Agree or Disagree: We need a "coalition of the radical left" in the U.S/Worldwide?

[IBleedRed]

I'm not talking about SYRIZA. I'm saying "coalition of the radical left" because that's exactly what we need: a functional alliance between radical leftists.

The biggest problem facing "the left" is that it is divided and impotent. There are so many groups and parties out there, each with a few hundred members at best, and they don't participate in any sort of meaningful activity together.

I think the phrase "coalition of the radical left", therefore, is most appropriate. Its members can come from all tendencies and don't have to agree on everything (e.g. interpretations of history), but they agree on the important things. Anarchists should be integrated into this coalition.

Without such a coalition, we will continue to pursue recruitment and party activity as ends in themselves instead of focusing on strikes, lockouts, and real labor struggles. What do you think?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But anarchists, council communists etc. don't want any party activity. And syndicalists want to focus on 'real labour struggles'. So your so called 'coalition' is dead in the water.

This has been done to death. Yeah, we will all stand together on a march/protest whatever (aside from the KKE), but when it comes to it, a coalition of 'the left' is about as un-desirable as it gets. politically speaking.

[Marshal of the People]

Perhaps not a party but an alliance or organisation of some sort. It wouldn't act like a party but we would organise strikes, protests and such together.

[Sinister Intents]

Perhaps not a party but an alliance or organisation of some sort. It wouldn't act like a party but we would organise strikes, protests and such together.

This sounds like it would work well. A massive leftist organization with many different left factions working together. It'd be important to get the working class united first I think.

Bit soned so my posts are gonna be shitty, fuck :(

[IBleedRed]

I didn't mean a party. Most radical left parties in the US are effectively just associations of like-minded people without the potency to make any sort of difference in policy, anyway.

If anarchists and other "ultra-leftists" don't want to work inside of some sort of coalition, then honestly, we're already far behind. Such a policy on their part is obstructive and self-defeating. What's the point of calling anarchists allies if we won't help each other in the event of a revolution?

[Rafiq]

When just a single party is successful in fomenting a political strategy which successfully adopts the interests of the proletarian class, when a single party becomes the new face of class struggle, to the dirt will all of these infinite organisations and parties go. They are the broken shell of the past failures, they are the breadcrumbs waiting to be swept aside. A single party, a single organisation with a single ideology and thus a single goal will make it's way to every corner of the Earth. Such unity will not arise from unifying the shells of empty parties, but from their destruction to make way for a new Communism.

[Sinister Intents]

I didn't mean a party. Most radical left parties in the US are effectively just associations of like-minded people without the potency to make any sort of difference in policy, anyway.

If anarchists and other "ultra-leftists" don't want to work inside of some sort of coalition, then honestly, we're already far behind. Such a policy on their part is obstructive and self-defeating. What's the point of calling anarchists allies if we won't help each other in the event of a revolution?

I'd be very willing to work with a coalition like this as an anarchist. I think it would be very self defeating to be against organizing the left in a coalition.

[Hermes]

If anarchists and other "ultra-leftists" don't want to work inside of some sort of coalition, then honestly, we're already far behind. Such a policy on their part is obstructive and self-defeating. What's the point of calling anarchists allies if we won't help each other in the event of a revolution?

Maybe they don't want to be considered your allies, or to really have anything to do with you?

[IBleedRed]

Maybe they don't want to be considered your allies, or to really have anything to do with you?
Then I guess we'll just keep fighting each other while we continue to appear incoherent to most everybody.

[Hermes]

Then I guess we'll just keep fighting each other while we continue to appear incoherent to most everybody.

If by 'incoherent' you mean 'inconsistent', then yes, we will. Because we are not one and the same.

We're not 'incoherent' because we aren't all part of one organization with a single line; we're incoherent because we are different. Big tent politics won't magically make people flock to radical politics.

[Comrade #138672]

Do you mean pan-leftism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=598)?

[Ele'ill]

"hey, let's not form a party or official organization let's just get together a coalition of leftists under the same flag with the same goals and theory and then organize actions"


:glare:

[Sinister Intents]

Do you mean pan-leftism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=598)?

I'm thinking this is pretty much what is being brought up, at least partly, and recently I brought up a thread about uniting the left: http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-unite-t186036/index.html

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is pointless. Marxist-Leninists aren't my allies. They aren't the allies of the anarchists either. We'd all be dead if the M-Ls came to power again, and probably if anarchists of the Makhnovite persuasion came to power, the Leninists would be dead too.

These petty battles are irrelevant, as the left is. What is relevant, as it always has been, is the primacy of class struggle. Uniting the class is paramount; uniting the left is at best a distraction, at worst a terrible strategy.

[Sinister Intents]

This is pointless. Marxist-Leninists aren't my allies. They aren't the allies of the anarchists either. We'd all be dead if the M-Ls came to power again, and probably if anarchists of the Makhnovite persuasion came to power, the Leninists would be dead too.

These petty battles are irrelevant, as the left is. What is relevant, as it always has been, is the primacy of class struggle. Uniting the class is paramount; uniting the left is at best a distraction, at worst a terrible strategy.

I agree thoroughly! I don't think that MLists today though would necesarily do the same thing as the MLists of the past.

[IBleedRed]

This is pointless. Marxist-Leninists aren't my allies. They aren't the allies of the anarchists either. We'd all be dead if the M-Ls came to power again, and probably if anarchists of the Makhnovite persuasion came to power, the Leninists would be dead too.

These petty battles are irrelevant, as the left is. What is relevant, as it always has been, is the primacy of class struggle. Uniting the class is paramount; uniting the left is at best a distraction, at worst a terrible strategy.
The problem is that "uniting the class" involves the formation of association(s).

[Sinister Intents]

The problem is that "uniting the class" involves the formation of association(s).

It's gonna be a very difficult thing considering how the different tendencies get along and react to one another. I think that the working class and radical left will need to educate themselves a bit more on the varying and different tendencies. Also a lot of people don't adhere to a single tendency and take from multiple tendencies what they believe and reject what they consider as wrong, invalid, or outdated. What you think would work best to begin uniting the working class and the left?

[BIXX]

ITT: we talk of left unity again, then some people talk about class unity, and then myself and a few others poop on organization and the left in general (among other things) then everyone leaves the thread and it all starts over in about a week.

[Broviet Union]

The US would need to alter its electoral system to make an American Syriza possible. Otherwise it would likely end with Republicans controlling everything and laughing.

[Sinister Intents]

The US would need to alter its electoral system to make an American Syriza possible. Otherwise it would likely end with Republicans controlling everything and laughing.

Why even bother with the electoral system? It's all rigged and when you vote in the USA you're voting for essentially the same group, the Democrats and Rapeublicans say the same shit in different ways. I'm not against voting, but the American electoral system is a sham, a lie, it gives the illusion of control and the illusion of freedom.

[Broviet Union]

I dunno, maybe it is not a popular stance around here, but I feel that it is worth my while to take 15 minutes every couple of years to vote, and try to avoid subjecting myself to reactionary bourgeois rulers when I can have bland, centrist bourgeois rulers. :grin:

[Sinister Intents]

I dunno, maybe it is not a popular stance around here, but I feel that it is worth my while to take 15 minutes every couple of years to vote, and try to avoid subjecting myself to reactionary bourgeois rulers when I can have bland, centrist bourgeois rulers. :grin:

Why waste the time? You've got better things to do than take part in the system that oppresses you comrade, and your vote doesn't even count unfortunately, the bourgeoisie will put whatever cheerleader they want in office. Regardless they're bourgeois rulers and all they want is to oppress and exploit the working class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem is that "uniting the class" involves the formation of association(s).

Associations between workers of today and of the future, not between historically-focused grupuscules whose origins lie in cold war politics, bogged down by ideology.

[the debater]

We need a platform of positions that can unite as many leftists as possible.

[Sinister Intents]

We need a platform of positions that can unite as many leftists as possible.

There are so many positions among the left... Elaborate?

[the debater]

There are so many positions among the left... Elaborate?

We need a platform like what the major political parties have. The democratic party has a platform where they list what issues and positions they stand for. The republicans have the same. A platform doesn't have to be perfect, but it's supposed to basically unite people under one party. I understand there are many diverse opinions among the left, that's exactly why we need to get started as soon as possible on constructing a platform. If we're going to have debates over what to put in the platform, well, those debates are going to have to be settled......

[Sabot Cat]

If must go through the electoral politics and reformist route, why don't we just try to hijack mainstream left-wing parties? In the United States, Tea Party people were foaming at the mouth reactionaries who were able to defeat slightly less right-wing Republicans in their party primaries. I think socialists could displace Democrats within their party through similar tactics in local/state elections. This is not to mention the leftist parties in Europe which incorporate socialist rhetoric and symbols despite their less-than-socialist platforms, which could lend themselves easily to this.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Why even bother with the electoral system? It's all rigged and when you vote in the USA you're voting for essentially the same group, the Democrats and Rapeublicans say the same shit in different ways. I'm not against voting, but the American electoral system is a sham, a lie, it gives the illusion of control and the illusion of freedom.

If voting actually made a difference in way it would be illegal by now, and anyone who spoke of voting would be silenced. It is all illusions

[Prometeo liberado]

This is pointless. Marxist-Leninists aren't my allies. They aren't the allies of the anarchists either. We'd all be dead if the M-Ls came to power again, and probably if anarchists of the Makhnovite persuasion came to power, the Leninists would be dead too.

These petty battles are irrelevant, as the left is. What is relevant, as it always has been, is the primacy of class struggle. Uniting the class is paramount; uniting the left is at best a distraction, at worst a terrible strategy.

When oh lord......?
This isn't 1917 or whatever. Not even the same century. I believe what the OP was trying to get at was a loosely united group dedicated to systemic change as a start, and open discussion and respect now, allies when your ready to commit to class over self. IMO.

[goalkeeper]

When oh lord......?
This isn't 1917 or whatever. Not even the same century. I believe what the OP was trying to get at was a loosely united group dedicated to systemic change as a start, and open discussion and respect now, allies when your ready to commit to class over self. IMO.

Whether or not ML's would go and massacre or at least lock up opposing groups (like they already have done every time) this time, I don't know. The point is though that 'the left' is a hugely diverse group with serious differences in politics, which has historically seen partisans of each side engaging actual war over their differences. "Left Unity' might sound like a nice idea until you realise that people aren't one faction other another for fun or cause they like the flag, there is real political and largely irreconcilable differences between ML's, Trots, MickyMaos, Anarcho-whatevers etc.

[WilliamGreen]

Perhaps not a party but an alliance or organisation of some sort. It wouldn't act like a party but we would organise strikes, protests and such together.

This is what we need

Simple as that.

[reb]

I didn't mean a party. Most radical left parties in the US are effectively just associations of like-minded people without the potency to make any sort of difference in policy, anyway.

If anarchists and other "ultra-leftists" don't want to work inside of some sort of coalition, then honestly, we're already far behind. Such a policy on their part is obstructive and self-defeating. What's the point of calling anarchists allies if we won't help each other in the event of a revolution?

You can go flounder around in social-democracy with the rest of the corpses that you're trying to resurrect. Us real communists have a world to change.

[reb]

When oh lord......?
This isn't 1917 or whatever. Not even the same century. I believe what the OP was trying to get at was a loosely united group dedicated to systemic change as a start, and open discussion and respect now, allies when your ready to commit to class over self. IMO.

Communism doesn't begin at the level of political alliances. It begins with the working class, something that stalinists have a difficulty in understanding.

[Sea]

I'm not talking about SYRIZA. I'm saying "coalition of the radical left" because that's exactly what we need: a functional alliance between radical leftists.I can't help but suspect that it would end up turning into something like SYRIZA though...

[helot]

We need a platform of positions that can unite as many leftists as possible.


Which would have to be class collaborationist, pro-capitalist and thus anti-worker. 'The left' consists of workers and capitalists. It is not our job as revolutionaries to try and reconcile classes but instead to make class warfare ever more apparant and aid in the workers' self-emancipation.







I think the phrase "coalition of the radical left", therefore, is most appropriate. Its members can come from all tendencies and don't have to agree on everything (e.g. interpretations of history), but they agree on the important things. Anarchists should be integrated into this coalition.

I'd rather not be "integrated" thank you very much as i know what that'd mean.

[Wonton Carter]

I think a coalition of parties or something of the radical left would be a decent-ish idea. Just to protest and organize demonstrations and whatnot, though. Putting all those different tendencies and ideologies under one single party is bound to have some bad consequences, though.

[Prometeo liberado]

Whether or not ML's would go and massacre or at least lock up opposing groups (like they already have done every time) this time, I don't know. The point is though that 'the left' is a hugely diverse group with serious differences in politics, which has historically seen partisans of each side engaging actual war over their differences. "Left Unity' might sound like a nice idea until you realise that people aren't one faction other another for fun or cause they like the flag, there is real political and largely irreconcilable differences between ML's, Trots, MickyMaos, Anarcho-whatevers etc.

It's only impossible if you make it so. I was part of a state political party for 10 plus years made up of CPUSA, SP, SWP, WWP, Solidarity, Sparts, Deleonist and Greens. We all sat own and every 2 years updated our platform as well as other business. Arguments yes, brinkmanship no. Not something I would do again but a testament that as leftist we tend to make more of our differences than need be.

[1789]

What's wrong with the Fifth International?

[Le Socialiste]

I think the two poles that've emerged in this thread take either argument much too far, and in doing so fail to capture the whole point of regroupment. In fact, both are right to a degree. We mustn't aspire to become all-encompassing, nor should we necessarily spit on the idea. On the one hand regroupment's proponents, some of whom argue for total inclusiveness, fail to realize that an organization that includes all sections of the revolutionary left is bound to collapse under the weight of its own inaction. While I despise using Revleft as a template, it does offer a moderate amount of evidence for why revolutionaries of every variety would be incapable of making much of an impact on the state of anything, much less form a cohesive whole. (The example of Revleft goes only so far however.) Even in the event such a project should survive, it would be of little use - offering only an infirm support to the struggles of the working class. Opponents of regroupment have so far offered up arguments that are borderline deterministic (e.g. "These projects always fail/end up going against working class interests"), while others ground their opposition in a kind of revolutionary purism.

What's missing - at least so far - is the fact that the idea of regroupment, much less coalitionism, isn't always applicable to the situation at hand. Sometimes it is. Marx hit the nail on the head when he argued for the subordination of theoretical and programmatic clarity to "every step of real movement;" that is, the question of unity isn't an immaterial ideal one aspires to. Our perspective must be inseparable from and responsive to the real shifts and changes that inevitably occur under capitalism, reflecting the immediate and longterm interests of our class. In our present period, the argument for regroupment gains some credence. The ranks comprising the revolutionary left are numerically smaller than they were a century ago, yet the goals advanced by the ruling-class offensive since the late 70s continue apace. Capital's intermittent crises have begun to occur with much greater rapidity and ferocity, its last melt down having decimated living standards and the aggregate wealth of working class families and communities the world over.

An uptick in struggle has followed, but these movements have dissipated in the face of state repression and the inexperience that typically accompanies them in their infancy. Even in movements on a regional or international scale (like Occupy), people were forced to contend with multiple contending - even contradictory - ideas. An upswing in populist, even anti-capitalist awareness, met with previously long-held assumptions about reformism and electoral strategies that, for many people, had been posed as the only 'legitimate' method of changing the system. An example of the so-called 'muck of ages,' if you will. These periodic examples of spontaneity inevitably lost steam for reasons already stated (and others that haven't been).

It's within this context that some form of regroupment amongst certain sections of the revolutionary left begins to carry more ample weight, the crudest basis for which lies in a general agreement on most - if not all - tactical, strategical, organizational, and programmatic questions. There should be room for debate and disagreement, as well as for any and all theoretical errors and tactical deviations, which as Lenin aptly put it, "are ruthlessly criticized by experience itself." Given the period we're in, it makes sense for 'unity' projects to be organized along a democratic basis in which all supposed contributing parties and individuals have equal say and weight. A commitment to combatting and opposing all forms of oppression, alongside the recognition that "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working classes themselves" (Marx), should be the necessary prerequisites for any regroupment effort(s). Of course, all tactical and strategical questions will have to be debated out and tested in the field of struggle. These matters will continue to carry great weight going forward, as they always have.

Am I calling for something along the lines of Syriza? No, because I don't believe the situation is as applicable. In some places it may be. Even then, the predicament confronting Syriza's revolutionary left in relation to the strengthened hand of the accommodationist, reformist wing of the coalition/party lays bare some of the limitations to this strategy. There comes a time when, for all practical purposes, a break with this wing must be made (provided it isn't isolated and its influence combatted over time). I don't think that time has yet arrived in Syriza's case, rendering any potential formal break premature. Syriza is an exaggerated case for (or against) regroupment, at any rate. Nowhere am I arguing that the revolutionary and reformist sections of our movement must unite. It would make little sense for, say, Socialist Alternative to merge with the Democratic Socialists of America, for instance (though I'm sure some here will find that to be possible).

I would write more, but I'm kind of tired and I don't want to descend into rambling. I may already have. Oh well, bring the hate.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not talking about SYRIZA. I'm saying "coalition of the radical left" because that's exactly what we need: a functional alliance between radical leftists.Every now and then, and with increasing frequency at least from the onset of the crisis in '08., such ideas about unity are aired.
I can't help but wonder - when you say that we need such a thing, who exactly is that "we"?

What I'm getting at is that we as workers or the unemployed (I'm assuming the class position here, of course) don't really need a coalition of this kind at the moment, at least judging from the experience of the working class in my immediate region (ex-Yugoslavia). By that, to explain a bit, I don't mean that international contact between political organizations or groups tending to constitute a political organization is fruitless - just that the activity of radicals in such conditions as those of today needs to be soberly assessed and put into perspective.


The biggest problem facing "the left" is that it is divided and impotent. There are so many groups and parties out there, each with a few hundred members at best, and they don't participate in any sort of meaningful activity together.
The very way you frame this issue reeks of a lack of understanding of what this left should actually be - a part of the working class. Thus, the biggest problems facing the left are in fact the same as the biggest problems facing the working class, and not that it is divided. This is also a cause of what you, in my opinion, correctly see as a lack of meaningful activity - with enormous class passivity in fact there can hardly be any meaningful political activity - maybe on a micro-scale there can though.


I think the phrase "coalition of the radical left", therefore, is most appropriate. Its members can come from all tendencies and don't have to agree on everything (e.g. interpretations of history), but they agree on the important things. Anarchists should be integrated into this coalition. That's a sure way to produce an utter disaster. It's not the interpretations of history that really divide the existing leftist political organizations - though these can really work as political barometers of sorts - but rather the actual class politics (or lack of such a politics) and organizational work. I don't buy this we-all-need-to-get-together crap, not for a minute, since I do stand by the assessment of certain of these tendencies (and especially existing orgs in the region) as at least detrimental to the self-activity of the working class, even for the potential for this kind of activity.


Without such a coalition, we will continue to pursue recruitment and party activity as ends in themselves instead of focusing on strikes, lockouts, and real labor struggles. What do you think?That's just wishful thinking at best. It's entirely unclear just how would such a broad coalition ensure greater focus on strikes and labor struggles.

As an side issue, this interested me a bit:


If must go through the electoral politics and reformist route, why don't we just try to hijack mainstream left-wing parties?

I don't see any potential in the decades old strategy of entryism. Didn't work out, but okay, it might produce some results in different conditions (that would be a modest and fair argument; unfortunately, what it necessitates is a rigorous analysis of the difference in labor, economic, social and political conditions - and that is not really something one encounters that often).

But again, it seems that the focus is on us the political specialists. Isn't it ironic that even anarchists cannot escape from this heavily ingrained perspective?

What I'm driving at is just how can class struggle produce tangible results for the working class - and that actually presupposes a good level of militancy. I don't think that this can really be avoided or bypassed with political-organizational panaceas. Of course, the concrete conditions of mass struggle (supposing it does escalate and happen) will probably engender concrete proposals and advocated routes on behalf of the working class political organizations - but in the meantime I'd indulge in an advocacy of a broad approach that would seek to pressure the existing political apparatus into concession through exploiting the fissures in ruling parties or coalitions, and I believe that mass struggle has the potential to scare the shit out of certain sections of the ruling class which can show themselves to be more responsible towards the system as a whole than other sections (y'know - let's hand them concessions or stop the attacks so shit doesn't hit the fan type of politicians and intellectuals of the bourgeoisie). In my opinion, the working class doesn't need a broad workers party - it needs experience in struggle which forces the ruling class to back down. This, of course, might include some forms of negotiation with said sections, but I don't think that it necessitates electoralism on behalf of the pro-revolutionary political organizations (I'd say that such an approach is more likely to show itself as detrimental in the long run).

[tallguy]

When just a single party is successful in fomenting a political strategy which successfully adopts the interests of the proletarian class, when a single party becomes the new face of class struggle, to the dirt will all of these infinite organisations and parties go. They are the broken shell of the past failures, they are the breadcrumbs waiting to be swept aside. A single party, a single organisation with a single ideology and thus a single goal will make it's way to every corner of the Earth. Such unity will not arise from unifying the shells of empty parties, but from their destruction to make way for a new Communism.That sounds about right to me mate.

[AmilcarCabral]

IBleedforthis: Wow your posts in the learning section are pretty cool and they kill my boredom. Cool. You know in the book "The foundations of leninism" by Joseph Stalin there is this theory that claims that when the capitalist system under imperialism will reach a critical situation in rich and poor countries. The poor people of rich countries (led by leftist leaders of rich countries) will unite with (the poor people of poor countries led by all leftist leaders of all poor countries) into a single united military leftist armed front (of all communists of the world) against the united capitalists armies of all capitalist countries of this world. But I don't know if that theory might be too mechanical and too utopian given that this world is too complicated, in a world where a great majority of poor people do not even know what capitalism and socialism is, and many others who do know what capitalism and socialism is are so physically tired that they don't have any physical emotional energies to fulfill that prediction written in that book by Stalin


.


I'm not talking about SYRIZA. I'm saying "coalition of the radical left" because that's exactly what we need: a functional alliance between radical leftists.

The biggest problem facing "the left" is that it is divided and impotent. There are so many groups and parties out there, each with a few hundred members at best, and they don't participate in any sort of meaningful activity together.

I think the phrase "coalition of the radical left", therefore, is most appropriate. Its members can come from all tendencies and don't have to agree on everything (e.g. interpretations of history), but they agree on the important things. Anarchists should be integrated into this coalition.

Without such a coalition, we will continue to pursue recruitment and party activity as ends in themselves instead of focusing on strikes, lockouts, and real labor struggles. What do you think?

[AmilcarCabral]

Ibleed: There is an economic problem as well that destroys any possibility for a powerful united movement composed of all radical leftists of USA and in each country of the world.

Because the social-democrat centrist left in most countries of the world is the kind of left with more money, and that's why it is the type of left that is getting more propaganda, marketing, media air power and great marketing tactics to the masses (Like The Green Party, Democracy Now, The Russia Today News Network, Link TV, alternet.org, counterpunch.org, commondreams.org). While the radical left (The real left), has less money and is not able to compete with the economically powerful Democracy Now, The Green Party, etc.

The only leftists that we see speaking at seminars, at many meetings are progressive social-democratic leftists like Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Jill Stein, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Mckinney, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, etc. While we see zero radical leftists almost no radical leftists out there talking about how only the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by workers and the oppressed governing the USA is the only solution for the poverty of the masses.

As long as the social-democratic left in favor of welfare-capitalism is the only left with lots of propaganda, TV networks and lots of advertising, the radical left will be unknown, and ignored by the oppressed.


I'm not talking about SYRIZA. I'm saying "coalition of the radical left" because that's exactly what we need: a functional alliance between radical leftists.

The biggest problem facing "the left" is that it is divided and impotent. There are so many groups and parties out there, each with a few hundred members at best, and they don't participate in any sort of meaningful activity together.

I think the phrase "coalition of the radical left", therefore, is most appropriate. Its members can come from all tendencies and don't have to agree on everything (e.g. interpretations of history), but they agree on the important things. Anarchists should be integrated into this coalition.

Without such a coalition, we will continue to pursue recruitment and party activity as ends in themselves instead of focusing on strikes, lockouts, and real labor struggles. What do you think?