Why we so divided?

[Arlekino]

According to Wikipedia that how many leftist political parties in UK, there as well many in USA or Russia, or in any other countries. Sure some active some are not. My argument why so many mini parties argue for some ideologies, I wounder what is mean for workers arguments between parties. I am sure we all agree Marxist manifesto " All workers united around the world" So please shall we bash division and try to unite all workers. Many Thanks Arlekino
British left
Alliance for Green Socialism
Alliance for Workers' Liberty, stand as Socialist Unity in elections
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
Democratic Labour Party, party based in Walsall, split off from local Labour Party in 1996
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Independent Working Class Association, has councillors on Oxford City Council
International Socialist Group
Left List - split from Respect - Unity Coalition
Left Unity (UK) launched in 2013 by Ken Loach, following the release of his film Spirit of '45
New Communist Party of Britain
Peace and Progress Party
Permanent Revolution (UK)
People's Party, was the People's Labour Party that split off from the local Labour Party in the Furness region.
Red Party
Revolutionary Communist Group
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Socialist Appeal, a Trotskyist tendency active within the Labour Party
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labour Party
Socialist Party (England and Wales) part of TUSC (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition). Also stands as Socialist Alternative in elections.
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Resistance
Socialist Workers Party part of TUSC.
Spartacist League of Britain
Workers Power
Workers' Revolutionary Party

[cliffhanger]

People are divided because they have very different views of what is desirable or possible in terms of the state, the economy and culture. The vast majority of political parties in most countries reflect the prevailing bourgeois-capitalist culture, including within the worker's movement. Nowadays most self-described socialists don't know much about socialism and they just tail social-democrats.

[Skyhilist]

If you look at the number of different parties, it's seriously going to depress you.
Fortunately, the majority of reasonable socialists aren't a part of some arbitrary party that refuse to cooperate with anyone else. Having said this, dogmatism is certainly a problem. People sometimes tend to interpret their favorite tendency or theorists in a very dogmatic manner and get defensive when questioned, acting as though their ideas are infallible. Why do we do this? I think personally because most people involved in reading a lot of socialist theory enjoy two things in particular: 1) being right/refusing to admit they're wrong and 2) theorizing themselves about the way things ought to be based on what they see as logic. This combined with the way that certain groups of ideas are often framed I think accounts for a lot of the more dogmatic socialists.

[cliffhanger]

If you look at the number of different parties, it's seriously going to depress you.
Fortunately, the majority of reasonable socialists aren't a part of some arbitrary party that refuse to cooperate with anyone else. Having said this, dogmatism is certainly a problem. People sometimes tend to interpret their favorite tendency or theorists in a very dogmatic manner and get defensive when questioned, acting as though their ideas are infallible. Why do we do this? I think personally because most people involved in reading a lot of socialist theory enjoy two things in particular: 1) being right/refusing to admit they're wrong and 2) theorizing themselves about the way things ought to be based on what they see as logic. This combined with the way that certain groups of ideas are often framed I think accounts for a lot of the more dogmatic socialists.What would a non-dogmatic left look like in practice? Like what's the middle ground that's being missed out on? Some sort of left-social-democracy? Because there are lots of good reasons why left-social-democracy is kind of garbage and never works out. If it's something more radical than that, why isn't that dogmatic?

[Per Levy]

British left
Alliance for Green Socialism
Alliance for Workers' Liberty, stand as Socialist Unity in elections
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
Democratic Labour Party, party based in Walsall, split off from local Labour Party in 1996
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Independent Working Class Association, has councillors on Oxford City Council
International Socialist Group
Left List - split from Respect - Unity Coalition
Left Unity (UK) launched in 2013 by Ken Loach, following the release of his film Spirit of '45
New Communist Party of Britain
Peace and Progress Party
Permanent Revolution (UK)
People's Party, was the People's Labour Party that split off from the local Labour Party in the Furness region.
Red Party
Revolutionary Communist Group
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Socialist Appeal, a Trotskyist tendency active within the Labour Party
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labour Party
Socialist Party (England and Wales) part of TUSC (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition). Also stands as Socialist Alternative in elections.
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialist Resistance
Socialist Workers Party part of TUSC.
Spartacist League of Britain
Workers Power
Workers' Revolutionary Party

i still find that left unity is the troll party in that list, i mean to call your party "left unity" when there are more than 20 socialists something, worker here and communist ladida partys, is quite funny.

[Skyhilist]

What would a non-dogmatic left look like in practice? Like what's the middle ground that's being missed out on? Some sort of left-social-democracy? Because there are lots of good reasons why left-social-democracy is kind of garbage and never works out. If it's something more radical than that, why isn't that dogmatic?

I don't recall saying that we should collaborate with reformists, so I don't know where you got that from. What I mean is that within the rascal left people shouldn't be so inflexible as to only be willing to work with people who share the exact same set of beliefs as they do, especially when those sets of beliefs are free I'll considered and could benefit from a different perspective.

[cliffhanger]

I don't recall saying that we should collaborate with reformists, so I don't know where you got that from. What I mean is that within the rascal left people shouldn't be so inflexible as to only be willing to work with people who share the exact same set of beliefs as they do, especially when those sets of beliefs are free I'll considered and could benefit from a different perspective.
Why are you being dogmatic by excluding reformists?

[Arlekino]

Well I used joined socialist organisation, as I so different organisations campaigning in demo, ah selling different newspapers but we all anti capitalist. Assuming we are different for some ideologies, distancing from each other but I don't want to be like that. I wish we all come together and stand against division of workers. Is that make sense. I don't care some Stalinist some Trotsky or Leninist. Call me too simple but I would assure majority of workers don't give damn about philosophy, care of struggles, wages, prices of food or utilities.

[Misericordia]

What would "uniting" solve? Those sects are composed of I) idiots II) self-serving parasitical bureaucrats III) reactionaries and IV) opportunists. Unite the sects and you merely end up with a bigger collection of idiots, self-serving parasitical bureaucrats, reactionaries and opportunists. What good is that? I mean you could organize a sort of Special Olympics with such cadres but why even bother really?

[Arlekino]

What would "uniting" solve? Those sects are composed of I) idiots II) self-serving parasitical bureaucrats III) reactionaries and IV) opportunists. Unite the sects and you merely end up with a bigger collection of idiots, self-serving parasitical bureaucrats, reactionaries and opportunists. What good is that? I mean you could organize a sort of Special Olympics with such cadres but why even bother really?

Are you Marxist or too cynical?

[Skyhilist]

Why are you being dogmatic by excluding reformists?

Um, no. Dogmatism is thinking that only you can possibly be correct and refusing to work with practically anyone. Not compromising with reformism isn't dogmatism because it's not some arbitrary squabble between two esoteric tendencies -- to suggest that the differences between pro-capitalists and socialists can be as easily reconciled as the differences between say, two similar tendencies like left Coms an council communists is just ridiculous.

[TruProl]

Because it's a joke of ego's continiously clashing because despite agreeing on something like 99 per cent of how we should run a nation, are more willing to act like spoilt children over the tiniest details and are seriously living in fantasy land about their own importance.

I wonder who is the largest outwardly Marxist Party? That would be interesting to see party numbers to see just how powerful we could be unified.

[Misericordia]

Are you Marxist or too cynical?
Neither. Why?

[cliffhanger]

Um, no. Dogmatism is thinking that only you can possibly be correct and refusing to work with practically anyone. Not compromising with reformism isn't dogmatism because it's not some arbitrary squabble between two esoteric tendencies -- to suggest that the differences between pro-capitalists and socialists can be as easily reconciled as the differences between say, two similar tendencies like left Coms an council communists is just ridiculous.
Maybe dogmatism is about excluding reformists, and you're just being dogmatic about your definition of dogmatism. Or maybe people just accuse each other of dogmatism because they don't really have good ideas.

[Skyhilist]

Maybe dogmatism is about excluding reformists, and you're just being dogmatic about your definition of dogmatism. Or maybe people just accuse each other of dogmatism because they don't really have good ideas.

No, I'm using a common sense definition -- when you don't want to compromise with people extremely different from yourself on your long term goals, you're being a realist. When you refuse to work with anyone who differs from you slightly, you're being dogmatic. Very few people have exactly the same beliefs. How do you expect socialism to come about when no slightly varying beliefs are accepted within reason then or at the very least understood and not automatically condemned?

[cliffhanger]

How do you expect socialism to come about when no slightly varying beliefs are accepted within reason then or at the very least understood and not automatically condemned?
Uhhh by using secret police to systematically kill dissidents? Duh?

[Arlekino]

Neither. Why?

Go away you are annoying me.

[Comrade Jacob]

Ugh!!! I know why haven't they read the last words of the Communist-Manifesto? It's like they couldn't be bothered reading the last page! I get there a differences but there are mainly on historical figures and events not on the present or future. I think you'd have a good 10,000 member party if they all united.

[cliffhanger]

I get there a differences but there are mainly on historical figures and events not on the present or future.
Those historical figures and events are incredibly important, though? Like, take a position on present-day China. In the US, the CPUSA, FRSO, PSL and others support the present government in China. The ISO and most Trotskyists want a grassroots worker's revolution to topple the government. How are those people supposed to cooperate if they have two spokespeople and one of them is from the CPUSA and another is from the ISO? One will say they support China in the main and the other will say they want the country overthrown?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Those historical figures and events are incredibly important, though? Like, take a position on present-day China. In the US, the CPUSA, FRSO, PSL and others support the present government in China. The ISO and most Trotskyists want a grassroots worker's revolution to topple the government. How are those people supposed to cooperate if they have two spokespeople and one of them is from the CPUSA and another is from the ISO? One will say they support China in the main and the other will say they want the country overthrown?

Really getting the attention of workers there - theoretical positions on a land far, far away!

[cliffhanger]

Really getting the attention of workers there - theoretical positions on a land far, far away!
In some countries foreign policy is often debated as a political issue.

[Eniac]

in a previous post of this kind I was led to believe that what it takes to unite the left is some serious shit hitting the fan e.g. crisis beyond 2008 or a new rise of fascism which would create a situation where it is us or them (either the bourgeois class vs. proletarians or the fascist against anti-fascist), where dogmatism as defined above could be fatal, to individuals who practice it as well as to mankind as a whole, and where we would fight a tangible common enemy.

[Popular Front of Judea]

What would "uniting" solve? Those sects are composed of I) idiots II) self-serving parasitical bureaucrats III) reactionaries and IV) opportunists. Unite the sects and you merely end up with a bigger collection of idiots, self-serving parasitical bureaucrats, reactionaries and opportunists. What good is that? I mean you could organize a sort of Special Olympics with such cadres but why even bother really?

Didn't Monty Python do a skit using that premise? :grin:

[liberlict]

I don't recall saying that we should collaborate with reformists, so I don't know where you got that from. What I mean is that within the rascal left people shouldn't be so inflexible as to only be willing to work with people who share the exact same set of beliefs as they do, especially when those sets of beliefs are free I'll considered and could benefit from a different perspective.

Was that a Freudian Slip? ;)

[Popular Front of Judea]

I don't recall saying that we should collaborate with reformists, so I don't know where you got that from. What I mean is that within the rascal left people shouldn't be so inflexible as to only be willing to work with people who share the exact same set of beliefs as they do, especially when those sets of beliefs are free I'll considered and could benefit from a different perspective.

"Rascal left"? Sounds like my kind of left. Where do I sign up? :grin:

[liberlict]

Failed doctrines invite patches.