratic gouvernments?this is a conflation of totally different things. Advocating m.b. in a run-off over people openly advocating military rule in a run-off is a tactical decision, right or wrong. Trying to bring about socialism from above or through parliaments is not the same.

[The Idler]

The problem with Bolsheviks is they see (critical) support for the Muslim Brotherhood as a question of tactics and using parliament as a question of principle. For socialists, this should be the other way round. Muslim Brotherhood should be opposed in principle, parliament should be used if it is tactically useful.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem with Bolsheviks is they see (critical) support for the Muslim Brotherhood as a question of tactics and using parliament as a question of principle. For socialists, this should be the other way round. Muslim Brotherhood should be opposed in principle, parliament should be used if it is tactically useful.

This is an absolute straw-man though. There is no criticial support of the Muslim Borotherhood by anyone on the left as far as I know as a way forward for the movement there let alone workers. What I think people are refering to - and if they are it's an incorrect representation - is supporting a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in the run-off between the military authroity. I fail to see how that is not a circumstantial and tactical position - regardless if people agree with it or not.

As far as parlement, I agree with you, but IMO it's tactically useful only in the context of a movement - there's not much tactically useful in being an oppositional voice, if there's no opposition to represent.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The problem with Bolsheviks is they see (critical) support for the Muslim Brotherhood as a question of tactics and using parliament as a question of principle. For socialists, this should be the other way round. Muslim Brotherhood should be opposed in principle, parliament should be used if it is tactically useful.

Bolsheviks view both issues as questions of tactics - our one principle is our support for the proletarian revolution and changing the mode of production. If that requires participation in bourgeois parliaments, then participation in bourgeois parliaments is not just admissible but necessary, and the original Bolsheviks did participate in the autocratic parliament. But, scientifically, we know that there is no possible peaceful parliamentary road to socialism. Those who do not understand why have missed the point of the Marxist theory of the state. Likewise, if supporting the Muslim Brotherhood could somehow lead to the revolution, it would be our duty to support the Muslim Brotherhood. But it can't, so our duty is to oppose these reactionary idiots. And yes, certain people who consider themselves Bolsheviks have abandoned a principled analysis for impressionistic adherence to anything that looks like a popular movement. But you're overstating your case. Many Bolshevik organisations wanted nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Sotionov]

Stop leftist infighting and unite? Sure, let's first agree on who's leftist and who's not. :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

'We', workers.

'We', people interested in politics.

'We', people who want capitalism destroyed.

'We', people who want to become the new bureaucratic elite administering capital.

And I suppose when all those "we" go back to the accounts and arguments and look at things, we see the same things and learn the same lessons? They are, I suppose, transparent and obvious, and no one on their sane minds would ever reach different conclusions?

Bumping this. I am really interested in an answer, and perhaps even in a discussion on whether such approach can be considered materialist, dialectical, Marxist, etc.

Luís Henrique

[Flying Purple People Eater]

When have leftists ever supported the muslim brotherhood?

I guess leftists must also support Golden Dawn against EU imperialism, by such revolting logic?

[Devrim]

When have leftists ever supported the muslim brotherhood?

Lots of people on the left have supported HAMAS, but I think what is being refered to here is the International Socialist Tendency* supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt.

Incidentally, their Turkish section, DİSP, are also friends of Tayip Erdoğan, the leader of the Islamicist AKP.

Devrim

*The international organisation of the UK SWP

[Blake's Baby]

Bumping this. I am really interested in an answer, and perhaps even in a discussion on whether such approach can be considered materialist, dialectical, Marxist, etc.

Luís Henrique

I think that some of the lessons are quite obvious, and some are less obvious.

[Luís Henrique]

Lots of people on the left have supported HAMAS, but I think what is being refered to here is the International Socialist Tendency* supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt.

Hamas, Hizballah, Gaddafy, Assad, Ahamadinejad, the Argentinian junta, there is no shortage of crackpot right-wing dictators and movements, Islamic or secular, that have been at times supported by the left.

It isn't, however, what defines the left, and, in most cases, there has also been strong opposition, within the left, to such support. It is even part of why the left cannot "unite" in some Kumbaya fashion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think that some of the lessons are quite obvious, and some are less obvious.

Could it be the case that what seems obvious to you doesn't seem obvious at all to others - and conversely?

Luís Henrique

[Vostok17]

There are many shades of Red with a broad spectrum of how to achieve a lasting revolution and what form it will take. The right does not trifle with such things. They find unification in racism, militarism or an all-out hatred for the Left.

[Blake's Baby]

Could it be the case that what seems obvious to you doesn't seem obvious at all to others - and conversely?

Luís Henrique

Maybe.

But what difference does it make? Everyone looks at the world, everyone draws their conclusions; do you work with fascists, and think it doesn't matter because their view of the world is as valid as yours?

You may; but I don't. And I don't think a whole host of other explanations are as valid as mine either. Why would I believe something if I thought that another explanation was as good or even better? That really would be crazy.

[Luís Henrique]

Maybe.

But what difference does it make? Everyone looks at the world, everyone draws their conclusions; do you work with fascists, and think it doesn't matter because their view of the world is as valid as yours?

No, I don't. But curiously, I don't conclude that, since I don't work with fascists, I should do nothing, because doing nothing is better than cooperating with fascists.


And I don't think a whole host of other explanations are as valid as mine either. Why would I believe something if I thought that another explanation was as good or even better? That really would be crazy.

Yeah. I also do believe in what I believe, not in what others believe.

But I do realise that my explanation, while being, in my opinion, better than others that I am acquainted to, is probably flawed, or not able to deal with all complexities of reality. And so I am open to discussion of my positions; if they are shown wrong, I will change them. And this is a prerequisite for productive discussion; the reason that I argue with you (but not with fascists) is that I hope that you (unlike fascists) are equally open to discussion.

So, I don't work and argue with fascists; but do work and argue with tankies, trots, left-coms, anarchists, liberals, socialdemocrats, apolitical people - depending on what, for what cause, at what time, etc.

Luís Henrique

[GerrardWinstanley]

I would like to see some kind of framework, strictly internationalist in nature and similar to the World Forum for Alternatives, within which all activists of different persuasions can coordinate their work and debate freely, without having to leave their principles at the door. These can be both socialist political parties and activists on peacemeal issues (trade unions, indigenous rights groups, anti-racists, women's groups, LGBT). Only, unlike the World Social Forum, all must agree on a commitment to destroying capitalism and imperialism - not merely neoliberalism.

A Fifth International maybe? I think so.

[Devrim]

Hamas, Hizballah, Gaddafy, Assad, Ahamadinejad, the Argentinian junta, there is no shortage of crackpot right-wing dictators and movements, Islamic or secular, that have been at times supported by the left.

It isn't, however, what defines the left, and, in most cases, there has also been strong opposition, within the left, to such support. It is even part of why the left cannot "unite" in some Kumbaya fashion.

It was a direct reply to a question. HAMAS is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was why I mentioned them. I don't think it is what 'defines' the left, but I do think that most of the left takes up positions in support of these sort of people, whether 'critical' or otherwise. It might not be the case in Latin America, but I think it is in Europe and the Middle East.

Devrim

[human strike]

Sometimes Leftist infighting and sectarianism almost saddens me, but then I remember all these clubs with their fancy-dress revolutions are irrelevant and then I just giggle at how much of a farce it all is.

[Luís Henrique]

It was a direct reply to a question. HAMAS is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was why I mentioned them. I don't think it is what 'defines' the left, but I do think that most of the left takes up positions in support of these sort of people, whether 'critical' or otherwise. It might not be the case in Latin America, but I think it is in Europe and the Middle East.

It certainly is the case in Latin America. Not least, and most infamously, a huge chunk of the Argentinian left stupidly supported the local dictatorship's demagogic invasion of the Malvinas, as an "anti-imperialist" move. Go figure.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

It certainly is the case in Latin America. Not least, and most infamously, a huge chunk of the Argentinian left stupidly supported the local dictatorship's demagogic invasion of the Malvinas, as an "anti-imperialist" move. Go figure.

Yes, I can imagine. I was living in the UK at the time, and the left managed to take up a whole range of positions, from wholeheartedly supporting Argentina to backing Britain and calling for a Labour government to 'continue the war in a socialist manner'.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, I can imagine. I was living in the UK at the time, and the left managed to take up a whole range of positions, from wholeheartedly supporting Argentina to backing Britain and calling for a Labour government to 'continue the war in a socialist manner'.

Devrim

Yeah. How would those unite with each other, not to talk with those who sustained an internationalist position?

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

look at this thread

[Rocky Rococo]

As long as the necessary work is done to create a broad and deep left worldwide, such as existed80-100 years ago, I care only marginally as to the self-imposed structures we put on ourselves, and not at all that it be done in some artificial "unity front". It's probably easiest if something of that sort naturally grows, but that's also highly unlikely. Instead we should mind ourselves with the bottom of the radical structure, maximizing the spread of certain general revolutionary ideas and inclinations among working people, disillusioned reformists etc.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I don't think it's about "the left" unifying, to be honest. Unity is meaningless if it means a dilution of revolutionary ideas in favour of being more palatable to the public. Remember, the parties as such don't really need to be united - they simply need enough resources to spread political-and-class-consciousness to as many people as possible. As long as what you might call the "hard" left are committed thoroughly to revolution (bearing in mind that the revolution can only be an act of the great mass of the proletariat) then we can overcome anything.

[L1NKS]

When it comes to exposing Leninism as what it is, namely a fascist ideology, I see no problem with infighting.

[Comrade #138672]

We should strive to cooperate as much as possible, as long as it doesn't turn into opportunism, but sometimes cooperation is impossible and in those cases we shouldn't fetishize unity.

[Fourth Internationalist]

When it comes to exposing Leninism as what it is, namely a fascist ideology, I see no problem with infighting.

Are you being serious?

[Comrade #138672]

Are you being serious?I think so. I have heard libertarian socialists claim this before. They usually see Stalinism as the inevitable consequence of Bolshevism.

[L1NKS]

Are you being serious?

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK

[Sarcosuchus]

I voted for together. However, we must realise that left encourages more critical thinking than other parts of the political spectrum, which causes most of the division. Leftist ideologies conflict often and if communist, socialist, and anarchist blocs, or a united superbloc, can be founded, this must be based on the concept that these parties and organisations will have more than a single voice for each.

Also, for unity, cults of personalities, even that of Marx, must be abolished and people must be educated to discuss their ideas within these parties and organisations peacefully, without the Trotskyist and Stalinist going for each other's throats or at least being completely judgemental against each other. The realisation, that even if one is Trotskyist, Stalinist, Robespierrist, anarchist, or anything else, they constitute the PEOPLE and their ideas speak for the PEOPLE who are like-minded to them. And if we are communists, anarchists, or other lefists, with such realisation can we unite for that we all work for these PEOPLE.

We do not work only for people who believe in same values as all. We believe in the virtues and values of left politics, because we believe, thanks to our critical thinking, that left speaks for the people directly. Everything we say, everything we do must be said or done for the people, all people, not only communist, anarchist, etc. people. If we wish to take down bourgeois and give power to the people, we can unite around this simple wish.

[Sarcosuchus]

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK

This may be double posting, but... Fascism is the ideology that abolishion of freedom of thinking and democracy, and forceful union of the nation is best for the nation. Fascism seeks to mobilise the nation into a war machine. While it is true both Leninism and fascism are born out of war and are built around the conditions of war, calling Leninism fascism is nothing short of fascism on your part. To hate on your comrade because of his, which you call authoritarian, thinking and slander him with fascism, while you should realise how far-fetched a claim that is on your part, you do nothing short of "social fascism" yourself.

There may be different ideologies. While Lenin may not have tolerated them much, we must realise that Lenin's genius is mostly defamed due to his warlike policies and Leninists, those who follow this great man, tend to tolerate other ideologies today and, as I mentioned in my previous post, constitute the PEOPLE.

[Fourth Internationalist]

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK
Those are not the defining characters of fascism. Do you even know what fascism is?

Authoritarian =/= Fascism
Vanguard party = good
Opposition to liberal democracy = good

[Igor]

opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK

rock that chomsky avatar brother

[Sotionov]

Authoritaranism- not good.
Having (political) masters (elected or not)- not good.
Oppressive policies- not good.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Authoritaranism- not good.
Having (political) masters (elected or not)- not good.
Oppressive policies- not good.

If it's reasonable and against the bourgeoisie, it's good.

[Sotionov]

Yeah, anarchists, Esers, mensheviks, Workers' Oppossition and Workers' Group, Kronstadt sailors and other working people that was suppressed by the bolsheviks were all bourgeoisie.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yeah, anarchists, Esers, mensheviks, Workers' Oppossition and Workers' Group were all bourgeoisie.

Please, point out where I said oppressing those proletarian groups were good. Go on. I am a supporter of the policies of the Workers' Opposition.

[Sotionov]

Then don't be shy to call yourself an anti-leninist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Then don't be shy to call yourself an anti-leninist.

I am anti-Leninist and I have never said I was a Leninist.

[L1NKS]

A quote attributed to Bakunin goes like this:

If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself.

Bakunin died in 1876. Forty-one years later Lenin and his Bolshevists rose to power, working on giving socialism a bad name.

[Fourth Internationalist]

A quote attributed to Bakunin goes like this:

If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself.

Bakunin died in 1876.

Are you referring to Lenin or Stalin? I'd agree if you're talking about Stalin.

[MarxArchist]

Authoritaranism- not good.
Having (political) masters (elected or not)- not good.
Oppressive policies- not good.
Workers control= good. Everyone having free and equal acsess to the means to sustain life = good.

[Sotionov]

I'd agree if you're talking about Stalin.
Not very anti-leninist of you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not very anti-leninist of you.

Being anti-Leninist doesn't mean I have to think he was a tyrannical fascist, which is ridiculous.

[Sotionov]

But you're ok with thinking Stalin was a tyrannical fascist?

[Zukunftsmusik]

When it comes to exposing Leninism as what it is, namely a fascist ideology, I see no problem with infighting.


authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK


Authoritaranism- not good.
Having (political) masters (elected or not)- not good.
Oppressive policies- not good.

If this is the intellectual level of "anti-leninism", I'd take leninism any day

[Fourth Internationalist]

But you're ok with thinking Stalin was a tyrannical fascist?

Yep

[Sotionov]

If this is the intellectual level of "anti-leninism", I'd take leninism any day
Because killing socialists and establishing state-capitalism is so much better then not using academical style of writing.


Yep
And Lenin, as oppossed to Stalin, did not repress political dissidents (including genuine socialists) murdering them by tens of thousands, and did not suppress democracy and worker control over production?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Because killing socialists and establishing state-capitalism is so much better then not using academical style of writing.

I'm pretty sure he's not referring to grammar...

[Fourth Internationalist]

And Lenin, as oppossed to Stalin, did not repress political dissidents (including genuine socialists) murdering them by tens of thousands, and did not suppress democracy and worker control over production?

When did I say he didn't do such things (though I disagree of how you worded that he murdered tens of thousands, he didn't order anything like that, nor could he have)? Do you know how to read?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Because killing socialists and establishing state-capitalism is so much better then not using academical style of writing.

not much to do with style of writing, more to do with equating "authoritarianism" with fascism, with all the intellectual acrobatics you need to do to justify that

[Sotionov]

When did I say he didn't do such things (though I disagree of how you worded that he murdered tens of thousands, he didn't order anything like that, nor could he have)? Do you know how to read?You write as though you seem to think that Lenin, as oppossed to Stalin, was not a state-capitalist oppressor of the workers and repressor of genuine socialists, when in fact they both were exactly that.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You write as though you seem to think that Lenin, as oppossed to Stalin, was not a state-capitalist oppressor of the workers and repressor of genuine socialists, when in fact they both were exactly that.

No, I write as though I don't think "authoritarianism" equals fascism, I write as though it's stupid to think what happened in Russia around 1917 and onwards is equal to what happened in Germany and Italy, I write as though you don't really address the points I raise

[Fourth Internationalist]

You write as though you seem to think that Lenin, as oppossed to Stalin, was not a state-capitalist oppressor of the workers and repressor of genuine socialists, when in fact he was.

You believe he had way more power than he did and killed way more people than he is responsible for. The USSR was state capitalist/capitalist during his time, and I agree a lot of the actions of the Bolshevik Party lead to the undermining of the working class, and to the path to Stalinism. One of such things was the banning of the Workers' Opposition, whose policies I said I support.

[Sotionov]

No, I write as though I don't think "authoritarianism" equals fascism,
I was talking to User name, who has already said that he does consider Stalin fascist.


You believe he had way more power than he did and killed way more people than he is responsible for. The USSR was state capitalist/capitalist during his time, and I agree a lot of the actions of the Bolshevik Party lead to the undermining of the working class, and to the path to Stalinism. One of such things was the banning of the Workers' Opposition, whose policies I said I support.
I don't see where you make the distinction in being willing to call Stalin a dictatorial fascist, and not willing to do the same with Lenin. What is that Stalin did that Lenin didn't- they both headed state-capitalist systems where workers were economically oppressed and exploited; they both established repressive policities culminating in persecution, imprisonment and murder of tens of thousands of genuine socialists and workers and peasants that objected to their oppressive state-capitalism; they both signed treaties with the worst european imperialist forces. What is that which Stalin did, and Lenin didn't so that you consider the latter so much better then the former?

[L1NKS]

I don't think "authoritarianism" equals fascism
Yes, you are certainly right. They obviously differ. One word starts with an "a", the other one with an "f". Hence they don't equal.

[Zukunftsmusik]

if that's seriously your point I stand by my first post in this thread

[MarxArchist]

The Marxist/Anarchist divide is just the beginning. Read the article linked in my blog and when done throw privilege theory into the mix. Also, even before the 1960/70's capital itself, in America, further decentralized production (in the 1950's in order to produce for desire rather than need) then later outsourced a large part of the work force that was easier to organize (easier to organize because of the size/scope of industry). Now we have an uber decentralized largely service sector economy/work force. Throw into that the fact unions were/are completely controlled by the bourgeois state (most workers aren't even in unions anyway) and we have our sad pathetic state of the left today. A giant blob of perpetual complaints of each against each mostly focusing on which group should get a bigger piece of the capitalist pie with minimal focus on the conflict between labor and capital. A hierarchy of oppressed workers and privileged workers and no real class consciousness is resulting from any of the organizational tactics we've employed since the late 60's early 70's. The picture looks like this-

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/500px-Antiferromagnetic_ordering.svg_.png

Today we've erected (in our own minds) about 6 or 7 different "classes" who all have opposing interests. Not only that but as I said we have a relatively new structure of capitalist production (post WW2) in America that makes large scale work place organizing next to impossible. Too many people are also trying to create the social conditions of communism under capitalism, because, replacing capitalism is an almost impossible task in their view so focus is put on 'achievable goals' attainable via reforms and social pressure. Maybe soon capitalism will actually provide social equality (excluding the capitalist/worker paradigm), it's not likely because humanity will have a never ending battle against discrimination. Utopia isn't possible. What is possible is ending the material impact of racism/sexism/homophobia etc. Fighting racism/sexism/homophobia and all manner of hate/discrimination will be a project that will endure even in a communist society but...BUT the systemic impact of racism/sexism/homophobia will be next to non existent. The entire reason workers must be in control of the means of production, the entire reason people all need free and equal access to the the ability to survive is so the material stage for liberty can be set. A certain amount of effort to change the superstructure before the base is changed (before capitalism is ended) can do no harm and should be a part of any revolutionaries mind set but expecting these efforts to reach the ultimate goal of ending the impact of discrimination (under capitalism) is either utopian or naive. When Marx wrote of the Iroquois social structure he did it to show WHY the people of the tribes were free. If a woman and man were living together and he offended her with any sort of abuse she had the ability to kick him out because she A. built the shelter B. had free access to what she needed to survive. The man's sexism or desire to control her had no long lasting material impact. I'm sure discrimination of all sorts existed in the Iroquois tribes but the material impact was minimized due to the fact each person had free and equal access to the means of survival.


Organizing against capitalism itself with fractionalized sub issues facing off against different aspects of the system while facing off against our culture at large is like the Native Americans losing battle against the American state. All of the tribes were traditionally separate. There was no centralized plan of attack. No strength in numbers. No common focal point, no singular plan of attack. They were divided and thus conquered. Some even helped the American state thinking they were doing the right thing. As Thoreau said hacking at the branches of "evil" is draining when a swift hack to the root of the problem is more productive. If capitalism entered even more severe crisis right now the result would be a giant blob of people in the streets with hardly any idea of why workers should take over production. As was the case with Occupy Oakland, coincidentally Native American issues took center stage, people sure could rail on concerning privilege theory and amongst all the other various grievances but worker control of the means of production was never the proposed solution.


A (wikipedia) paraphrased take on the source of our modern approach to organizing:



Marcuse and capitalism

Marcuse’s analysis of capitalism derives partially from one of Karl Marx’s main concepts: Objectification,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse#cite_note-15) which under capitalism becomes Alienation. Marx believed that capitalism was exploiting humans; that by producing objects, laborers became alienated and this ultimately dehumanized them to functional objects. Marcuse took this belief and expanded it. He argued that capitalism and industrialization pushed laborers so hard that they began to see themselves as extensions of the objects they were producing. At the beginning of One-Dimensional Man Marcuse writes, “The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment,”[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse#cite_note-16) meaning that under capitalism (in consumer society) humans become extensions of the commodities that they buy, thus making commodities extensions of people's minds and bodies. Affluent mass technological societies, it argued, were totally controlled and manipulated. In societies based upon mass production and mass distribution, the individual worker had become merely a consumer of its commodities and entire commodity way of life. Modern Capitalism had created false needs and false consciousness geared to consumption of commodities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities): it locked one-dimensional man into the one-dimensional society which produced the need for people to recognize themselves in their commodities and find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced. Most important of all, the pressure of consumerism had led to the total integration of the working class into the capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) system. Its political parties and trade unions had become thoroughly bureaucratized and the power of negative thinking or critical reflection had rapidly declined. The working class was no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change. As a result, rather than looking to the workers as the revolutionary vanguard, Marcuse put his faith in an alliance between radical intellectuals and those groups not yet integrated into one-dimensional society, the socially marginalized, the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other race and other colours, the unemployed and the unemployable. These were the people whose standards of living demanded the ending of intolerable conditions and institutions and whose resistance to one-dimensional society would not be diverted by the system. Their opposition was revolutionary even if their consciousness was not.
This split in production from "centralized" to "decentralized" to outsourced happened when capitalism began producing for inner desires rather than need, capital also did so in the search for profits and in part to fend off both overproduction and the threat of actual democracy manifesting in advanced capitalist nations via mass production/large industry. Check out the 15 minute through 16:45 minute mark in the video below.

s7EwXmxpExw

So the New Left came to the conclusion the average workers in an advanced capitalist society can no longer be the revolutionary agent. Only the most oppressed (third world) and most marginalized populations within advanced capitalist nations who aren't living this "lifestyle" can be the revolutionary agents. This translated into an advocacy of Maoism in the 1960's and privilege theory being embraced by Marxists in the 1970's. Anarchists with their decentralized "bottom up" organizing tactics of old also latched onto privilege theory. Some even think a socialist revolution can spontaneously arise out of these conditions with no emphasis on any sort of Marxist theory or critique of capitalism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't see where you make the distinction in being willing to call Stalin a dictatorial fascist, and not willing to do the same with Lenin. What is that Stalin did that Lenin didn't- they both headed state-capitalist systems where workers were economically oppressed and exploited;

The system under Lenin was far-less oppressive.


they both established repressive policities culminating in persecution, imprisonment and murder of tens of thousands of genuine socialists and workers and peasants that objected to their oppressive state-capitalism; The Soviet government, let alone Lenin, didn't kill tens of thousands. A few thousand at most, but still better than liberal countries. A few thousand, Soviet government under Lenin, or millions and millions under Stalin's government. BIG difference!


they both signed treaties with the worst european imperialist forces.OH no! How dare they sign treaties?!? :lol:



What is that which Stalin did, and Lenin didn't so that you consider the latter so much better then the former?Stalin's USSR killed millions upon millions, whereas Lenin's USSR killed a few thousand (people die in Civil Wars). The USSR's policies under Lenin were, by far, much less strict than under Stalin's. Stalin's USSR was also militaristic.

[L1NKS]

if that's seriously your point I stand by my first post in this thread
No, that was me humoring you. Furthermore, if you had cared, you would have noticed that I never claimed both to be equal. That was you. What I did was listing a few key features of fascism, amongst them authoritarianism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No, that was me humoring you. Furthermore, if you had cared, you would have noticed that I never claimed both to be equal. That was you. What I did was listing a few constituting features of fascism, amongst them authoritarianism.
These are the features of fascism?

authoritarian
vanguard party
opposition to liberal democracy

So am I 2/3rds fascist? :lol:

[Zukunftsmusik]

By using a simply - not to say simplistic - ideological description of "fascism" like you did in this thread, almost any- and everything you like can be put into this category. Which leads to the liberal thinking that USSR and Nazi-Germany were "basically the same" ("They were both authoritarian/against democracy!!!"), which takes these two things into the abstract, dislocating it from their historical development and their ground in class struggle.

[L1NKS]

These are the features of fascism?

A few of them. Can't you read?

[Fourth Internationalist]

A few of them. Can't you read?

So am I two thirds fascist? :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

So am I 2/3rds fascist? :lol:

Not only that, but it seems that all revolutionaries (anarchists included) are and must be 1/3 fascist.

Luís Henrique

[Sotionov]

The system under Lenin was far-less oppressive.Less oppressive? That's like saying this sh*t is good because it stinks less then another sh*t.


The Soviet government, let alone Lenin, didn't kill tens of thousands. A few thousand at most, but still better than liberal countries. A few thousand, Soviet government under Lenin, or millions and millions under Stalin's government. BIG difference!Cheka alone during only Octobar of 1920 killed more then 6'000 people, the number of people killed by the bolsheviks during Lenin is in hundreds of thousands. It was during Lenin that the Esers, anarchist, and (more-or-less) libertarian marxists- that is- any form of genuine socialists in Russia were repressed into non-existence, and a classless society of 7 million inhabitants was dismantled.


OH no! How dare they sign treaties?!?I was thinking that maybe the reason you would consider Stalin fascist and not Lenin would be "he signed a pact with Hitler", but I see that you are in fact deluded that Lenin wasn't as maniacally anti-socialist and anti-working class as Stalin was.

[L1NKS]

So am I two thirds fascist?
Do not worry. Adhering to those principles, you are good to go.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Feces that smell less then another pile of excrament is still sh*t.

I agree. But, to use your odd analogy, Lenin was like a rabbit's pellet of faeces compared to Stalin, who was a non-stop pooping machine.


Cheka alone during only Octobar of 1920 killed more then 6'000 people, the number of people killed by the bolsheviks during Lenin is in hundreds of thousands.[/QUOTE]Civil Wars and revolutionary times in an isolated semi-feudal country being invaded by imperialists are harsh.




It was during Lenin that the Esers and anarchist in Russia were repressed into non-existence, and a classless society of 7 million inhabitants was dismantled. Yes Lenin brought down a communist society. :laugh:




I was thinking that maybe the reason you would consider Stalin fascist and not Lenin would be "he signed a pact with Hitler", but I see that you are in fact deluded that Lenin wasn't as maniacally anti-socialist and anti-working class as Stalin was.Stalin and Lenin are non-equateable.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Do not worry. Adhering to those principles, you are good to go.

My god it's like Akshay found an opposite secret twin!

[L1NKS]

How come you claim to be an Anarcho-Marxist, if you find vanguardism defensable? You do not seem to have the faintest idea of what the concept of anarchism necessarily implies.

[Sotionov]

Yes Lenin brought down a communist society.
Don't be such an ignoramus. It's wasn't communist, but it was a classless society free of oppression and exploitation, and yes- the bolsheviks destroyed it.


Civil Wars and revolutionary times in an isolated semi-feudal country being invaded by imperialists are harsh.
Which is no exuse for state-capitalist killing genuine socialists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

How come you claim to be an Anarcho-Marxist, if you find vanguardism defensable? You do not seem to have the faintest idea of what the concept of anarchism necessarily implies.

Because Anarcho-Marxism is not a real ideology, merely the idea that anarchists and Marxists should work together. You do not seem to have the faintest idea of what the concept of vanguardism implies.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Don't be such an ignoramus. It's wasn't communist, but it was a classless society free of oppression and exploitation, and yes- the bolsheviks destroyed it.


Then it was ways other than it not being global was it not communist?


Which is no exuse for state-capitalist killing genuine socialists.

I agree. But I'm referring to the Civil War with the Red Army against White Army, who were reactionaries.

[L1NKS]

Because Anarcho-Marxism is not a real ideology, merely the idea that anarchists and Marxists should work together. You do not seem to have the faintest idea of what the concept of vanguardism implies.
Then please, elaborate. That kind of vanguardism I wanna know more about!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Then please, elaborate. That kind of vanguardism I wanna know more about!

Vanguardism is simply the idea that the most advanced part of the working class, communists, should organise as a party to push for communism. The party is not to rule over the proletariat. After the revolution, there is no need for a vanguard party.

[L1NKS]

Vanguardism is simply the idea that the most advanced part of the working class, communists, should organise as a party to push for communism.
It is exactly that particular organization of the structure and exercise of power every anarchist is fundamentally and vigorously opposed to.

The party is not to rule over the proletariat. After the revolution, there is no need for a vanguard party.
Why having a vanguard-party in the first place, if not for the purpose of ruling? That makes no sense.

I do not believe in benevolent masters.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It is exactly that particular organization of the structure and exercise of power every anarchist is fundamentally and vigorously opposed to.


How do they intend to organise?

[Skyhilist]

Paradoxical: people having an insular left-wing debate about how insular left-wing debates are.

[Sotionov]

I agree. But I'm referring to the Civil War with the Red Army against White Army, who were reactionaries.
The Red Army didn't fight only the Whites, they also fought against and in the end destroyed the Green and Black Armies, which were non-hierarchical millitias of the working people who wanted genuinge socialism.


Vanguardism is simply the idea that the most advanced part of the working class, communists, should organise as a party to push for communism. The party is not to rule over the proletariat.
Actually, that's anti-vaguardism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Actually, that's anti-vaguardism.

No, it's vanguardism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The Red Army didn't fight only the Whites, they also fought against and in the end destroyed the Green and Black Armies, which were non-hierarchical millitias of the working people who wanted genuinge socialism.

There was hierarchy actually and many but not all of those armies fought with the white army.

[Sotionov]

No, it's vanguardism.No.

"When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and, as you have heard, a united socialist front is proposed, we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position because it is the party that has won, in the course of decades, the position of vanguard of the entire factory and industrial proletariat."

Lenin, Speech to the First All-Russia Congress of Workers in Education and Socialist Culture (30 July 1919)


There was hierarchy actually and many but not all of those armies fought with the white army.Sorry, but that's just a lie.

[Brutus]

The Red Army didn't fight only the Whites, they also fought against and in the end destroyed the Green and Black Armies, which were non-hierarchical millitias of the working people who wanted genuinge socialism.

The greens, or the SRs, supported the bourgeois government of kerensky- in fact, they were the bourgeois government.

And the blacks and greens only had peasant support, whilst the workers consistently voted to have Bolshevik deputies (and a few Menshevik internationalists). Peasants are left overs from feudalism- they retard the path to socialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why having a vanguard-party in the first place, if not for the purpose of ruling? That makes no sense.

To push the working class forward and to organise those who can.

[Quote]I do not believe in benevolent masters.

Fascinating. Me too.

[L1NKS]

How do they intend to organise?
It can be community council, a town hall meeting, it can be a party. The form of organization is not the primary concern for anarchists.

We deal with power and the legitimacy of its exercise. We believe, with respect to matters of legitimacy, that the burden of proof is on those who exercise power, not the other way round. That is why we oppose vanguardism. The mass of people has to guide and control its representatives, not the other way round. So for example, it is a widely held belief, that representatives come up with an agenda that the public then has to approve or disapprove of, rather than having the public instructing the representatives precisly on which policies to enact. Therefore if a representative fails to comply with the needs and grievances of the majority of the people inside the community, we will get rid of him.

We call this anarchism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

We deal with power and the legitimacy of its exercise. We believe, with respect to matters of legitimacy, that the burden of proof is on those who exercise power, not the other way round. That is why we oppose vanguardism. The mass of people has to guide and control its representatives, not the other way round. So for example, it is a widely held belief, that representatives come up with an agenda that the public then has to approve or disapprove of, rather than having the public instructing the representatives precisly on which policies to enact, and which not to. If that person refuses to or fails to comply with the needs and grievances of the majority of the people inside the community, he cannot be rendered a representative, and will ultimately get sacked.

We call this anarchism.

So I guess everyone here on RevLeft is anarchist anti vanguardist. By this then Marxists are anarchists and anti-vanguardist.

How does vanguardism oppose what I bolded? I am a vanguardist and I don't disagree with the bold.

[Ele'ill]

So I guess everyone here on RevLeft is an anarchist anti vanguardist?

oh please


How does vanguardism oppose what I bolded? I am a vanguardist and I don't disagree with the bold.


To push the working class forward and to organise those who can.

I think an issue is the redefining of words to avoid criticisms.

[Comrade #138672]

You say opposition to liberal democracy like it's a bad thing. Also, I didn't know libertarian socialists were basically liberals.

[Delenda Carthago]

Opportunism has to be fought by revolutionaries as an enemy of the class. Both right wing and left wing. There is no common space for action.

[Sotionov]

The greens, or the SRs, supported the bourgeois government of kerensky- in fact, they were the bourgeois government.
They were socialists, unlike bolsheviks.


And the blacks and greens only had peasant support, whilst the workers consistently voted to have Bolshevik deputies (and a few Menshevik internationalists). Peasants are left overs from feudalism- they retard the path to socialism.
Peasants are rural workers, they were there in pre-history, in slavery, in feudalism, they're here in capitalism, and they will be here until star trek style 3d printed food is available to everyone.


So I guess everyone here on RevLeft is anarchist anti vanguardist. By this then Marxists are anarchists and anti-vanguardist.
And yet the only marxist party putting it in practice is SPGB.

[L1NKS]

How does vanguardism oppose what I bolded?
Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker, or maybe in your part of the world vanguardism refers to something else that I don't know anything about. But vanguardism as I understand it refers to top-down, hierarchical power structures that function in the way I tried to describe in my previous post. Every anarchist is by definition opposed to vanguardism, because it is understood that the power of a representative derives directly and exclusively from the represented, whereas vanguardists believe that it is a certain quality of character or mind of an individual that turn him into a "representative". This is basically an absolutist position, hence the incompatibility of your statements with any concept of anarchism I ever heard of.

[Sotionov]

That's what it means to everyone who know what they're talking about. User Name calls anti-vanguardism vanguardism.

[Brutus]

They were socialists, unlike bolsheviks.

Socialists that form bourgeois governments and continue fighting an imperialist war? Ha.

[Brutus]

L'enfermé's got this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-vanguard-party-t176886/index.html?t=176886

Pay attention to Rakunin's post which Erzu links in the first post.

[Fourth Internationalist]

[QUOTE=L1NKS;2636476 But vanguardism as I understand it refers to top-down, hierarchical power structures that function in the way I tried to describe in my previous post. [/QUOTE]

But that s not what it is!

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's what it means to everyone who know what they're talking about. User Name calls anti-vanguardism vanguardism.

Vanguardism is not a party dictatorship. I guess they forgot to tell Marx that.

The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

That's all a vanguard is.

[Brutus]

This is all you need to know on the vanguard party. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1403573&postcount=10)

[Sotionov]

Socialists that form bourgeois governments and continue fighting an imperialist war? Ha.Socialist that wanted end to oppression and exploitation of the working people, as oppossed to the policies that bolsheviks inacted. They had in they ranks, both the defensists and the anti-militarists, similarly like the anarchists, most of whom in Russia have supported Kropotkin in his defensism.


But that s not what it is!
And how would you call the organization mode where a party is hierarchical and establishes hierarchical power?

[Fourth Internationalist]

And how would you call the organization mode where a party is hierarchical and establishes hierarchical power?

Why do you believe it has to be hierarchal?

[Brutus]

similarly like the anarchists, most of whom in Russia have supported Kropotkin in his defensism.
Ah, taking sides in imperialist wars is so radical! You've told me all I need to know about these 'socialists'

[Sotionov]

Why do you believe it has to be hierarchal? I don't, I espouse exacly the oppossite, I think that every organization should be horizontalist, I am asking you how do you call the idea that a party should be organized hierarchically, like every marxist party today (except SPBG) is?


Ah, taking sides in imperialist wars is so radical! You've told me all I need to know about these 'socialists'
As Kollontai wrote, imperialist war, liberation war and civil war need to be differantiated. Socialist needs to be put under quotation marks when talking about bolsheviks, not anarchists or Esers.

[Brutus]

I agree with Kollantai, a 'socialist' (by your standards) like me. The way you're disagreeing with me and your post makes it seem like you don't think that WW1 was imperialist!

[helot]

Socialist that wanted end to oppression and exploitation of the working people, as oppossed to the policies that bolsheviks inacted. They had in they ranks, both the defensists and the anti-militarists, similarly like the anarchists, most of whom in Russia have supported Kropotkin in his defensism.

Kropotkin was a fool for picking sides in WWI though and is still criticised for it.

[Sotionov]

I guess the reasoning was in the manner of - like a liberation war cannot be liberatory for both of the warring sides, but must be by the side fighting for it's liberation, and the other fighting for mantaining it's dominion, similarly- imperialist war means that one side is the conquering one and the other the defending. I don't find socialist support for the Allied forces of the WW1 much worse then the socialist support for the Allied forces of the WW2.

[helot]

I don't find socialist support for the Allied forces of the WW1 much worse then the socialist support for the Allied forces of the WW2.
Same. I criticise socialists for supporting the allied forces in WWII especially when they falsely claim it was a fight against fascism.

We shouldn't be picking sides in bourgeois conflicts anyway. The only side we should go to is that of the workers and only then when it's not reactionary.

[Brutus]

I despise it when they claim it was in defense of socialism.

[Sotionov]

I haven't really though about it much, but I think I probably would fight against the nazis if I were alive then. Could someone post a link to a thread about this topic?

[Brutus]

I haven't really though about it much, but I think I probably would fight against the nazis if I were alive then. Could someone post a link to a thread about this topic?

You'll have to make one, methinks

[Sotionov]

No topic about the leftist attitudes towards world wars? Surely national liberation wars have been discussed..

[Brutus]

No topic about the leftist attitudes towards world wars? Surely national liberation wars have been discussed..

I say make a new thread. There probably is one, somewhere...

[KurtFF8]

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK

I know I'm late to respond to this but: hell yeah opposition to liberal democracy!

[Brutus]

I know I'm late to respond to this but: hell yeah opposition to liberal democracy!

Kind of says a lot about our chomskyian friends.

[Brutus]

This debate has helped me decide what to vote on the poll.
I don't want to unite with those who think that Lenin is a fascist.

[Delenda Carthago]

It dont matter where we are going, as long as we go together.

That kind of crap is for lovebirds, not communists.:lol:

[Ele'ill]

OFgayzZ5KTM

[MarxArchist]

My earlier post was more concerned with "unity" in practice with the focal point being the heart of socialism (worker control over production/distribution and thus society). There's not even unity on that front. Focusing on the historical Marxist/Anarchist divide should be secondary to what I see as the main problem with the contemporary left. To put it bluntly the organizing tactics and overall "activist culture" repels more people from communism than it attracts. Our various theories have sprouted lives of their own, a sort of never ending spider web of extreme changes to society that the average person can't even imagine. Much of it rationalized and formulated through idealism rather than the materialist method. We've all become religious. Pious as the Christians in holding belief in invisible unprovable ideas. A culture of victimhood. A war of each against each. The left, since it's heyday of mass parties and mass working class mobilization, has embraced a sort of patheticism.

The historical Marxist/Anarchist divide has no real impact in our daily struggle to end capitalism because our daily struggle to end capitalism is embraced by next to no one. The average person doesn't care, in the least, about the disagreement between Marx/Bakunin or Lenin's conception of a vanguard. The only significance this historical conversation has on the real world is the impact the failed Russian attempt at socialism had on the worlds view of communism. For this reason I think it constructive to point out why and where Lenin perverted Marx/Engels materialist analysis. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, later Mao and all the other offshoots from the failed Russian experiment, all completely mangled Marx/Engels historical materialism. The short version is- they tried to use "communism" to do capitalism's job which is industrialization and social development under bourgeois democracy/enlightenment values. Trying to push development and social progress on an economically and socially backwards population is going to end up in extreme authoritarianism and eventually economic failure. Kautsky was right and predicted the failure of Russian "socialism", not to mention correctly critiqued why the Russian Bolsheviks were so authoritarian.

For Anarchists to claim any Marxist mass party with a 'vanguard', if successful in ending capitalism, will be authoritarian and oppressive - when they make this claim they're completely ignoring the fact conditions Marx/Engels said were necessary for a democratic working class revolution haven't existed in any Marxist revolution that's actually taken place. This has been the legacy of Leninism. Failed attempts at communism in isolation in economically/socially backwards nations.

If somehow a theoretical Marxist led socialist revolution in America took place in the year 1850 the population would have no real sense of democracy under an industrial economic system as both industrialization and bourgeois enlightenment values were just setting in at the time. Proper class consciousness and the economic foundations for communism would have had to be almost totally nurtured/created by some outside force. This is what Lenin had to do in Russia.

A Marxist revolution led in contemporary America would look quite different. The first necessary ingredient would be a mass movement of workers with the common singular goal of ending capitalism once and for all. A working class population socially advanced enough to understand how the system generally works and why workers must take over production. This is the source of much of the various "tendency wars" we now see. What will help form mass class consciousness. Marxists think a vanguard is necessary, a group of people with advanced knowledge concerning how capitalism operates and what must be done to end it. Anarchists disagree with the term but end up playing out this role in various forms anyway but at the end of the day the vangaurd has been replaced with intellectuals who have adopted privilege theory at various universities and this is being used to large extent by both Marxists and Anarchists as the tool or weapon to end capitalism. It's not working.

Another key ingredient would be socialist revolutions in other regions with accuses to resources and large industry. China and India spring to mind. Generally a global revolution is necessary. Another reason for the authoritarianism in Marxist states is they've been in isolation with the full might of capitalism attacking from all angles. How do Anarchists propose a defense from that with a completely democratic society?

[Old Bolshie]

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK

9mm was right after all when he insisted that most part of anarchists in RevLeft were liberals waving black flags.

[MarxArchist]

authoritarian - CHECK
vanguard party - CHECK
opposition to liberal democracy - CHECK
Opposition to bourgeois or liberal democracy should entail pointing out it's limitations and systemic function (to maintain capitalism) while also accepting it as a key ingredient to build actual workers or direct democracy. Of course any revolutionary socialist should oppose bourgeois democracy just as I would oppose an end to any and all human social evolution. It doesn't make me authoritarian.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I would think anarchists would be more opposed to liberal democracy given that they refuse to partake in it, whereas Marxists do.

[Taters]

I would think anarchists would be more opposed to liberal democracy given that they refuse to partake in it, whereas Marxists do.

Dude's less anarchist, more liberal. A Chomsky avatar and quote is your first warning right off the bat.

[L1NKS]

Dude's less anarchist, more liberal. A Chomsky avatar and quote is your first warning right off the bat.
It is just that, I have not yet decided on which supermarket to torch. I know that makes me kind of a coward, I got internet, and food, and a refrigerator to store it in. But so do you. I guess that makes us companions. Dude...

By the way - your "I am not part of the Chomsky -left"-attitude, that is what Christopher Hitchens said, before he started glorifying the war on Iraq.

[L1NKS]

9mm was right after all when he insisted that most part of anarchists in RevLeft were liberals waving black flags.
You must have strange ideas on what both "liberal" and "democracy" mean. Or maybe you were just too lazy to read what I wrote about anarchism. You read the word "liberal" and then happily started vomiting up your one-liners. I mean that can be entertaining at times, as this discussion shows, but it must have at least some connection to prior statements.

[GallowsBird]

I used to be into secterian, obviosuly, but I came to the realisation (as many leftists do) that all leftist groups tend to want the same thing fundementally even if we don't agree on the methods of getting there.

Loads will be shocked and confused by me saying this, but as much of an old tankie as I am, I would support whichever leftist movement (as in, definably, socialist) that has a chance of actually bringing about the revolution in the country I am in. Would I pretend to agree with them all the time? No. But the western world is heading more and more towards extremist capitalism and we do need some form of popular front and some form of leftist unity or we'll crumble and the world will be capitalist, even fascist, for even more centuries.

[Left Turn]

In this post I'll be talking about the Canadian context, but my comments will be applicable at least in the other advanced capitalist countries.

I voted "together", but I'm going to qualify that quite a bit. I'd like to see as much of the socialist left as possible to come together in one organization. The fragmentation of the socialist left into small sects over political differences that are not relevant in the current period, such as the nature of the Soviet Union, needs to end.

I support the concept of a "united front" that could include socialists, anarchists, and social democrats. At the same time I also believe in fighting for a socialist agenda of ending private profit, moving to production for human need, and seriously addressing the climate and environmental crises.

On the left of NDP left I hear many people advocate for left unity, but also argue that the primary objective of the left is to stop Harper. What the left does in the official political realm generally does not get discussed, and the often unstated conclusion is that voting NDP is necressary. Not discussing it allows anarchists and others on the left who have a different political orientation to participate, but doesn't resolve the contradictions that exist on the left.

[Old Bolshie]

You must have strange ideas on what both "liberal" and "democracy" mean. Or maybe you were just too lazy to read what I wrote about anarchism. You read the word "liberal" and then happily started vomiting up your one-liners. I mean that can be entertaining at times, as this discussion shows, but it must have at least some connection to prior statements.

What strange ideas could I have about liberal democracy? :confused:

[Dabrowski]

The objective is to smash the rule of the capitalists and put the proletariat in power.

Most of the Left is against this.

So uniting the left means, and has always historically meant, uniting the left against the working class. In other words left-unity is inherently popular-frontist and is usually the preparatory stage for a popular front.

The hell with that!

The task of revolutionaries is to split the left, to polarize it along class lines, to cut through and unmask all the blatherous fake phony sugarcoated lying crap -- including "unity" talk -- that the left produces to fool the workers.

[Sarcosuchus]

Yeah, anarchists, Esers, mensheviks, Workers' Oppossition and Workers' Group, Kronstadt sailors and other working people that was suppressed by the bolsheviks were all bourgeoisie.

I may be late to write this, however...

The Bolshevik struggle was brought up by the masses, the soviets (worker councils), which Lenin saw as the ultimate force for keeping the country alive, and a good organisation of these soviets easily toppled the social democratic government that supported the Entente. At the civil war that followed, while Lenin's war communism was oppressive, that won him the civil war. To ease the burdens of workers, their situations made clear to Lenin by the Kronstadt rebellion itself, Lenin then introduced the New Economic Policy. (He called, however, the NEP a state-capitalist economic policy and a tactical withdrawal.)

To judge Leninism, as a thought, by Kronstadt alone or the fate of the Ukrainian black army (anarchists) is horribly one-sided, however. Leninist ideology is far more than that and has developed massively over the years even following Lenin's death. Even if you lament for those anarchists, if I remember right it was Emma Goldman or Adam Ulam, who said it was Trotsky's make-up that brought the downfall of Makhnoists and their defaming as anti-semitics, etc. Again, it was one of them, who mentioned that Lenin was almost half an anarchist compared to Trotsky, who lacked the sympathetic mercy that Lenin for the most part had. And again, it is wrong to assume Lenin and CHEKA equal to each other. CHEKA could, on occasion, act on its own by the political/strategical use of bureaucracy.

[Lokomotive293]

It's just sad, when you're sitting at a meeting of a network against Nazis in your town, or against the next NATO meeting, or whatever, and instead of just planning our next action, people go on and on about those sort of sectarian inner-left political debates no one needs or wants at that place, then the pacifists leave saying you're all militant left-wing extremists, then the ultra-left leave saying you're all right-wing opportunists, until only you are left thinking: "Why the f*** can't you all just shut up about this nonsense and talk about what matters?"

The only way that works is, if you agree on a minimum consensus, maybe release one political statement based on that consensus, leave everything else concerning political statements to the groups, and talk about orga. Actions.
However, there are always the people who just don't get it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Separate. Because I don't think that the political groups supporting one form of capitalism can ever be conceived as part of the proletarian class.

[KurtFF8]

You must have strange ideas on what both "liberal" and "democracy" mean. Or maybe you were just too lazy to read what I wrote about anarchism. You read the word "liberal" and then happily started vomiting up your one-liners. I mean that can be entertaining at times, as this discussion shows, but it must have at least some connection to prior statements.

Perhaps I missed the part where you elaborated what you originally meant by "liberal democracy," but it seems there is quite a commonly accepted meaning amongst not only Leftists but liberals about what that term means.

[Thirsty Crow]

The fragmentation of the socialist left into small sects over political differences that are not relevant in the current period, such as the nature of the Soviet Union, needs to end.Such differences are hardly irrelevant inasmuch they necessarily imply other political and theoretical differences - the role of the party, the question of the party-state, the understanding of capital and so on. These all are relevant.


I support the concept of a "united front" that could include socialists, anarchists, and social democrats. At the same time I also believe in fighting for a socialist agenda of ending private profit, moving to production for human need, and seriously addressing the climate and environmental crises.

This kind of an united front simply cannot support any kind of a communist platform if it were to be a united front based on a minimum consensus. In other words, yet another reformist project draped in red flags. Why would you think that it is possible to work with social democrats?

[baronci]

It doesn't matter. Class struggle makes tendencies and politics irrelevant - it's a revolutionary creature in and of itself that exists independently of bourgeois reasoning.

[blake 3:17]

Good discussion!

Closing the thread because it's getting super long. Feel free to make another.