How do you unite the left?

[Sinister Intents]

I've been thinking about this lately, all of the different tendencies of the left that fight each other, how would you unite the left? How would you maintain the unity? Is it impossible to unite the left?

[Aleister Granger]

I know I'm pushing the whole Duck Dynasty bullshit a bit much, but look at it: it's uniting the Right.
What the Left needs is some sort of hero. The "leaderless revolt" that was Occupy (yes, it was a revolt, not a revolution like some of my ex-Oc friends like saying it was) failed because there was no central figure. There was no real call to arms. The Right is coming together to defend a walking bougeois cliche and the Left is just passing it off as nothing; if the Left had that sort of confidence that they can come together to fight as one again, for a goal they know they can achieve, then maybe we can rise again.

We just don't have that. The Left is utterly fractured at this point and can't even defend itself from the whole "liberals are leftist socialist Marxist elitist Muslim atheists and Hitler was a far left-wing communist" delusion.

[helot]

I fail to see the point in trying to unite groups with differing aims and practices. As revolutionaries i don't think our focus should be 'uniting the left' which can be anyone from capitalists wanting to feel "progressive" to those opposed to the former's very existence. Instead, our aim must be uniting the workers in the attempt to pave the way for their self-emancipation.


I'd go as far as to say that uniting the left is at best a fantasy and at worst a method of recuperation because within the left there are conflicting class interests.

[Comrade Samuel]

Question of my life....

I disagree with Aleister's suggestion however, wanting to rally around single infallible heroic figures is exactly the kind of thing that we should be avoiding. By making Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky ect. ect. ect... into these perfect idealized caricatures as opposed to seeing them as the real flawed human beings that they were we've compromised our collective intellectual integrity and put ourselves on the same level as the fascists.

Occupy was a complete farce but it was not the lack of leadership that made it so, rather it was the American bourgeoisie's adeptness in dealing with slightly disgruntled liberals and agitators who could not cooperate with one another to save their own lives.

[Comrade Jacob]

We should (not going to :() stop quarreling about the past and look forward to the future.
Put the little differences to the side and work with the main goal: Socialism & Communism.

[Sinister Intents]

I fail to see the point in trying to unite groups with differing aims and practices. As revolutionaries i don't think our focus should be 'uniting the left' which can be anyone from capitalists wanting to feel "progressive" to those opposed to the former's very existence. Instead, our aim must be uniting the workers in the attempt to pave the way for their self-emancipation.


I'd go as far as to say that uniting the left is at best a fantasy and at worst a method of recuperation because within the left there are conflicting class interests.


We should (not going to :() stop quarreling about the past and look forward to the future.
Put the little differences to the side and work with the main goal: Socialism & Communism.

Well, what could be done to unite workers at least? The goal of the far left is the same, socialism. I don't see reason in why we can't unite in some way. Perhaps create propaganda and other things that bring workers and the left closer.

[Leftsolidarity]

As my header has been "Unite the left" since I've been here maybe I should add my two cents.

I don't think there will be any meaningful unity unless the struggle really heats up. When that happens you can establish pragmatic unity around joint objectives and needs. I don't view unity in the sense of some mass socialist party that all the different tendencies are in; I find that foolish and completely unable to be put into practice. I view Leftist unity in the way of different parties/organizations working together whether it's to fight against police repression against a particular group, mobilize for an event that they think will help advance the struggle, etc.

Except for certain organizations that share similar programs, I don't think we'll see parties officially dissolving into each other. "Unity" is something that is ongoing that will come and go as the struggle heats up or settles down.

[Hrafn]

It's not that hard.

[The Idler]

Leftist unity, whether by a charismatic leader, or lowest-common-denominator demands, is irrelevant to socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

Leftist unity, whether by a charismatic leader, or lowest-common-denominator demands, is irrelevant to socialism.

Why be it irrelevant? Wouldn't it help achieve socialism?

[Red Economist]

I think what will unite the left is when capitalism screws up so badly that everyone agrees there is a problem with the system itself. Instead of looking back at to what went wrong, people will have to concentrate on solving their common problems. Then, given an informed choice, people will agree that the solution is some form of communism to replace it.

[tallguy]

From the small dip of the toe I have been engaging in over the last few months on left forums such as this, I will say the left's wounds are largely self-inflicted. I can't believe the amount of endless waffle about the finer points of fuck-all I have read on a regular basis here and elsewhere, the obsession with politically correct linguistic niceties and all the rest of the irrelevant bollocks.

If you want to know how to effect mass insurrection against this current system, try finding out what is making it hard for ordinary people today to get by and address those issues, both in terms of practical local solutions and also in terms of a coherent set of broader policies fitted to their needs. Dump the abstract theory, at least when when it comes to communicating with people and helping them improve their lives. In doing so, you will have far more effect on their beliefs. People are hurting right now. And yet, all I hear is waffle about how change has to happen all at once across the entire planet otherwise it's not socialism, apparently. I've got to tell you, as a no-mark, run-of-the-mill working-class man, coming on here has proved to be a profoundly depressing experience.

And you lot wonder why ordinary people are swayed by cheap right wing propaganda?

If this place is in any way of representative of the revolutionary left, then there's no bloody hope. Now, I know a number of you will comfort yourselves with the notion I'm just trolling by saying all this. Don't kid yourselves or let yourselves of the hook by doing so. I'm not trolling. I mean it.

[reb]

Why would any communist want to unite "the left"? For what possible reason? To participate in bourgeois parliaments? Fuck off.


We should (not going to :() stop quarreling about the past and look forward to the future.
Put the little differences to the side and work with the main goal: Socialism & Communism.

Maybe you start by removing your Stalin avatar, stop trying to defend the USSR, defending defunct ideologies and cos-playing as a Bolshevik like the rest of your larping tendency.

[Czy]

"Uniting" the left is a bit of a problem considering the various groups that are placed under "the left". As revolutionary leftists we should not be working with social democrats and bourgeois opportunists who masquerade as champions of the working class.

[Czy]

Maybe you start by removing your Stalin avatar, stop trying to defend the USSR, defending defunct ideologies and cos-playing as a Bolshevik like the rest of your larping tendency.

Lmao, sorry but this comment is so much win

:laugh:

[Brotto Rühle]

Left unity is a joke and a waste of time. The only unity we need is class unity in the time of struggle and revolution. Not to unite this Trot with that anarchist, and this Maoist with that Hoxhaist, or this Centrist with this ultra-leftist. Get a grip people, because your unity is irrelevant. Go party build and LARP in private.

[Sinister Intents]

Why would any communist want to unite "the left"? For what possible reason? To participate in bourgeois parliaments? Fuck off.

My thoughts were that uniting the left would help, I'm more talking about getting anarchists and communists to work together, with no reactionaries. Bourgeois parliaments?

edit: I see how uniting the left is useless.

[The Idler]

The Left includes anti-socialists and those who don't support class struggle, even those who don't believe society is divided by class.

[RedWaves]

I don't think rallying around one person and wishing he was a super hero would really do much. That's what Libertarians do with Ron Paul, and to be quite frank it's ridiculous cause anyone can see just how insane Ron Paul worship is.


I don't want a super hero, we're not going to get one. We could prop up Marx, Engels, and Lenin all day and accomplish nothing. This isn't about following a leader, you have your own mind and your own decisions to make on what you feel is right or wrong.


No one is really uniting if you look at it. I think 9/11 was the last time you really seen people come together and really unite as a whole cause it brought reality to people in America.
Sure the right wing is defending Phil but when you really look at it, they aren't doing much at all. The whole "controversy" isn't even really a controversy.

[Sabot Cat]

Well, we're all anti-capitalists with a burning desire to displace the bourgeois from power. Unfortunately, even the proponents of anti-capitalism united in that cause, we still wouldn't have the necessary people and resources to stage a revolution. Nonetheless, it would make it easier to disseminate our views to the rest of the proletariat if we weren't constantly at each others' throats. I'm often harsh on Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and Hoxhaists, but as long as you favor liberating workers you can consider me your ally.

[Comrade Jacob]

Maybe you start by removing your Stalin avatar, stop trying to defend the USSR, defending defunct ideologies and cos-playing as a Bolshevik like the rest of your larping tendency.

I never said we should not have opinions and tendencies I said we should look past those, I have trots and anarchists as friends. If having an avatar is cos-playing then you must be cos-playing as John Steiner, I don't get my nickers in a bunch about it.

[Darius]

These kinds of people are the reason left is in such disarray:


I fail to see the point in trying to unite groups with differing aims and practices.


Leftist unity, whether by a charismatic leader, or lowest-common-denominator demands, is irrelevant to socialism.


Why would any communist want to unite "the left"? For what possible reason? To participate in bourgeois parliaments? Fuck off.


Left unity is a joke and a waste of time. The only unity we need is class unity in the time of struggle and revolution. Not to unite this Trot with that anarchist, and this Maoist with that Hoxhaist, or this Centrist with this ultra-leftist. Get a grip people, because your unity is irrelevant. Go party build and LARP in private.

Since whole idea of socialism is based on solidarity, how can you even think that future society will function by your ideals then you can't even unite with your ideological allies. This whole talk about class, worker unity first is rubbish. How will you achieve that without THE UNITED AVANGARD OF DEDICATED REVOLUTIONARIES??!

[reb]

I never said we should not have opinions and tendencies I said we should look past those, I have trots and anarchists as friends. If having an avatar is cos-playing then you must be cos-playing as John Steiner, I don't get my nickers in a bunch about it.


We should (not going to :() stop quarreling about the past and look forward to the future.
Put the little differences to the side and work with the main goal: Socialism & Communism.

Then drop all of this larping bullshit. Saying that we should stop quarreling about the past and look to the future and but still have an avatar of Stalin and maoism as your tendency is hypocritical.

[reb]

These kinds of people are the reason left is in such disarray:









Since whole idea of socialism is based on solidarity, how can you even think that future society will function by your ideals then you can't even unite with your ideological allies. This whole talk about class, worker unity first is rubbish. How will you achieve that without THE UNITED AVANGARD OF DEDICATED REVOLUTIONARIES??!

Fuck off, revolution has nothing to do with a "united vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries". That is a bourgeois social-democratic utopian pipe dream, one that needs this stupid revisionist idea of "socialism". Revolution is the action of the proletariat, not of a vanguard party and history has shown us this. I can't believe that there are morons who still go around arguing for the exact same second international bullshit of combing the workers' movement with socialism/marxism.

[Sinister Intents]

Then drop all of this larping bullshit. Saying that we should stop quarreling about the past and look to the future and but still have an avatar of Stalin and maoism as your tendency is hypocritical.

It's just his profile, why does it matter? How is this larping?

[Comrade Jacob]

Then drop all of this larping bullshit. Saying that we should stop quarreling about the past and look to the future and but still have an avatar of Stalin and maoism as your tendency is hypocritical.

I'm saying we should unite on the main goal, that is all. I don't care if very few people here are Maoists I care if we are all socialists at the least. I am used to my avatar, I'll get rid of it eventually but for now it's staying.

[BIXX]

These kinds of people are the reason left is in such disarray:

Since whole idea of socialism is based on solidarity, how can you even think that future society will function by your ideals then you can't even unite with your ideological allies. This whole talk about class, worker unity first is rubbish. How will you achieve that without THE UNITED AVANGARD OF DEDICATED REVOLUTIONARIES??!

How can I be in solidarity with someone who is opposed to my very ideas? Why should I unite with some asshole simply because socialism?

Socialism means many different things to many different people. I'm not gonna unite on that basis.

I may work with someone I disagree with temporarily, but honestly, I would never consider a Leftist my comrade, because I don't see Leftists as advocating the level of freedom I seek.

[Leftsolidarity]

Fuck off, revolution has nothing to do with a "united vanguard of dedicated revolutionaries". That is a bourgeois social-democratic utopian pipe dream, one that needs this stupid revisionist idea of "socialism". Revolution is the action of the proletariat, not of a vanguard party and history has shown us this. I can't believe that there are morons who still go around arguing for the exact same second international bullshit of combing the workers' movement with socialism/marxism.

Actually if history has shown anything it is that a vanguard is absolutely essential to a successful overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. You can get as angry and rude as you want but it doesn't make your point anymore valid. Your ultra-leftist nonsense doesn't even have a track record because there's never been a successful socialist revolution without the leadership of a vanguard party. So throw your adjectives around like "bourgeois social-democratic utopian pipe dream" if it makes you feel better but how about you don't pretend that "history has shown us this" because history has shown you wrong.

Also, what's with your obsession with calling people larpers? People can have an avatar of a dead person and identify with the largest and most active socialist tendency in the world without living in the past and "larping". Get your head out of your ass.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm saying we should unite on the main goal, that is all. I don't care if very few people here are Maoists I care if we are all socialists at the least.

The problem is if I have even remotely the same goals as maoists, and if it's beneficiary for a large group of people to unite behind a program so watered down it no longer has any real content and meaning.

[Leftsolidarity]

Why is everyone caught up on the idea that the entire left needs to draft some program together that we all agree on? We're not all going to agree on things ever. That's why we identify as different tendencies.

It's called unity through struggle. If 2 groups are involved in the same struggle and are trying to defeat the same enemy, there is an actual basis for unity to achieve their goal. Not just unity for the sake of unity. When you actually get off the internet into the real world struggle you find that you might end up working with a lot of different groups and individuals that do not share your particular line but you work with them anyways because you share common goals. This is the most elementary of shit people.

[Brotto Rühle]

Why is everyone caught up on the idea that the entire left needs to draft some program together that we all agree on? We're not all going to agree on things ever. That's why we identify as different tendencies.

It's called unity through struggle. If 2 groups are involved in the same struggle and are trying to defeat the same enemy, there is an actual basis for unity to achieve their goal. Not just unity for the sake of unity. When you actually get off the internet into the real world struggle you find that you might end up working with a lot of different groups and individuals that do not share your particular line but you work with them anyways because you share common goals. This is the most elementary of shit people.

Most of the Stalinists would have the rest of us in forced labour camps, or dead, if they had their way. Don't give me the bullshit otherwise.

[Leftsolidarity]

Most of the Stalinists would have the rest of us in forced labour camps, or dead, if they had their way.

Did that have absolutely anything to do with what I said?

[Brotto Rühle]

Did that have absolutely anything to do with what I said?

Yeah, it ties in with the whole "left unity" bullshit you're spouting. Program or not. I'm confused as to how that's confusing to you.

[the debater]

Perhaps we could compare our differences in our ideologies and from those comparisons, come up with some compromised ideology that can serve as a platform on which all leftists can unite. If we're lucky, we'll discover that our differences are only on minor details, and not on the more major issues. In the end, a party platform would be invaluable to left unity.

We should also consider the idea that for some issues, like how best to implement socialism, the answers to such issues might be more complex than a simple "this way is best" or "that way is best". It might turn out that different ways work best under different circumstances. For example, in a really poverty-stricken country or region like Malaysia, where workers have terrible working conditions, the best approach to implementing socialism would probably be violent revolution. However, if we switch over to a country like Great Britain or Canada, if middle-class, suburban anarchists tried to implement violent revolution in wealthy regions, they would only embarrass themselves and the movement. The main point I'm trying to make in this paragraph is; think critically, and outside of the box when it comes to certain disagreements leftists might have.

Another major issue I see is that for the world's poor, they still mostly live in countries that are horrendously socially conservative on issues like gay marriage, abortion, or even women having greater political power. For these poor countries, we leftists would somehow have to ensure that along with economic revolution, social revolution would also be implemented. How do we address this concern?

Another thing to understand is why do people not join socialism? Is it because they believe we're all a bunch of crazy hippies who don't believe in working full-time jobs? Is it because socialism is considered an evil ideology that is synonymous with death camps, and dictatorships? We have to fight against the negative stereotypes portrayed of us in the media and in popular culture. We also have to work hard to debunk common negative misconceptions people have about the history of socialism and communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why be it irrelevant? Wouldn't it help achieve socialism?

The achievement of socialism is not dependent on the activity of a politicised minority. The achievement of socialism depends on the arrival of a (potentially) revolutionary period where the working class is moved into action of its own accord, independent of the individual free will -- it cannot be induced by a minority of militant socialists. Only when this revolutionary situation has arisen can revolutionary left political organisations influence the path of the social revolution -- accelerate, impair, curtail, etc.

However, I do believe it is important for the non-Leninist, anti-Stalinist revolutionary left (council communists, anarcho-communists, orthodox Marxists, left communists, Marxist-humanists) to be united and work in concert with the 'Left-Leninists' (some Trotskyist tendencies, by no means all). Not because I think this will accelerate the achievement of the revolutionary situation. This is exclusively important to agitate in the organs of workers' power that arise in a revolutionary situation to agitate against the bourgeois-socialist opportunists (Marxist-Leninists, some Trotskyists, anti-neoliberal social-democrats) that want to stray the social revolution toward the state management of capital.

Left unity insofar it is against the Marxist-Leninists.


Perhaps we could compare our differences in our ideologies and from those comparisons, come up with some compromised ideology that can serve as a platform on which all leftists can unite. If we're lucky, we'll discover that our differences are only on minor details, and not on the more major issues. In the end, a party platform would be invaluable to left unity.

We should also consider the idea that for some issues, like how best to implement socialism, the answers to such issues might be more complex than a simple "this way is best" or "that way is best". It might turn out that different ways work best under different circumstances. For example, in a really poverty-stricken country or region like Malaysia, where workers have terrible working conditions, the best approach to implementing socialism would probably be violent revolution. However, if we switch over to a country like Great Britain or Canada, if middle-class, suburban anarchists tried to implement violent revolution in wealthy regions, they would only embarrass themselves and the movement. The main point I'm trying to make in this paragraph is; think critically, and outside of the box when it comes to certain disagreements leftists might have.

That has nothing to do with "violent revolution", it has to do with the presence or not, social sentiment, that enables violent revolution (or not), which we call the non-revolutionary period or situation or a (potentially) revolutionary situation. The UK is not in a potentially revolutionary situation, Greece appeared to be somewhat approaching it, but is on the way back since a year or so. Therefore black clad anarchists smashing a window appear foolish in the eyes of the population, but rioting fire fighters in Greece do not. Incidentally, Malaysia is a first world country as well and it would be just as embarrassing to try to force a violent revolution there.



Another thing to understand is why do people not join socialism? Is it because they believe we're all a bunch of crazy hippies who don't believe in working full-time jobs? Is it because socialism is considered an evil ideology that is synonymous with death camps, and dictatorships? We have to fight against the negative stereotypes portrayed of us in the media and in popular culture. We also have to work hard to debunk common negative misconceptions people have about the history of socialism and communism.

That doesn't work when you ally with Stalinists and Maoists.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm really confused by this sentiment that the class-conscious proletariat that desires revolution is somehow not a part of the left, or that workers are never a part of the membership of leftist parties. When most of the working class realizes that they are subjugated by capitalism, it's not as though they'll magically be united anymore than the rest of the working class who is already a part of the revolutionary left. There will be differing tendencies among them too, and this problem simply won't go away at that stage either.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm really confused by this sentiment that the class-conscious proletariat that desires revolution is somehow not a part of the left, or that workers are never a part of the membership of leftist parties.

No-one is saying this. It has more to do with the fact that pro-revolutionaries, "the left" and so on are merely sections of the working class. Sections don't make revolutions (and the leftist sections even less so). It's a question how these revolutionary sections work among each other and among the working class (and as working class), in assemblies, councils and other spontaneous formations and actions.

EDIT: I see that I misunderstood the first part of the sentence. The above is a response to the latter part. As for the left, their goal is different ways of managing capital, not abolishing it all together. The point isn't that they're not communists, but that they are capitalists.

[consuming negativity]

Why would we unite against the capitalists when we could just argue about what some dead white guy said or did a century ago in the context of a world we won't ever understand? I mean, sure, we're all miserable in there here-and-now, but dude, they actually think XYZ was a good idea! What a bunch of wankers!

Really though, I'm not sure you can unite the left any more than you could unite the right - which is just as fractured and full of infighting as we are, but whom have the upper hand and so appear to be more unified.

I'm not sure uniting us is a particularly good idea anyway, because I feel as though a post-capitalist world will probably look quite a bit different depending on where you go anyway. Why should the leftists of Egypt, China, the US, or Peru perfectly share perspectives with each other? Each situation necessitates a different approach by virtue of them being different people with different situations and histories. The only thing I'd say we really need is less cynicism and pessimism about each other and the willingness to forgo ideology in the name of "fuck it, why not? could it really get worse?"

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah, it ties in with the whole "left unity" bullshit you're spouting. Program or not. I'm confused as yo how that's confusing to you.

What is the bullshit I am spouting? You have yet to actually criticize anything I've said. I laid out a very sensible position about where practical leftist unity can come from (through struggle) and you said "BUT TEH STALINI$TS!!11!!!1"

What's really funny is that most people here call me a Stalinist (lol) yet I'm speaking of unity while you're saying that I would throw you in a labor camp or kill you. Seems like you're the one spouting bullshit.

[Zukunftsmusik]

What's really funny is that most people here call me a Stalinist (lol) yet I'm speaking of unity while you're saying that I would throw you in a labor camp or kill you. Seems like you're the one spouting bullshit.

Well (http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state)


In April 1917, the Russian anarchist Voline met Leon Trotsky in a New York print works. Not surprisingly, both were producing revolutionary propaganda. Discussing the Russian situation, Voline told Trotsky that he considered it certain that the Bolsheviks would come to power. He went on to say he was equally certain that the Bolsheviks would persecute the anarchists once their power had been consolidated. Trotsky, taken aback by Voline’s conviction, emphasized that the Marxists and the anarchists were both revolutionary socialists fighting the same battle. While it is true that they had their differences, these differences, according to Trotsky, were secondary, merely methodological differences-principally a disagreement regarding a revolutionary “transitional stage.” Trotsky went on to dismiss Voline’s prediction of persecution against the anarchists as nonsense, assuring him that the Bolsheviks were not enemies of the anarchists. Voline relates that in December 1919, less than three years later, he was arrested by Bolshevik military authorities in the Makhnovist region. Since he was a well-known militant, the authorities notified Trotsky of his arrest and asked how he should be handled. Trotsky’s reply was terse: “Shoot out of hand.-Trotsky.” Luckily, Voline lived to tell his tale.1

[Leftsolidarity]

Great, what's your point? That a long time ago socialists and anarchists fought each other? Yeah, it happened. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to fight against the newly established workers' state while they were under siege by all the imperialist powers of the world and it would have gone differently.

You know a revolution today wouldn't be a re-run of revolutions in the past correct? Trotsky was murdered by Stalin so does that mean if a Stalinist organization seized power they would go lock up and kill all the Trots?

If you won't work in the struggle with other tendencies because of something that happened roughly 100 years ago that has no relation to the present, you're pathetic and not a revolutionary.

[Brotto Rühle]

Great, what's your point? That a long time ago socialists and anarchists fought each other? Yeah, it happened. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to fight against the newly established workers' state while they were under siege by all the imperialist powers of the world and it would have gone differently.

You know a revolution today wouldn't be a re-run of revolutions in the past correct? Trotsky was murdered by Stalin so does that mean if a Stalinist organization seized power they would go lock up and kill all the Trots?

If you won't work in the struggle with other tendencies because of something that happened roughly 100 years ago that has no relation to the present, you're pathetic and not a revolutionary.

What Zaf said had nothing to do with "fighting the newly found workers state". Also, anyone who thinks it's good when "an organization" seizes power, as opposed to the class, is a blanquist.

[Ele'ill]

(although i think i saw it mentioned briefly) a bit self explanatory when the focus is on uniting and organizing together and merging and solidarity and absolutely nothing has been mentioned regarding around what all of that is being done, what action

[Tim Cornelis]

Great, what's your point? That a long time ago socialists and anarchists fought each other? Yeah, it happened. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to fight against the newly established workers' state while they were under siege by all the imperialist powers of the world and it would have gone differently.

You know a revolution today wouldn't be a re-run of revolutions in the past correct? Trotsky was murdered by Stalin so does that mean if a Stalinist organization seized power they would go lock up and kill all the Trots?

If you won't work in the struggle with other tendencies because of something that happened roughly 100 years ago that has no relation to the present, you're pathetic and not a revolutionary.

It is related to the present. Apparently, you consider a workers' state a state without workers' power. So me trying to overthrow your minority class rule would end with me being shot.

[tallguy]

This forum is, in reality, a sock-puppet erected to put people off socialism...right?

I mean, that's the only rational explanation.

[tallguy]

Fuck off, revolution has nothing to do with...... "blah blah blah....".

I have been reading your posts throughout this thread and elsewhere and I can come up with only two explanations:

1). You are a shill, here to spread disarray and factionalism. Which, quite frankly, doesn't seem too difficult a task if quite a bit of the other self-destructive bollocks I have read on here is anything to go by.

2). You have a hideously bloated ego and, even if you think you sincerely believe the shit you are coming out with, it's only actually really a vehicle for that ego and if you weren't waving your willy here you be waving it somewhere else.

Either way, you are no friend or ally of the poor and dispossessed of this fucked up world because you are too busy scoring empty points in an empty debate on an anonymous internet forum.

You're not the only one one guilty of this kind of pointless shit, of course, but since you are the one with the biggest mouth on this thread, you are the one getting this post.

People like you make me sick.

[Ele'ill]

other self-destructive bollocks

what is this 'self', what?




Either way, you are no friend or ally of the poor and dispossessed of this fucked up world


probably should let the poor and dispossessed decide that assuming that user isn't poor and dispossessed

[tallguy]

what is this 'self', what?






probably should let the poor and dispossessed decide that assuming that user isn't poor and dispossessed
Yeah, whatever mate

carry on...

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, whatever mate

carry on...


This isn't an adequate reply to what I said though. Are you able to give a reply?

[Leftsolidarity]

What Zaf said had nothing to do with "fighting the newly found workers state". Also, anyone who thinks it's good when "an organization" seizes power, as opposed to the class, is a blanquist.

lol you clearly don't know what blanquism is.

You've still yet to actually counter anything I've said about the basis for leftist unity.

[reb]

I have been reading your posts throughout this thread and elsewhere and I can come up with only two explanations:

1). You are a shill, here to spread disarray and factionalism. Which, quite frankly, doesn't seem too difficult a task if quite a bit of the other self-destructive bollocks I have read on here is anything to go by.

2). You have a hideously bloated ego and, even if you think you sincerely believe the shit you are coming out with, it's only actually really a vehicle for that ego and if you weren't waving your willy here you be waving it somewhere else.

Either way, you are no friend or ally of the poor and dispossessed of this fucked up world because you are too busy scoring empty points in an empty debate on an anonymous internet forum.

You're not the only one one guilty of this kind of pointless shit, of course, but since you are the one with the biggest mouth on this thread, you are the one getting this post.

People like you make me sick.

I am the one with the bloated ego who uses my politics as a vehicle for that ego. Yes me, and not those who festishize the vanguard party, those who call for left unity, not those who say that the working class can only attain trade union consciousness and that the working class needs to merge with socialism/marxism. I'm glad that I make you sick and I hope you continue to feel that way when you read all of my posts.

[Darius]

How can I be in solidarity with someone who is opposed to my very ideas? Why should I unite with some asshole simply because socialism?

Socialism means many different things to many different people. I'm not gonna unite on that basis.

I may work with someone I disagree with temporarily, but honestly, I would never consider a Leftist my comrade, because I don't see Leftists as advocating the level of freedom I seek.

You're too self centered, it's all bout your beliefs, your ideas. Socialism is not a life style or religion, it's a goal you have to achieve. But i guess people nowadays are just too spoiled in the west, so it's all about them.

I'd rather join some party leaning to leninism (tough i'am not a fan on it), than just wander aimlessly alone with my own little beliefs, what nobody care anyway.

[BIXX]

You're too self centered, it's all bout your beliefs, your ideas. Socialism is not a life style or religion, it's a goal you have to achieve. But i guess people nowadays are just too spoiled in the west, so it's all about them.

I'd rather join some party leaning to leninism (tough i'am not a fan on it), than just wander aimlessly alone with my own little beliefs, what nobody care anyway.


I never claimed it was a lifestyle or religion.

Also you have no idea what kind of things happen in my life, so shut up with that "first worlders are spoiled" bullshit.

Furthermore, I've explained why I don't want the kind of socialism the left advocates, as it doesn't advocate for total freedom.

I will respond to all of y'all when I get home.

[Per Levy]

Since whole idea of socialism is based on solidarity, how can you even think that future society will function by your ideals then you can't even unite with your ideological allies.

people who want to build up a state wich is managing capital rather then abolishing it and in wich the workers have no power at all arent my ideological allies. also i have my doubt that the "idea of socialism" is solidarity.


This whole talk about class, worker unity first is rubbish.

yeah fuck the workers, what have they ever done, our few dedicated vanguard parties will make revolution not workers. come on, the russian revolution was a worker revolution, the reason that the bolsheviks could take power later on was because of hundreds of thousands workers joined up with them.


How will you achieve that without THE UNITED AVANGARD OF DEDICATED REVOLUTIONARIES??!

allright, we have almost a hundred years of vanguard parties uniting the workers under their banner and what have these hundred years brought us? every state in the world is capitalist, the working class is depressed and on the reciving end of the class struggle. if i had to judge i had to say that the concept of a vanguard party has failed miserably.


This forum is, in reality, a sock-puppet erected to put people off socialism...right?

I mean, that's the only rational explanation.

jup, a forum filled with people who defend the rape of millions of women, who advocate the rule of a party over the proletariat, who think their little shitty leftists sect is somehow "a vanguard party of the proletariat" would really turn my of socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This thread is a microcosm of the very good reasons why 'left unity' is a mirage on the horizon, dreamed up by those who think that class struggle, class unity and class interests should be subordinated to the finer details of theoretical masturbation over party programmatic points.

We all fucking hate each other, just like David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg hate each other, just like Gordon Brown and Tony Blair hated each other, and just like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney hate each other etc etc.

We share a very, very broadly defined end-goal that is a long way off. We are all different individuals, though. We have different ideas of what to do in the now, and those of us that are workers have that in the forefront of our minds a lot more than the bourgeois academics of the left who can piss about with party programmes from the ivory tower position that their tenured positions put them in.

Put simply, class struggle must supersede 'leftism' at all times, and class struggle itself is incredibly complex, it is intersectional, and it is fluid; it changes with the wind, with the ebb and flow of the economy, and with the coming and going of different individuals. It is no wonder that we haven't found the key to uniting the working class yet.

[ed miliband]

This thread is a microcosm of the very good reasons why 'left unity' is a mirage on the horizon, dreamed up by those who think that class struggle, class unity and class interests should be subordinated to the finer details of theoretical masturbation over party programmatic points.


that's the thing though, in practice things like 'left unity' (the new project) are all about lowest common denominator politics - "theoretical masturbation" is absolutely frowned upon, because it will mean bringing up differences and detracts from the "just do something!" activist attitude. talking about anything theoretical or historical is a waste of time that will cause unnecessary fuss, and anyway, the working class are scared of people who use the word 'capitalism' (that's a legit position of some in 'left unity' - don't say 'capitalism').

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

that's the thing though, in practice things like 'left unity' (the new project) are all about lowest common denominator politics - "theoretical masturbation" is absolutely frowned upon, because it will mean bringing up differences and detracts from the "just do something!" activist attitude. talking about anything theoretical or historical is a waste of time that will cause unnecessary fuss, and anyway, the working class are scared of people who use the word 'capitalism' (that's a legit position of some in 'left unity' - don't say 'capitalism').

yeah I guess that's true if we're thinking of 'left unity' projects like Ken Roach's, coalition of resistance etc.

I guess they are the two extremes - the 'just do something' scene that might get some publicity for a while but then disappear under its own contradictions and lack of substance, and the other extreme that becomes inwardly obsessed with the finest points of theory and never becomes relevant in the first place.

It seems clear to me that the reason we have such problems is that people believe that any theory we espouse, even today, has to come from the 'old Marxian tradition', and that anything that strays too far from what Marx, Engels, Lenin et al. said is 'revisionist', which is automatically bad. It also seems to me that there is a disconnect between those who espouse theory - the role of the bourgeois academics - and those who 'just do activism' - often idealistic students. I don't know if this is a particularly British thing, but it seems entrenched in our psyches, so much so that i've come across an absolute crazy amount of younger people who have the theoretical level of a foetus. As in, their thinking is stunted by a combination of the 'just do something' attitude, and a total lack of engagement in deeper thinking about politics. Because of this, the 'middle class' type younger students tend to burnout quickly due to the lack of ideas on their own part, and workers' struggles tend to fizzle out as they lack the political content to go further than being defensive, economic struggles (think about the sparkies strikes last year, for example, and the potential they had to be something greater had there been political unity with the students).

[ed miliband]

yeah I guess that's true if we're thinking of 'left unity' projects like Ken Roach's, coalition of resistance etc.

I guess they are the two extremes - the 'just do something' scene that might get some publicity for a while but then disappear under its own contradictions and lack of substance, and the other extreme that becomes inwardly obsessed with the finest points of theory and never becomes relevant in the first place.

i think 'left unity' of necessity belongs to the former camp though. it's based on a voluntarist notion that it will be the left that makes the conditions that make revolution (or reform) possible - if those who make up the left could just put aside all their theoretical concerns and build a party that wins over the working class, the road would be set to create a brand new welfare state and/or make The Revolution.

there are plenty of small groups or circles and organisations concerned with theory or whatever - and most of them will probably tell you they have no illusions of being 'the party' (although some will add '... just yet'). how can you judge their 'irrelevancy'? it's not like they're outside lidl trying to flog copies of 'capital' to disinterested proles every saturday at 9am. they may intervene in struggles as they arise, or actively take part in them, without trying to dominate or take over, but to try and introduce certain ideas, etc. yeah, they're 'irrelevant' but that's preferable to those who jump on every struggle in an attempt to lead it, surely? i think the latter group you identify is an unfair strawman.

also, ultimately i don't think either group will 'make the revolution' or make the conditions that make the revolution possible. i think the latter does less damage, however.


It seems clear to me that the reason we have such problems is that people believe that any theory we espouse, even today, has to come from the 'old Marxian tradition', and that anything that strays too far from what Marx, Engels, Lenin et al. said is 'revisionist', which is automatically bad.

i don't think this is true at all, and i don't know how you could get this impression, seriously. if you look at the current break-up and regroupment of trot organisations, or the formation of 'left unity', or the people's assembly... marx, engels and, dare i say it (half-jokingly), lenin, are sorely missing. and there's a willingness to do away with them, particularly in something like left unity.


It also seems to me that there is a disconnect between those who espouse theory - the role of the bourgeois academics - and those who 'just do activism' - often idealistic students. I don't know if this is a particularly British thing, but it seems entrenched in our psyches, so much so that i've come across an absolute crazy amount of younger people who have the theoretical level of a foetus. As in, their thinking is stunted by a combination of the 'just do something' attitude, and a total lack of engagement in deeper thinking about politics. Because of this, the 'middle class' type younger students tend to burnout quickly due to the lack of ideas on their own part, and workers' struggles tend to fizzle out as they lack the political content to go further than being defensive, economic struggles (think about the sparkies strikes last year, for example, and the potential they had to be something greater had there been political unity with the students).

lol, i agree with this.

[BIXX]

Time to piss some folks off.


What the Left needs is some sort of hero.

Stopped reading right here. I mean, I've seen some shit... But seriously. No. I mean, that's essentially one of the 14 Points of Fascism, as written by Umberto Eco in Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt. (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html) Hero worship will not get us anywhere.


We should (not going to :() stop quarreling about the past and look forward to the future.
Put the little differences to the side and work with the main goal: Socialism & Communism.

Socialism and communism take very different forms. I know that my understanding of communism is not like anyone else's here, as I don't believe that the communism most people here advocate is totally free However, I do want communism. Of course I'm no Leftist but whatever.


Well, what could be done to unite workers at least? The goal of the far left is the same, socialism. I don't see reason in why we can't unite in some way. Perhaps create propaganda and other things that bring workers and the left closer.

Yep, we've been working on that for.. a while, to say the least. I'm not saying propaganda is useless, but that a lot of the time it has less effect than we would think.


From the small dip of the toe I have been engaging in over the last few months on left forums such as this, I will say the left's wounds are largely self-inflicted. I can't believe the amount of endless waffle about the finer points of fuck-all I have read on a regular basis here and elsewhere, the obsession with politically correct linguistic niceties and all the rest of the irrelevant bollocks.

Blue: I disagree on the basis that we have no wounds, but rather that the Left itself is so incredibly small, with no force behind it, so no one really notices it except for those that are driven directly to Leftism and Post-Leftism by being beaten by the cops or having their home taken or what have you.

Red: This sentence makes me wonder- by the "politically correct" comment, are you referring to oppressive language? Cause if so, go fuck yourself with the keyboard you're typing on. Also, "the rest of the irrelevant bollocks" is actually quite important, sometimes, because it is the difference between being correct and incorrect.


If you want to know how to effect mass insurrection against this current system, try finding out what is making it hard for ordinary people today to get by and address those issues, both in terms of practical local solutions and also in terms of a coherent set of broader policies fitted to their needs. Dump the abstract theory, at least when when it comes to communicating with people and helping them improve their lives. In doing so, you will have far more effect on their beliefs. People are hurting right now. And yet, all I hear is waffle about how change has to happen all at once across the entire planet otherwise it's not socialism, apparently. I've got to tell you, as a no-mark, run-of-the-mill working-class man, coming on here has proved to be a profoundly depressing experience.

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said here. I mean, I would disagree about the usage of "policies" but that might just be semantics. And of course, if someone comes to you wanting to learn then help them learn, but don't try to push it on them. Of course there will have to be worldwide revolution before we can expect total freedom, but in the meantime reforms and little projects don't hurt. However, I do have to say that the theory is still important at this point, as if we organize in ways that contradict our theory and our beliefs, then our goals cannot be achieved.


And you lot wonder why ordinary people are swayed by cheap right wing propaganda?

Not really, it's that the right wing has become the norm, and that means people are more comfortable with them.


If this place is in any way of representative of the revolutionary left, then there's no bloody hope.

Agreed.


Well, we're all anti-capitalists with a burning desire to displace the bourgeois from power. Unfortunately, even the proponents of anti-capitalism united in that cause, we still wouldn't have the necessary people and resources to stage a revolution. Nonetheless, it would make it easier to disseminate our views to the rest of the proletariat if we weren't constantly at each others' throats. I'm often harsh on Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and Hoxhaists, but as long as you favor liberating workers you can consider me your ally.

I disagree. I would never consider a Leftist a comrade, even the ones who I respect. The Left wants to reappropriate capital, I wish to destroy it. The left doesn't want an end to oppression, they just want the oppressors to be harder to identify. Why should I ever unify with these people? However, this is not to say I would never work with them on a specific project, I just would rather not pretend to be comradely with the Left.


These kinds of people are the reason left is in such disarray:

Since whole idea of socialism is based on solidarity, how can you even think that future society will function by your ideals then you can't even unite with your ideological allies. This whole talk about class, worker unity first is rubbish. How will you achieve that without THE UNITED VANGUARD OF DEDICATED REVOLUTIONARIES??!

1. They aren't my ideological allies, I am non-ideological.

2. Even if I was ideological, I would want something separate from what they want.

3. How can you achieve that WITH your vanguard? Doing what they did in the USSR? Yeah no, fuck that/ it didn't work anyway.


Actually if history has shown anything it is that a vanguard is absolutely essential to a successful overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie...there's never been a successful socialist revolution without the leadership of a vanguard party...but how about you don't pretend that "history has shown us this" because history has shown you wrong.

Well, actually that's not true. Just because some bourgeois folks got displaced doesn't mean anything about oppression, as the systems that were installed were just as fucked.


Why is everyone caught up on the idea that the entire left needs to draft some program together that we all agree on? We're not all going to agree on things ever. That's why we identify as different tendencies.

It's called unity through struggle. If 2 groups are involved in the same struggle and are trying to defeat the same enemy, there is an actual basis for unity to achieve their goal. Not just unity for the sake of unity. When you actually get off the internet into the real world struggle you find that you might end up working with a lot of different groups and individuals that do not share your particular line but you work with them anyways because you share common goals. This is the most elementary of shit people.

That's solidarity (which I think you should know), not unity. There is a difference. I could theoretically be in solidarity with Leftists, but I would never unify with them.


Perhaps we could compare our differences in our ideologies and from those comparisons, come up with some compromised ideology that can serve as a platform on which all leftists can unite.

Um no. I'm not gonna compromise on the idea that I want to be entirely self-propulsive. I also won't submit to some wankers and their ideas if they are inherently against mine.


We should also consider the idea that for some issues, like how best to implement socialism, the answers to such issues might be more complex than a simple "this way is best" or "that way is best".

Agreed, however, you go on to say that violent revolution will not work in first world countries. I disagree, as those in power do not want to simply drop it, sohow would these non-violent revolutions happen?


Another major issue I see is that for the world's poor, they still mostly live in countries that are horrendously socially conservative on issues like gay marriage, abortion, or even women having greater political power. For these poor countries, we leftists would somehow have to ensure that along with economic revolution, social revolution would also be implemented. How do we address this concern?

My opinion is that the individuals who are negatively affected by this and realize it actively attack the structures and people who oppress them. This goes for everywhere, not just the Third World countries.


(although i think i saw it mentioned briefly) a bit self explanatory when the focus is on uniting and organizing together and merging and solidarity and absolutely nothing has been mentioned regarding around what all of that is being done, what action

One of the most important posts in this thread, IMO. Unity is a distraction, I think we would be far better off discussing what should actually be done.


I have been reading your posts throughout this thread and elsewhere and I can come up with only two explanations:

1). You are a shill, here to spread disarray and factionalism. Which, quite frankly, doesn't seem too difficult a task if quite a bit of the other self-destructive bollocks I have read on here is anything to go by.

Ad hominem, and while I'm addressing this, I gotta say that I rather enjoy reading a good amount of what reb has to say and it has all been of more content than anything you've said.


2). You have a hideously bloated ego and, even if you think you sincerely believe the shit you are coming out with, it's only actually really a vehicle for that ego and if you weren't waving your willy here you be waving it somewhere else.

You seem to have a disgustingly bloated ego as well, if you believe that you are in some higher place than reb.


Either way, you are no friend or ally of the poor and dispossessed of this fucked up world because you are too busy scoring empty points in an empty debate on an anonymous internet forum.

While I don't know, I believe reb has said elsewhere that they are working class. And as someone else said, leave that up to the real world working class to decide for themselves.


People like you make me sick.

Get off your high horse.

Anyway, I've responded to all I feel the need to.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i think 'left unity' of necessity belongs to the former camp though. it's based on a voluntarist notion that it will be the left that makes the conditions that make revolution (or reform) possible - if those who make up the left could just put aside all their theoretical concerns and build a party that wins over the working class, the road would be set to create a brand new welfare state and/or make The Revolution.

[QUOTE]there are plenty of small groups or circles and organisations concerned with theory or whatever - and most of them will probably tell you they have no illusions of being 'the party' (although some will add '... just yet'). how can you judge their 'irrelevancy'? it's not like they're outside lidl trying to flog copies of 'capital' to disinterested proles every saturday at 9am. they may intervene in struggles as they arise, or actively take part in them, without trying to dominate or take over, but to try and introduce certain ideas, etc. yeah, they're 'irrelevant' but that's preferable to those who jump on every struggle in an attempt to lead it, surely? i think the latter group you identify is an unfair strawman.

I agree with most of this. I wasn't setting it up as a strawman, but rather highlighting, as you do, that neither group can claim to be 'making the revolution' since, as you also correctly identify, it is concrete material and social conditions that lay the seeds for an intensification of class struggle, not this programmatic point or that programmatic point.

Ultimately, theory needs to come from struggle, and because the struggles of the 21st century are vastly different in content to the struggles of the 19th century (albeit we as socialists view them through the same prism, and ultimately they do share a root cause: capitalism), there needs to be a bigger revision of communist theory than there has been up 'til now. I know there are groups out there that are (irrelevantly) going about updating theory and perhaps you're right that I was too harsh about them, and that they are certainly not damaging to the same extent that the 'make activism now' group is.

My concern, though, is this: how do we update our theories to reflect modern-day struggles, whilst also maintaining our roots in the analysis of class struggle? One of the problems is of course that the class element of proletarian struggle has been at a low point for a couple of decades at least, which has made it difficult to connect the struggles that have been going on in that time to any update of theory from a class perspective. That, and sifting through the garbage that the USSR left us with, makes me quite pessimistic about us ever getting past the failed theories of 20th century socialism.


i don't think this is true at all, and i don't know how you could get this impression, seriously. if you look at the current break-up and regroupment of trot organisations, or the formation of 'left unity', or the people's assembly... marx, engels and, dare i say it (half-jokingly), lenin, are sorely missing. and there's a willingness to do away with them, particularly in something like left unity.

The thing is, 'left unity' isn't really much at all to do with socialism. It's a classic attempt to fill the void left by old Labour, so of course there's never going to be more than passing reference to any figures or theories emanating from revolutionary socialist perspectives.

As for the various trot groups and mini-parties that abound today, two comments:

1) most of them, Sexist-WP aside, are so miniscule that analysing them is a pointless task. As we saw with the recent slavery case, many of these little groups often amount to little more than a man and his dog setting up a website, picking a revolutionary sounding name, and spunking off to China, or Cuba, or somewhere else in the name of anti-imperialism.

2) The SWP still pays homage to Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I think it is just the form that the organisation takes means that, as I referred to earlier, the level of actual understanding of theory amongst many in that organisation amounts to little more than mythology and parrot-repeated phrases about socialism and capitalism.

3) The biggest 'trot' group in the UK aside from the SWP are SPEW and, again, I view them as an irrelevancy since, despite their attempts to link their theory to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (which they do attempt to do), they are not feeling me into thinking that they are not just there to fill the social democratic void left by the demise of old Labour.

So having discussed SWP and SPEW, and discounting most other leftist groups as cults of irrelevancy which are largely detached from real struggles, I don't think there is any group, or movement, that comes to mind in the UK that is:

a) from a revolutionary socialist perspective, AND
b) espouses anything other than marxist and leninist orthodoxy, by which I mean they simply re-hash the old theories and package them up into their own little programme to have a little masturbation over.

[Grayson Walker]

The best way to unite the left is to try and form a popular front or coalition of some sort. We need to unite the Marxists, Anarchists, Leninists, Trotskyists, and even Social Democrats under a single international to smash capitalism. The key for a socialist future is unity; that is what our movement lacks. We are too fractured and too hostile to one another. It was disunity that caused us to lose Spain and disunity that will keep us fractured and powerless.

[The Idler]

The best way to unite the left is to try and form a popular front or coalition of some sort. We need to unite the Marxists, Anarchists, Leninists, Trotskyists, and even Social Democrats under a single international to smash capitalism. The key for a socialist future is unity; that is what our movement lacks. We are too fractured and too hostile to one another. It was disunity that caused us to lose Spain and disunity that will keep us fractured and powerless.
Your post count indicates you're new here, but uniting Marxists, Anarchists, Leninists, Trotskyists and Social Democrats just annoyed pretty much most tendencies here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Maybe they [anarchists] shouldn't have tried to fight against the newly established workers' state while they were under siege by all the imperialist powers of the world and it would have gone differently.

By this logic, the Bolsheviks shouldn't have fought against the Russian aristocracy during the First World War. Or is it okay if it's only some of the world's imperialist powers? If you see reaction, then you fight it. You're criticising the Russian anarchists within your own Bolshevik narrative. It's called propaganda.

[Alexios]

Great, what's your point? That a long time ago socialists and anarchists fought each other? Yeah, it happened. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to fight against the newly established workers' state while they were under siege by all the imperialist powers of the world and it would have gone differently.

You know a revolution today wouldn't be a re-run of revolutions in the past correct? Trotsky was murdered by Stalin so does that mean if a Stalinist organization seized power they would go lock up and kill all the Trots?

If you won't work in the struggle with other tendencies because of something that happened roughly 100 years ago that has no relation to the present, you're pathetic and not a revolutionary.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. We need to unite the left guys! Who cares if it's at the barrel of a gun? Those damn anarchists should just learn to accept authority.

[tachosomoza]

Stop bickering over dead despots and adapt to the times. Hoxha is dead and lived in Albania in the 20th century. Who gives a shit about him? While we argue over Hoxha and Stalin and Brezhnev, shit is getting very real.

[Ele'ill]

here's a thought, 'the left' will never ever be united, ever.

now what

[Diirez]

You have to be delusional to think you can unify the Left. All you have to look at is Stalinists and Trotskyists, they will never unify. Let alone Communists (Leninists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, Stalinists, Titoists..etc), Socialists (Social Democracy and everything else), Anarchists and Democrats. They will never all come together. Too many ideas to merge into one.

Rather than focusing on uniting the Left or even Communists, we should be focusing on unifying the working class. Unify the working class and create a movement and then have a multiparty state and let all of those ideas fight each other in elections. That's the best way to get the Left to work together.

[Radical Rambler]

Who needs "Left" "unity" anyway? We need unity against the Labor Aristocracy in order to ferment revolution. This means educating the radical youth about the nature of the Labor Aristocracy, how they control the masses for the imperialists, and exposing their "Left" lackeys who masquerade as revolutionaries.

[Sinister Intents]

here's a thought, 'the left' will never ever be united, ever.

now what

Now I guess we just peacefully coexist....

[Positivist]

As has already been suggested, uniting the left is dwarfed in importance by uniting the working class. In order to accomplish this much more significant goal, leftists should focus on coming to the aid of workers where they need it most. This encompasses doing everything from helping workers resist evictions, deportations, and layoffs, to assisting in community restoration and infrastructure repair programs. Unfortunately, at this time there are no major socialist organizations attempting this, mostly because the only leftists who actually give a damn tend not to have the time or money to organize that type of thing. However, I'm confident that if a large enough group of worker-activists in a certain area came together to apply themselves to such mutual aid operations, significant strides towards uniting the workers in that area could be made.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I get being against left unity.

But shouldn't we be for Communist unity? There's so many tendencies, and many of them only differ in a few minor points.

[Leftsolidarity]

By this logic, the Bolsheviks shouldn't have fought against the Russian aristocracy during the First World War.

How does that logic flow?

[Ele'ill]

However, I'm confident that if a large enough group

this sounds a lot like a call for social work and charity neither of which 'the left' in its entirety has the resources or experience to support

[Ismail]

Stop bickering over dead despots and adapt to the times. Hoxha is dead and lived in Albania in the 20th century. Who gives a shit about him? While we argue over Hoxha and Stalin and Brezhnev, shit is getting very real.Hoxha died 29 years ago in the age of personal computers. Lenin died 90 years ago and Marx 131 years ago. This means that we must either:

a) "adapt to the times" by upholding Friedman (died 6 years ago) or Hayek (died 22 years ago);
b) unite under the banner of Deng Xiaoping Theory, Castroism or Juche;
c) conclude that the soundness and relevancy of a doctrine has little to do with how long ago its founders/defenders died.

Anyway, let's see what Hoxha had to say about unity: "as Marxism-Leninism teaches us, the unity of the working class is achieved, first of all, in the field of practice, through political actions and economic claims properly harmonized with one another, giving priority to political actions." "The leaders of revisionist parties think that the whole work of the party consists of endless discussions, fruitless theorizing and empty contests over one question or another." (Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism, 1980, p. 263, 269.) Seems self-explanatory. Even if every "leftist" party and grouping were to unite in the US right now based on a desire by their leaderships, I highly doubt the result would amount to anything and would most certainly break apart due to the imposition of artificial unity.

[Sea]

Socialism is not a life style or religion, it's a goal you have to achieve.BRB meditating

Hoxha died 29 years ago in the age of personal computers. Lenin died 90 years ago and Marx 131 years ago. This means that we must either:

a) "adapt to the times" by upholding Friedman (died 6 years ago) or Hayek (died 22 years ago);
b) unite under the banner of Deng Xiaoping Theory, Castroism or Juche;
c) conclude that the soundness and relevancy of a doctrine has little to do with how long ago its founders/defenders died.

Anyway, let's see what Hoxha had to say about unity: "as Marxism-Leninism teaches us, the unity of the working class is achieved, first of all, in the field of practice, through political actions and economic claims properly harmonized with one another, giving priority to political actions." "The leaders of revisionist parties think that the whole work of the party consists of endless discussions, fruitless theorizing and empty contests over one question or another." (Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism, 1980, p. 263, 269.) Seems self-explanatory. Even if every "leftist" party and grouping were to unite in the US right now based on a desire by their leaderships, I highly doubt the result would amount to anything and would most certainly break apart due to the imposition of artificial unity.It is beyond me how people can claim that Marxism-Leninism leads to sitting around while "shit is getting very real" when it says right there on the fucking page, in the middle of the page, away from everything else on the page, in bold type (well, maybe I'm exaggerating a little) that focusing solely on petty arguments is a revisionist trap...
here's a thought, 'the left' will never ever be united, ever.

now whatWell, everybody dies, so despite all sectarianism I guess there is one thing uniting us. Unfortunately that also unites us with the anarchists. Whoops..
Who needs "Left" "unity" anyway? We need unity against the Labor Aristocracy in order to ferment revolution. This means educating the radical youth about the nature of the Labor Aristocracy, how they control the masses for the imperialists, and exposing their "Left" lackeys who masquerade as revolutionaries.Okie dokie, riddle me this:

How do all us non-labor-aristocrat-lackeys get united enough to go fight the bad guys?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whoops..Okie dokie, riddle me this:

How do all us non-labor-aristocrat-lackeys get united enough to go fight the bad guys?

Wow, a year and a half, nearly 800 posts, and you still troll the learning forum with your bullshit.

Now, it may be news to you, but many on the left are not workers (think academics), and most workers are not on the left. Therefore working class unity =/= left unity, and we don't need the latter. In fact, if I had to work with assholes like you to make the revolution work, i'd say that left unity is undesirable, whereas of course working class unity is necessary.

[tallguy]

Wow, a year and a half, nearly 800 posts, and you still troll the learning forum with your bullshit.

Now, it may be news to you, but many on the left are not workers (think academics), and most workers are not on the left. Therefore working class unity =/= left unity, and we don't need the latter. In fact, if I had to work with assholes like you to make the revolution work, i'd say that left unity is undesirable, whereas of course working class unity is necessary.Yes

[The Feral Underclass]

How does that logic flow?

The underlying premise of your statement was that attacking institutions of power when they are under siege by your enemies was an unjustified thing to do, which by extension would preclude the Bolsheviks from attacking the Russian aristocracy and its proto-state while it was under attack by Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.

Of course, that's not really what your argument was. Your real argument is that no one should attack institutions of Bolshevik power under any circumstances, since your narrative is that Bolshevik power is just and right, and therefore beyond doubt. This imperialist siege argument is just a convenient, propagandistic way for you to say that anyone who opposes the Bolsheviks is a counter-revolutionary. Clearly you would never take into consideration the possibility that maybe Russian anarchists saw the Bolshevik state as part of the problem.

[fractal-vortex]

In answering the question "How do you unite the left", I think we need to look at the history of the problem. What happened to the First International? It split because of the differences between Marxists and Bakunists. What happened to the Second International? It broke up because various Social Democratic parties principally adopted positions defending their own bourgeoisie in World War One. What happened to the Third International? It dissolved itself because Stalinist reaction took over the Soviet Union, the seat of the International. What happened to the Fourth International? It split into numerous factions because ... (I think) the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party - the principal party of the F.I. was not up to the challenges of World War II.

Usually, the left organizations break up on the issue of a war and revolution (the Paris Commune, World War I, the Russian revolution, World War II). Am I right?:confused:

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think it's fair to say the demise of the First International was because of a split. The Bakuninists didn't voluntarily leave the International.

[Positivist]

this sounds a lot like a call for social work and charity neither of which 'the left' in its entirety has the resources or experience to support

It is similar to social work in that it directly addresses the immediate ails of workers, yes. What is wrong with that? People, unsurprisingly, tend to grow loyal to organizations (and their attached ideologies) which assist them in their most relevant struggles. As for the issue of resources, I concede this is a problem, albeit only for the repair/relief aspect of my proposal. Like I said in my post, most socialists who actually give a damn lack the time or money to organize these type of operations, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be possible given a large enough group of volunteers.

[Ismail]

What happened to the Third International? It dissolved itself because Stalinist reaction took over the Soviet Union, the seat of the International.Alternatively,

"We now know that on 20 April 1941, at a closed dinner at the Bolshoi Theater, Stalin... [r]effering to the fact that the American Communists had disaffiliated from the Comintern in order to avoid prosecution under the Voorhis Act... declared,

'Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Com[munist] parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization.'

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)

Dimitrov's diaries published a few years back cover the Third International's dissolution, all that's written of his meetings with Stalin, Molotov and the like is how increasingly inefficient it became in reacting to the specific conditions member-parties were facing. After the war the Cominform was established to cover European parties, and there was contemplation of an Asian organization as well. The Cominform was later dissolved by the Soviet revisionists in order to appease Tito.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

My thoughts were that uniting the left would help, I'm more talking about getting anarchists and communists to work together, with no reactionaries. Bourgeois parliaments?

edit: I see how uniting the left is useless.
How can anarchists and communists possibly reconcile? One wants a strong state, the other wants no state.

[Radical Rambler]

Okie dokie, riddle me this:

How do all us non-labor-aristocrat-lackeys get united enough to go fight the bad guys?

The first trick is identifying the social-chauvinists and opportunists. There are various methods of doing this. The most important one is utilizing the imperialist war to tell who are the white power fakes masquerading as radicals.

The next step is to eliminate them.

We build unity against the Labor Aristocracy by educating the radical youth about the sociological fact of its existence, which the lackeys of the Labor Aristocracy deny. That's another good way to tell who is a lackey of the Labor Aristocracy: they deny the existence of it, though they utilize their knowledge of it in practice to get what they want.

[Art Vandelay]

In all honesty I'm not sure if 'uniting the left' is a good idea; in fact, given the state of the left, I'd say it would be counter-productive and any umbrella organization would be forced to water down its program with lowest common denominator politics.

[BIXX]

Alright, as a "radical youth" (I question what either of those words mean anymore) I am getting really fucking tired of hearing that we need to "educate them". You are automatically assuming that you are in a better place than the youth. Rather, we should be working on learning WITH people, not trying to educate them. Trying to educate people comes off as (and is) elitist. Learn with people and you will have much better results.

[tallguy]

alright, as a "radical youth" (i question what either of those words mean anymore) i am getting really fucking tired of hearing that we need to "educate them". You are automatically assuming that you are in a better place than the youth. Rather, we should be working on learning with people, not trying to educate them. Trying to educate people comes off as (and is) elitist. Learn with people and you will have much better results.
yes

[Leftsolidarity]

yes



Verbal warning for multiple one-liners.

That's your second post solely saying "yes". Type a real comment or don't reply.

[tallguy]

Verbal warning for multiple one-liners.

That's your second post solely saying "yes". Type a real comment or don't reply.
fuck off

If you had a problem with my posts you could simply have asked me to alter them and I would have been more than willing to co-operate. As it is you didn't and so you get the reply I've given.

[BIXX]

fuck off


God, when was the last time I saw a member trying to stand off against a mod/admin?

Don't make that mistake, yo.

[Queen Mab]

Alright, as a "radical youth" (I question what either of those words mean anymore) I am getting really fucking tired of hearing that we need to "educate them". You are automatically assuming that you are in a better place than the youth. Rather, we should be working on learning WITH people, not trying to educate them. Trying to educate people comes off as (and is) elitist. Learn with people and you will have much better results.

Obviously you're correct that we shouldn't be elitist and talk down to people, but I don't think this is quite right. As activists we have a historical, contextual, theoretical understanding of capitalism and working class struggle that is useful to the working class in its self-emancipation. Unless you think Bakunin, Marx, Dauvé or whoever is useless for working people involved in struggle. But if that's the case (and I don't think it is), why study them at all?

[Ele'ill]

I think a lot of the time that base understanding simply complements the situation on the ground, which is only able to be shared as experiences from the groups directly effected, at least regarding coherent theory into action

[BIXX]

Obviously you're correct that we shouldn't be elitist and talk down to people, but I don't think this is quite right. As activists we have a historical, contextual, theoretical understanding of capitalism and working class struggle that is useful to the working class in its self-emancipation. Unless you think Bakunin, Marx, Dauvé or whoever is useless for working people involved in struggle. But if that's the case (and I don't think it is), why study them at all?


But we shouldn't be telling them what is correct, we should be learning what is correct alongside them. I believe some of that is useful, but I think we should be discovering with the oppressed, not "educating" them. Break down the teacher student hierarchy!

[Sea]

Wow, a year and a half, nearly 800 posts, and you still troll the learning forum with your bullshit.

Now, it may be news to you, but many on the left are not workers (think academics), and most workers are not on the left. Therefore working class unity =/= left unity, and we don't need the latter. In fact, if I had to work with assholes like you to make the revolution work, i'd say that left unity is undesirable, whereas of course working class unity is necessary.Don't you think it's just a little bit ridiculous to start spouting off about labor aristocracy in a way that totally misses the point when the OP was just asking an honest question about (and most certainly never meant to imply that we should unite with opportunists)? I do. Keep in mind, this is the same person I replied to:
The first trick is identifying the social-chauvinists and opportunists. There are various methods of doing this. The most important one is utilizing the imperialist war to tell who are the white power fakes masquerading as radicals.

The next step is to eliminate them.

We build unity against the Labor Aristocracy by educating the radical youth about the sociological fact of its existence, which the lackeys of the Labor Aristocracy deny. That's another good way to tell who is a lackey of the Labor Aristocracy: they deny the existence of it, though they utilize their knowledge of it in practice to get what they want.This stuff ^ is what the trolling is.

And, keep in mind, it is precisely because most workers are not on the left that it is critical that the left be united with (on equal footing with) the workers in terms of class conciousness. Why are workers constantly split up and pitted against one another? Because the mechanics of capital demands this. How is this to be stopped? By the force of a revolutionary socialist (i.e. Marxist, characteristic of "the left") overthrow of the capitalist order. If the left and the broad masses of the working class are not united, or what is tactically equivalent, the broad masses of the working class are not united with communist aims in mind, not only is such an overthrow complete unlikely because the workers may very well remain under the fog of nationalism, racism, and the other bourgeois trends that split them up, but if it were to happen it would be conspiratory and Blanquist (no offense to fans of Blanqui of course) in nature due to "the left" being alienated from "the workers" as it currently is. One only needs to make a brief glance at 20th century history to see why this is unacceptable.

[Leftsolidarity]

fuck off

If you had a problem with my posts you could simply have asked me to alter them and I would have been more than willing to co-operate. As it is you didn't and so you get the reply I've given.

Unfortunately for you it is your responsibility to know the rules and after 70 posts here you should be well aware that single word responses are not allowed.

[Klaatu]

I've been thinking about this lately, all of the different tendencies of the left that fight each other, how would you unite the left? How would you maintain the unity? Is it impossible to unite the left?

"Uniting the left" is kind of like herding cats.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi brother Aleister: you are right. The thing is that not everbody in the left has that realist perspective that you have about the need of a great leader with great physical military and economic power. There are many radical leftists who despise the great man theory. Because they believe that a united leftist front with a powerful leader would not lead into a workers-state, but into a state-capitalist dictatorship.

The thing is that there is a catch-22. Leaderless revolutions are great and I support them and they are very democratic and egalitarian, but the problem is that some times leader-less fronts get weak and fade away. While a powerful charismatic leader would unite the poor people of USA a lot better. In fact there was an article in Counterpunch Magazine http://www.counterpunch.org that said that what left needs to do in order to rise to power is to hire George Clooney. I know this might sound like a crazy idea. But it is a realist idea. Because the great writter Edgar Allan Poe wrote in his writtings that humans have a natural tendency to only follow, support and love individuals, organizations and movements that are full of pomposity, bright image, a great marketing effect and that are very attractive to the masses. One of the main causes of why The Democratic Party and The Republican Party are more succesful than leftist parties in USA. Is that americans like Edgar Allan Poe wrote, have a natural human tendency to support The Democratic Party and The Republican Party because of their powerful image, powerful marketing brightness, and they are more attractive to the human eye, than the humble simpleminded populist leftist politicians of USA like Nader, Jill Stein, Amy Goodman, Chomsky etc. that are better than Democrats and Republicans but are worse in their physical attraction and marketing tactics to the masses

.


I know I'm pushing the whole Duck Dynasty bullshit a bit much, but look at it: it's uniting the Right.
What the Left needs is some sort of hero. The "leaderless revolt" that was Occupy (yes, it was a revolt, not a revolution like some of my ex-Oc friends like saying it was) failed because there was no central figure. There was no real call to arms. The Right is coming together to defend a walking bougeois cliche and the Left is just passing it off as nothing; if the Left had that sort of confidence that they can come together to fight as one again, for a goal they know they can achieve, then maybe we can rise again.

We just don't have that. The Left is utterly fractured at this point and can't even defend itself from the whole "liberals are leftist socialist Marxist elitist Muslim atheists and Hitler was a far left-wing communist" delusion.

[Sea]

Hi brother Aleister: you are right. The thing is that not everbody in the left has that realist perspective that you have about the need of a great leader with great physical military and economic power. There are many radical leftists who despise the great man theory. Because they believe that a united leftist front with a powerful leader would not lead into a workers-state, but into a state-capitalist dictatorship.

The thing is that there is a catch-22. Leaderless revolutions are great and I support them and they are very democratic and egalitarian, but the problem is that some times leader-less fronts get weak and fade away. While a powerful charismatic leader would unite the poor people of USA a lot better. In fact there was an article in Counterpunch Magazine http://www.counterpunch.org that said that what left needs to do in order to rise to power is to hire George Clooney. I know this might sound like a crazy idea. But it is a realist idea. Because the great writter Edgar Allan Poe wrote in his writtings that humans have a natural tendency to only follow, support and love individuals, organizations and movements that are full of pomposity, bright image, a great marketing effect and that are very attractive to the masses. One of the main causes of why The Democratic Party and The Republican Party are more succesful than leftist parties in USA. Is that americans like Edgar Allan Poe wrote, have a natural human tendency to support The Democratic Party and The Republican Party because of their powerful image, powerful marketing brightness, and they are more attractive to the human eye, than the humble simpleminded populist leftist politicians of USA like Nader, Jill Stein, Amy Goodman, Chomsky etc. that are better than Democrats and Republicans but are worse in their physical attraction and marketing tactics to the masses

.No, no, no. The whole "unified leader" thing is a crock. Fascists are the only ones I'm aware of that upholdit. And Duckgate isn't "uniting the right", right-wingers are just defending the poor schmuck. Guess what? They wouldn't have any reason to do that if everyone left of Paul Ryan wasn't already calling out the guy for his homophobia.

And no, nobody on the left, including anarchists and the so-called ultraleftists, believes that having a "powerful leader" can cause a revolution to fail to advance beyond state-capitalism. No mere figurehead (which is all your beloved "powerful leaders" are anyway as no person has the capacity to lead everything singlehandedly) can simply drop by and cause everything to go south. I suppose some Trotskyites do this with the way they fetishize Stalin, but even Trotsky himself wasn't that vulgar. The reason "many radical leftists" (lol) despise the great man theory is because there never was in history, nor can there be, a "great man" who can fulfill such a role.

Besides, even if it were a valid theory, the great man theory is a theory of history, not a call to action. It is a vulgar way to explain the past, not a means to change the present. What is even more bizarre is the way you drag Edgar Alan Poe into this. The "powerful marketing brightness" of the Democratic and Republican parties is just that -- marketing. Both of these parties are huge organizations comprised of millions of people. There is no "great man" to be found anywhere.

Your entire argument is nothing short of strange, and is a misrepresentation of all the views involved.

P.S. You don't happen to know anyone who goes by the name of TrotskistMarx, do you?

[Ismail]

No, no, no. The whole "unified leader" thing is a crock. Fascists are the only ones I'm aware of that upholdit.Well, them and the DPRK, which takes the "great men of history" analysis literally.

http://www.uk-songun.com/index.php?p=1_111_THE-LEADERSHIP-PHILOSOPHY-OF-KIM-JONG-IL

Marx and Engels, the first leaders of the working people, caused radical change in social history and in the leadership of people by evolving the materialist dialectical philosophy... But even Marxist materialist philosophy could not become the correct leadership philosophy ensuring the successful leadership of the state and society, due to its limitations in spite of its scientific accuracy and revolutionary character, to say nothing of all the idealistic philosophies which served the exploiting classes in the past. In our age, the creation of a correct leadership philosophy conforming with historical development was posed, as an urgent requirement.

In response to this, it is President Kim Il Sung who, for the first time in history, enunciated the scientific leadership philosophy. By evolving the man-centred Juche idea, President Kim Il Sung established the leadership theory and leadership method showing the correct way of hewing out human destiny. Kim Jong Il developed in depth the scientific leadership idea and theory of Juche enunciated by President Kim Il Sung, and set forth the perfect leadership philosophy capable of successfully hewing out human destiny. Kim Jong Il’s original leadership style and his distinguished leadership ability are based on his original philosophy.

[....]

A progressive politics can be exercised only by a progressive leader. However, even people of a progressive view on politics had an erroneous opinion on a leader. In the Western world it is often said that today is an “era destitute of a leader”. Because many state heads or Presidents have degenerated politically, morally and economically and so led the people and countries to ruin. Viewed historically, governors who served the exploiting classes and ignored the people’s interests were all denied by the people and history. An English proverb says, “Politicians are the persons who brag that they would build a bridge even where there is no river.” This is ridicule on the rulers of the exploiting society. When a leader deviates from the standpoint of defending the interests of the people and affirming them, he is already not a leader and his politics is corrupt and degenerate. When greeting a good, far-sighted leader, the people can hew out their destiny and the prosperity of their country and nation can be guaranteed....

General Kim Jong Il said: “In order to realize genuinely benevolent politics in socialist society, a political leader who unfailingly loves the people must come forward. A political leader of socialism should be a master in leadership but, first of all, he must be a man of virtue who loves the people boundlessly.” His opinion is that an incompetent political leader of socialism may bring about a delay in the development of socialist society, but one who lacks virtue may betray the people and even lead socialism to ruin...

If the people are to carve out their destiny successfully, defend the sovereignty of their country and nation and make them prosperous, they must have a genuine leader of virtue at the helm. Today north Korea has been developed into the people-centred society where the people lead a happy life. It is entirely because the people have the great President Kim Il Sung and the respected General Kim Jong Il, the people’s genuine leaders, at the helm. Since President Kim Il Sung created the Juche idea centred on the masses and exercised the politics of “People are my God”, being always among the people, north Korea has been converted into a people’s paradise. In north Korea General Kim Jong Il is precisely the father of the people and the saviour of their fate. It is the sagacious General Kim Jong Il who emerged among the people, exists for them, and leads them to independence and prosperity.

[Sinister Intents]

How can anarchists and communists possibly reconcile? One wants a strong state, the other wants no state.

Communists want to eliminate the state as well, comrade.


fuck off

If you had a problem with my posts you could simply have asked me to alter them and I would have been more than willing to co-operate. As it is you didn't and so you get the reply I've given.

Lol.


"Uniting the left" is kind of like herding cats.

Hahaha XD indeed!

[Tim Cornelis]

Stop bickering over dead despots and adapt to the times. Hoxha is dead and lived in Albania in the 20th century. Who gives a shit about him? While we argue over Hoxha and Stalin and Brezhnev, shit is getting very real.

Tendency: Trotskyist.

[Czy]

fuck off

inb4 thrown in gulags

To respond to the title: the left have never and will never be united. There will always be elitists among the left (vide most of this goddam thread)

[Sinister Intents]

inb4 thrown in gulags

To respond to the title: the left have never and will never be united. There will always be elitists among the left (vide most of this goddam thread)

Like Klaatu said, uniting the left would be like herding cats.

[Klaatu]

"Uniting the left" is kind of like herding cats.

Why is this so? It is so because The Left are intellectuals, who have the ability to think for themselves. Thus there can (and will be) disagreement and contention. This makes things a bit difficult. But this is a good thing!

On the other hand, The Right, who are usually trained to be obedient, and thus accepting of authoritarianism, whether it be religious indoctrination or whether it be Fascism, people on the political Right are told what to think. They are merely followers. This is NOT good.

I am not saying that everyone on the Left is a thinker and everyone on the Right is a follower. But generally it holds true.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've been thinking about this lately, all of the different tendencies of the left that fight each other, how would you unite the left? How would you maintain the unity? Is it impossible to unite the left?
The simplest answer, and the one most ready for interpretation as "sectarian", is - you simply don't.
There's that line in the sand, or it should be there, called the class line, a clear mark of demarcation. Any unity is only possible and indeed desirable not across this line, but on one of its sides.

[Taters]

"Uniting the left" is kind of like herding cats.

Why is this so? It is so because The Left are intellectuals, who have the ability to think for themselves. Thus there can (and will be) disagreement and contention. This makes things a bit difficult. But this is a good thing!

On the other hand, The Right, who are usually trained to be obedient, and thus accepting of authoritarianism, whether it be religious indoctrination or whether it be Fascism, people on the political Right are told what to think. They are merely followers. This is NOT good.

I am not saying that everyone on the Left is a thinker and everyone on the Right is a follower. But generally it holds true.


There will always be elitists among the left (vide most of this goddam thread)

Mmm. Yep, this hypothesis has the ring of truth to it.

[Ravn]

"Uniting the left" is kind of like herding cats.

Why is this so? It is so because The Left are intellectuals, who have the ability to think for themselves. Thus there can (and will be) disagreement and contention. This makes things a bit difficult. But this is a good thing!

On the other hand, The Right, who are usually trained to be obedient, and thus accepting of authoritarianism, whether it be religious indoctrination or whether it be Fascism, people on the political Right are told what to think. They are merely followers. This is NOT good.

I am not saying that everyone on the Left is a thinker and everyone on the Right is a follower. But generally it holds true.



"Left" is pretty broad. You can't herd fatally incompatible ideologies even if they're "left".

OTOH, people can agree about certain issues (& so come together on them), even if they disagree about others.

Scientists are intellectuals. They disagree but they can't arbitrarily decide what's fact or not. There's no reason why leftists can't take this same attitude.

Authoritarianism is blind obedience to authority. But you can have authorities with a rank & file that are not blind followers because leaders that make bad decisions can be dispensed with.

Calling the opposition mostly followers, not thinkers, is underestimating the enemy.

There are opposites within the left so why pretend that the left is monolithic & homogeneous?