Left- Unity

[orh org]

As Leftists, we all share certain principles in common;
-The equality of all people.
-The progressive goal of society.
-The evil and abusive tendencies of capitalism and dictatorship.
-The right of all people to control their lives.
All of our minor differences in philosophies; Socialist, Communist, ect, are irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that(in the USA) we are already a small and divided minority. I put to you that we consciously agree to ignore our minor differences and squabbles in order to present an organized, unified, formidable front.

[RedBen]

As Leftists, we all share certain principles in common;
-The equality of all people.
-The progressive goal of society.
-The evil and abusive tendencies of capitalism and dictatorship.
-The right of all people to control their lives.
All of our minor differences in philosophies; Socialist, Communist, ect, are irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that(in the USA) we are already a small and divided minority. I put to you that we consciously agree to ignore our minor differences and squabbles in order to present an organized, unified, formidable front.
i whole heartedly agree... now be prepared to be called an idealist "smithers, release the hounds"

[synthesis]

As Leftists, we all share certain principles in common;
-The equality of all people.
-The progressive goal of society.
-The evil and abusive tendencies of capitalism and dictatorship.
-The right of all people to control their lives.
All of our minor differences in philosophies; Socialist, Communist, ect, are irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that(in the USA) we are already a small and divided minority. I put to you that we consciously agree to ignore our minor differences and squabbles in order to present an organized, unified, formidable front.

A front against whom, exactly?

[motion denied]

To do what exactly?

Left unity is a myth. 'Unity' is reached through the struggle, which is at the same time against capitalism and against other 'leftist tendencies' (to a lesser extent or not). The differences can't be put aside so easily, for they are based on theoretical grounds; that is, good luck trying to unite council communists and marxist-leninists etc. On an immediate tactical situtaion (like a strike or march) it might be possible.

Also, unite whom? The workers? I guess workers' union does not equal a bunch of of parties/orgs forming a front.

As for your four items, I'm not quite sure of what they mean. 'Equality of all people', what equality? On what basis? What is the 'progressive goal of society'?

[argeiphontes]

Since communism is completely justified just on the basis of its own content, developing an orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy would be helpful in moving forward. Communists would have to agree on a basic set of principles, of course, so that the organization wouldn't be merely reformist. Multiple strategies could be employed simultaneously and the results just checked empirically. Theoretical squabbling should be relegated to theoretical venues like RevLeft. A little less creativity needs to be used arguing about the past, and employed in finding some creative solutions that are justified by some modern communization theories or something?

Is this kinda what you're saying?

edit: I've seen a couple of interesting things, check out libcom (http://www.libcom.org) and IOPS (http://www.iopsociety.org).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I agree that there is a great need for unity among the left. The left has (probably since the first organizations) had to deal with sectarianism. Wether that was by disassociating themselves from the workers' movement or by splits in the workers movement, sometimes justified but who knows?

The problem we are faced with now is basically the legacy of about a hundred years of constant splitting. Sometimes these splits were necessary, but often times the differences in the movement are greatly exaggerated. Does it really matter wether the USSR was state capitalism, a degenerated workers' state or bureaucratic collectivist? Are those really a reason to split? My answer is that it is not. The splitting over relatively small issues is problematic because we have a number of groups which have a lot of the same stances on issues (opposition to imperialism, better working conditions etc.) but are scattered. The various leftist groups are duplicating efforts and are limited by their scale. While there is a distribution of labour needed in the work and when working together our efforts can produce better research and have more far-reaching impact. You cannot expect anyone to be interested in one of the various groups after getting five almost identical pamphlets at a demonstration. Any sane person would run as fast as they can from any of these sects.

What is problematic is that ideas are not allowed to develop. Every single group works in a bureaucratic centralist fashion, expelling anyone who does not fully agree with the party line. While ideas, tactics, strategies don't develop that way. They develop when they clash, when they are reformed after trying them, when different ideas are allowed to grow, i.e. in a democratic environment.

But would we then want unity with anyone? I don't think we should. I think unity should be based on a few principles and the acceptance (not agreement!) of a programme following from these principles. I think there are three principles that are essential: class-independence, democracy (in organization, the extension of democracy in society and in the society that we want) and internationalism. We can build a political programme following from these principles of how we think we can work towards our goal of communism. It is important that such a programme is accepted but is not seen as a dogma, the programme should be able to be changed and contested by members.

To get such a unity would imply a cultural revolution within the left. So we can develop a culture of democracy and criticism instead of one of bureaucracy and dogmatism. Such a struggle is not an easy one, but it is needed if the left ever wants to seriously become a mass-workers movement capable of holding political power and ending capitalism.

[synthesis]

You're forgetting a major source of disagreement within the communist left, which is substitutionism. If I (as a hypothetical person) strongly disagree with subsitutionism (which I do, but that's not important) then "left unity" as you've described it here is irrelevant at best.

A major problem here is that you draw entirely idealist conclusions from your empirical data, which then morph into idealist solutions to the problems you've described.

[argeiphontes]

A major problem here is that you draw entirely idealist conclusions from your empirical data, which then morph into idealist solutions to the problems you've described.

That begs the question. For any idea to even arise, it must have material antecedents. How are these ideas Idealist?

[synthesis]

That begs the question. For any idea to even arise, it must have material antecedents. How are these ideas Idealist?

Read:


What is problematic is that ideas are not allowed to develop. Every single group works in a bureaucratic centralist fashion, expelling anyone who does not fully agree with the party line. While ideas, tactics, strategies don't develop that way. They develop when they clash, when they are reformed after trying them, when different ideas are allowed to grow, i.e. in a democratic environment.

...

To get such a unity would imply a cultural revolution within the left. So we can develop a culture of democracy and criticism instead of one of bureaucracy and dogmatism.

This is positing that ideas, not conditions, are the driving force and most important elements that affect a communist movement's ability to propagate. Maybe it's not the basis of his entire political worldview, but it's certainly underlying these particular sentences.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Read:



This is positing that ideas, not conditions, are the driving force and most important elements that affect a communist movement's ability to propagate. Maybe it's not the basis of his entire political worldview, but it's certainly underlying these particular sentences.

Hardly. First of all, I never said ideas have no material basis, on the contrary, I said that ideas within a party are shaped by the structure of a party. Nor do I think that ideas are the driving force of the communist movement. It is clear that there has to be a material basis for communist organization, however this also means that out of that arise ideas on how to make use of for example economic downturns, political crises, economic crises etc. These ideas can only be used if there is a material basis for them amd from those experiences we can draw our conclusions. But the issue I have with the existing left is that instead of learning from experience they desperately hold on to failed strategies.

[argeiphontes]

^ It sounded to me like you were saying that conditions aren't good for ideas, so ideas need to be brought to bear on conditions. That's not Idealist, I would think, because a consequence of historical materialism is that any idea you have will have been conditioned by material conditions, e.g. the situation of the working class. Developing strategy and bringing it to bear is not Idealist, otherwise, why is use of any strategy not idealist? Then you'd just be waiting for spontaneous class consciousness to arise or something, by my estimation. I still don't see why, for example, "developing a culture of democracy" is Idealist.

(Personally, I think it's perfectly fine to just try to think of stuff in case it might work. People solve problems like that all the time. "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is." ;) )

[synthesis]

Hardly. First of all, I never said ideas have no material basis, on the contrary, I said that ideas within a party are shaped by the structure of a party. Nor do I think that ideas are the driving force of the communist movement. It is clear that there has to be a material basis for communist organization, however this also means that out of that arise ideas on how to make use of for example economic downturns, political crises, economic crises etc. These ideas can only be used if there is a material basis for them amd from those experiences we can draw our conclusions. But the issue I have with the existing left is that instead of learning from experience they desperately hold on to failed strategies.

Your criticism of existing communist parties does not incorporate any real class analysis in any way, shape or form; rather, you argue that the problem is that people are "getting five almost identical pamphlets at a demonstration," that "ideas are not allowed to develop," and that there is no "culture of democracy and criticism instead of one of bureaucracy and dogmatism."

Somehow - you don't offer specifics - it is these attributes that will allow the left to build "a mass-workers movement capable of holding political power and ending capitalism," again, rather than anything to do with class analysis. The substance of your conclusions and solutions is therefore both idealist and substitutionist, the specter of vanguardism lingering over them, as it does much of the left. This is a good example of why "left unity" is a meaningless phrase.

[argeiphontes]

"culture of democracy and criticism instead of one of bureaucracy and dogmatism."

Somehow - you don't offer specifics

There's an intense culture of democracy and criticism around the issue of Hoxha's beard. How's that for specifics? ;) Whether or not someone is mistaken about strategy, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why people are able to rally around mainstream political groups despite theoretical differences, but the same can't be achieved on the left.

IMO, it could be because there is no tangible, immediate goal, except "world revolution" which appears infinitely far away, all the more thanks to what I perceive as a quasi-religious, messianic undertone. That might be idealistic ;)

Of course, it is also partly due to the "narcissism of small differences" and entrenchment that results from being marginalized.

[hashem]

As Leftists, we all share certain principles in common;

most of opportunists agree with these principles as well, but communists should expose their true nature. any servant of bourgeoisie can verbally accept these principles but throw them away when it comes to practice.

[Thirsty Crow]

As Leftists, we all share certain principles in common;
-The equality of all people.
-The progressive goal of society.
-The evil and abusive tendencies of capitalism and dictatorship.
-The right of all people to control their lives.All of these are as vague as they get. Therefore, the points can't function as a basis for a left unity project (unless you'd wish to push concrete articulations of class interest to the impotent background). But the project is not even worthwhile in the first place.


All of our minor differences in philosophies; Socialist, Communist, ect, are irrelevant,These are not philosophical differences, but huge differences of political orientation and platform.


especially in light of the fact that(in the USA) we are already a small and divided minority. I put to you that we consciously agree to ignore our minor differences and squabbles in order to present an organized, unified, formidable front.
What formidable front would that be? The one that preaches to the workers about abstract values?

In short, if you enlarged the membership of leftist sects by a ten thousand times, and then pushed them all together into a happy family of one party, still you wouldn't have class struggle on the horizon. Because the latter doesn't depend on the former.



Of course, it is also partly due to the "narcissism of small differences" and entrenchment that results from being marginalized.
This, on the other hand, is a valuable point and amounts to real sectarianism, or to word it in a better way, it may involve sectarianism (which is something quite different from assessing Marxism-Leninism or anarchism as a counter-revolutionary ideology).

[Misericordia]

So currently we have a hundred tiny sects of incompetent idiots, self-serving bureaucrats, political prostitutes, opportunists, revisionists and outright reactionaries. Put them all under the same room and exactly what changes? You'll still be stuck with the same old worthless morons as before. Just with a higher concentration of them than before. Which, if anything, is the opposite of improvement.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So currently we have a hundred tiny sects of incompetent idiots, self-serving bureaucrats, political prostitutes, opportunists, revisionists and outright reactionaries. Put them all under the same room and exactly what changes? You'll still be stuck with the same old worthless morons as before. Just with a higher concentration of them than before. Which, if anything, is the opposite of improvement.

I agree, we can't unite the sects on their current sect-basis. If that is even possible, which I doubt, it is disaster waiting to happen. However, this is also the reason why we need to advocate for change within the workers movement. Support or advocate things like democratization of unions (among other things), call out the bureaucratic centralist sects for what they are bureaucratic centralist sects. Such a struggle against the many ills and weaknesses of the left is a prerequisite for working-class unity.

[Misericordia]

I agree, we can't unite the sects on their current sect-basis. If that is even possible, which I doubt, it is disaster waiting to happen. However, this is also the reason why we need to advocate for change within the workers movement. Support or advocate things like democratization of unions (among other things), call out the bureaucratic centralist sects for what they are bureaucratic centralist sects. Such a struggle against the many ills and weaknesses of the left is a prerequisite for working-class unity.
So basically you want to radically transform every facet of the current left into its opposite to such an extent that it no way resembles its former self? "Herculean labor" doesn't even begin to cover that.

You can't turn a cancer that plagues the working class into a vehicle for its victory. There is a prerequisite for socialist unity, and it isn't what you suggest - a mere application of band-aids here and there on the cracks of the rotten corpse that is the left). The prerequisite for socialist unity is the complete and utter destruction of that parasitic cancer which sucks the vitality and energy of the proletariat - the left - and a re-building of the socialist movement from the foundation. Your Frankenstein's monster ain't gonna cut it.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So basically you want to radically transform every facet of the current left into its opposite to such an extent that it no way resembles its former self? "Herculean labor" doesn't even begin to cover that.

You can't turn a cancer that plagues the working class into a vehicle for its victory. There is a prerequisite for socialist unity, and it isn't what you suggest - a mere application of band-aids here and there on the cracks of the rotten corpse that is the left). The prerequisite for socialist unity is the complete and utter destruction of that parasitic cancer which sucks the vitality and energy of the proletariat - the left - and a re-building of the socialist movement from the foundation. Your Frankenstein's monster ain't gonna cut it.

I suggest you read my post.

[MarxSchmarx]

So basically you want to radically transform every facet of the current left into its opposite to such an extent that it no way resembles its former self? "Herculean labor" doesn't even begin to cover that.

You can't turn a cancer that plagues the working class into a vehicle for its victory. There is a prerequisite for socialist unity, and it isn't what you suggest - a mere application of band-aids here and there on the cracks of the rotten corpse that is the left). The prerequisite for socialist unity is the complete and utter destruction of that parasitic cancer which sucks the vitality and energy of the proletariat - the left - and a re-building of the socialist movement from the foundation. Your Frankenstein's monster ain't gonna cut it.

Splendid rhetoric but how exactly do you propose to rebuild the socialist movement "from the foundation"? Surely it cannot mean, say, banishing people of other sects into the ocean. So if it involves forming a group of hitherto unaffiliated individuals you manage to somehow persuade into yet another leftist sect, well, I still fail to see how that advances things. Every other leftist sect is pretty much calling for "rebuilding from the foundation," so I sgtruggle to see how you are proposing anything that is really all that further from the status quo. Yes we all agree bandaids are insufficient to cure cancer, but so is just calling for the cancer to be cured.