Theory issues

[Philosophos]

OK here's the deal. I don't know which brunch of communism to "embrace" (I don't know how the hell to call it). I've met with KKE members and they told me about the theory they believe in. The theory itself is good BUT I also believed the anarchists I've met, who say Leninists and the rest tendencies that look like M-L etc tend to become totalitarian once the party gathers lots of power. In addition I believe that each human can decide on his/her own ( imagine something like anarcho-syndicalism) there are not really stupid people, everyone has the same potential etc etc etc but I also believe that it's really hard to achieve this level of conciousness on people all at once and someone has to "lead them" to it.

As you see I'm kinda messed up on the theory part. I'm a 100% communist but the main issue I have is that I don't know how to exactly pick one of the main branches. I'm not asking you to tell me what I should choose, I'm asking for some advice about maybe something I'm missing and I can't really decide.

I hope I made you understand. Thanks in advance.

[ind_com]

Trial and error is a good method to choose a tendency. Participate in political activities of a group and see how effective it is. If you're not satisfied with it then move on. You can gain a lot of experience this way.

[Philosophos]

I've met with KKE members (leninists) and anarchists. I had great convercations with both teams and I've taken part in some demonstrations. The thing is that I'm not quite satisfied from both sides. My main problem is that I can't be convinced by anyone on who has the best theory (the most proper one if you understand me).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I've met with KKE members (leninists) and anarchists. I had great convercations with both teams and I've taken part in some demonstrations. The thing is that I'm not quite satisfied from both sides. My main problem is that I can't be convinced by anyone on who has the best theory (the most proper one if you understand me).

Yes, I understand. You are looking for a party which does not exist, a party which we are all hungering for and a few of us are concretely agitating for.

[BIXX]

I wouldn't even worry about it, as of now. I believe you should try to just develop your own theory, you know? Don't worry about accepting someone else's, just develop your own, and you will find an answer, even if you don't think it's the best, at least it's a start.

Looking for a theory to accept strikes me as compromising on your ideals, a lot of the time. Like, it's one thing if you find one you agree with 100%, but if it's ones that you have to bend to fit a theory, then it's not the right one for you.

[ind_com]

I've met with KKE members (leninists) and anarchists. I had great convercations with both teams and I've taken part in some demonstrations. The thing is that I'm not quite satisfied from both sides. My main problem is that I can't be convinced by anyone on who has the best theory (the most proper one if you understand me).

We have to keep in mind that theory is of no use if it cannot be implemented in practice. That is why, despite your differences with these groups, it is good to work in one of them. There are many aspects of theory which can be understood only after we have gone through a lot of practice.

Given the absence of a radical party, the tendency of most communists will be to gravitate to the already present groups. So, again, it is good to gain some organizational experience from those and interact with the more radical comrades. Without basic experience in organization, it is almost next to impossible to have a new group following a radical line.

[Philosophos]

thanks a lot everyone :)

[L1NKS]

I've met with KKE members (leninists) and anarchists. I had great convercations with both teams and I've taken part in some demonstrations. The thing is that I'm not quite satisfied from both sides. My main problem is that I can't be convinced by anyone on who has the best theory (the most proper one if you understand me).
If you want to be acknowledged and appreciated as an individual, go with the anarchists. If you want to be deceived and sooner or later be told what to do or not to do by some politbureau-schmock, then go with the Leninists.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, that's not biased at all.

Keep reading, keep debating, keep looking at what different groups are doing. Politics isn't just about theory, it's about action too, and it's also about consequences. If the results of political action go counter to the desired results then no matter how persuasive you think the 'theory' is it doesn't work, no matter how sociable you find the people that espouse it, they aren't helping the working class to come to consciousness of its necessary role in overthrowing capitalism.

Discuss with everyone; reaching for clarity is a process that we have to go through constantly. As far as Greece goes, I'm a fan of TPTG - http://www.tapaidiatisgalarias.org/?page_id=105 (http://www.tapaidiatisgalarias.org/?page_id=105)(that's a link to their English page, I'm sure you can find stuff in Greek from there).

[Hit The North]

If you want to be acknowledged and appreciated as an individual, go with the anarchists. If you want to be deceived and sooner or later be told what to do or not to do by some politbureau-schmock, then go with the Leninists.

If you think that the purpose of political work is to be "acknowledged and appreciated as an individual" then good luck to you, you delicate and unique little snowflake :rolleyes:.

To the OP: the purpose of political work is to make social change, turn people on to your way of seeing things and empower them to engage in their own related political work.

Whomever you choose to affiliate to when you put your shoulder to the wheel should be on the basis of practical struggle and getting the job done. Especially in your homeland right now.

[Red Economist]

OK here's the deal. I don't know which brunch of communism to "embrace" (I don't know how the hell to call it). I've met with KKE members and they told me about the theory they believe in. The theory itself is good BUT I also believed the anarchists I've met, who say Leninists and the rest tendencies that look like M-L etc tend to become totalitarian once the party gathers lots of power. In addition I believe that each human can decide on his/her own ( imagine something like anarcho-syndicalism) there are not really stupid people, everyone has the same potential etc etc etc but I also believe that it's really hard to achieve this level of conciousness on people all at once and someone has to "lead them" to it.

firstly, consider the possibility that you have the right to dissent in each group; no-one can be expected to agree with 'everything'. part of being in an organisation is about learning and developing anyway.
Leninists are democratic centralists and if they are 'open-minded' enough (the anzwer to that one will be the people themselves, not their ideology) will probably accept a member who will work with the majority, even if they have minority views. It should be a question of what your prepared to do, even if you disagree with it. If anarchists are organised, they probably won't mind either as organization will to some extent be a comprimise of their more individualistic principles.

If they do have a problem- then you've got an interesting question about how you want to be free; to be an individual with your own thoughts or to be in a group sharing in it's success. personally, if they can't comprimise some of their principles to make the best of what's on offer (in this case, your participation), I don't think it's likely they are going to get much done, since politics is about compromising with what you've got- not what you want to have.

Secondly, the question is whether you feel comfortable working with other people even if you disagree with them on certain issues. Principles are not absolutes; you can 'sell out' if you think there is a better way to pursue good intentions, but you always need to be clear on the costs of doing so and consider whether you think it is right to do so. The key question is whether you value the principle more than the outcomes you expected to get from compromising. it's an idea to try to step back and ask yourself whether what your giving up is your principles or your pride and make a decision based on that intuition of what you feel comfortable with, as opposed to following a potentially absolute conception of moral right.

[ckaihatsu]

OK here's the deal. I don't know which brunch of communism to "embrace" (I don't know how the hell to call it).


It's refreshing to see someone pay close attention to what line they've decided to take up -- many people get into politics through being personally affected, unfortunately, or else they've simply gotten swept up into a fetish for the act, or activism -- as bad as any typical fetish of the bourgeois.





If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there. - Lewis Carroll

http://philosiblog.com/2011/07/13/if-you-dont-know-where-youre-going/





I've met with KKE members and they told me about the theory they believe in. The theory itself is good




BUT I also believed the anarchists I've met, who say Leninists and the rest tendencies that look like M-L etc tend to become totalitarian once the party gathers lots of power.


This is an intractable position to have -- even leaving the fatalism and antagonism of that comment aside, what remains is that a (revolutionary) politics will *have* to be consistent in the policies it manifests, or else it will be a minority position, by definition. Many would rather substitute middle-class anxieties in place of actual politics, and then project them onto the rest of us as scare tactics, than admit what objective reality requires -- consistency of position.

From another thread:





We're only anti-authority when it comes to *bourgeois* authority -- *any* social organization, as of our own, necessarily *implies* 'authority' in the basic sense of having guidelines (policy) that remain consistent in practice, for all.





In addition I believe that each human can decide on his/her own ( imagine something like anarcho-syndicalism) there are not really stupid people, everyone has the same potential etc etc etc but I also believe that it's really hard to achieve this level of conciousness on people all at once and someone has to "lead them" to it.


This would be vanguardism, and is necessary to some extent, as you're acknowledging. Too much of it would be substitutionism.





As you see I'm kinda messed up on the theory part. I'm a 100% communist but the main issue I have is that I don't know how to exactly pick one of the main branches. I'm not asking you to tell me what I should choose, I'm asking for some advice about maybe something I'm missing and I can't really decide.

I hope I made you understand. Thanks in advance.


You may want to elaborate on the specific points you're currently dealing with, like the one above. Being '100% communist' means that you are able to clarify any relevant points to the *next* person, as some of us may be doing for you here -- a strength of arguments for your position will benefit your political participation no matter *where* you happen to be, organizationally.

[TheRedRose]

OK here's the deal. I don't know which brunch of communism to "embrace" (I don't know how the hell to call it). I've met with KKE members and they told me about the theory they believe in. The theory itself is good BUT I also believed the anarchists I've met, who say Leninists and the rest tendencies that look like M-L etc tend to become totalitarian once the party gathers lots of power. In addition I believe that each human can decide on his/her own ( imagine something like anarcho-syndicalism) there are not really stupid people, everyone has the same potential etc etc etc but I also believe that it's really hard to achieve this level of conciousness on people all at once and someone has to "lead them" to it.

As you see I'm kinda messed up on the theory part. I'm a 100% communist but the main issue I have is that I don't know how to exactly pick one of the main branches. I'm not asking you to tell me what I should choose, I'm asking for some advice about maybe something I'm missing and I can't really decide.

I hope I made you understand. Thanks in advance.


Don't join a party right away. Once you do it, it is hard to get out, and you will be "marked" because of it.