Ending particular tendencies?

[The Idler]

Given that some tendencies disappear and go defunct for whatever reason, how can this be achieved? Supporters often seem to ignore evidence.

[helot]

To be honest it's not just supporters that tend to ignore evidence but also those opposing a particular tendency. The simple fact is that despite proclaimations of "materialism" and being "scientific" alot of the time it really is bullshit with "materialism" and being "scientific" becoming reminiscent of "God wills it!"

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

To be honest it's not just supporters that tend to ignore evidence but also those opposing a particular tendency. The simple fact is that despite proclaimations of "materialism" and being "scientific" alot of the time it really is bullshit with "materialism" and being "scientific" becoming reminiscent of "God wills it!"

^Truth.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm confused as to what your question is. Are you asking how you, personally, can help bring about the end of specific tendencies? You don't, if you're right and they have nothing to offer the working class, then they should die out on their own. Although I can't help but point out the irony of this post coming from a SPGBer.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Furthermore, I would say that the generation of new tendencies, their splits and fusions, and their inevitable end - all of this is conditioned by the material situation in the proletariat and the leftist movement (which is more often than not completely separate from the proletariat). Notice, for example, how the worsening financial situation of certain regimes, the decline in the Actors' Equity and so on all conspired to destroy Healyism in England. Or how the Right Opposition was never able to develop a significant following in Europe, where the well-off peasant strata supported social-democratic and populist parties instead of the "International Communist Opposition".

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm confused as to what your question is.
Seriously... I actually thought this thread was going to be about culling no-longer used revleft user groups or something.

[bricolage]

yep, I'm confused.
what tendencies have gone completely defunct?

[Queen Mab]

Most tendencies still around are pretty much functionally dead.

To use an analogy, you can find weirdos on the internet who believe in pre-Enlightenment reactionary traditionalism but they don't actually have any material force.

Would anything change if the several hundred members of Left Communist orgs disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow?

[Illegalitarian]

Tendencies such as Trotskyist, Marxist-Leninist, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Left-coms etc make sense

What I don't really understand is why there are copious amounts of socialist parties that seem to be pretty non-denominational in different parts of the world, like CPUSA, Socialism and Liberation, SWP etc.



I think left-unity among these different parties is pretty much a pipe dream at this point, mostly due to their nature as parties, as political animals, even if they are of little to no relevance or end up becoming lame social democraps when they eventually do. Socialist Alternative is seeming to gain popularity throughout the world, however, hopefully they don't adopt the trend if things get more serious.


I think most leftists are in solidarity with one another for better or worse, whether or not they agree on certain things here and there. It's the fuckin parties that are the problem.

[Blake's Baby]

Most tendencies still around are pretty much functionally dead.

To use an analogy, you can find weirdos on the internet who believe in pre-Enlightenment reactionary traditionalism but they don't actually have any material force...

Do you mean Catholics?

Though Stalin reportedly asked 'how many tanks does the Pope have?' I wouldn't want to underestimte the ability of the Catholic Church (or any comparable religious group) to rally the most reactionary elements of contemporary society.

[Alexios]

To use an analogy, you can find weirdos on the internet who believe in pre-Enlightenment reactionary traditionalism but they don't actually have any material force.

This is hardly just an internet fad.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm confused as to what your question is. Are you asking how you, personally, can help bring about the end of specific tendencies? You don't, if you're right and they have nothing to offer the working class, then they should die out on their own. Although I can't help but point out the irony of this post coming from a SPGBer.

The problem is that this "no basis in the working class" is and has been used as a massive cop out mostly clearly by stalinists but every other tendency has its fair share of saying that. Stalinists say trotskyites have no basis among the working class so we don't have to bother with them. Marxists say it about anarchists and so on. The problem is that it is pure self-delusion. We'll have to deal with these tendencies because they have had (in these examples) influence among the working class and it is not unlikely that such tendencies will be revived or new tendencies will come about as the class-struggle develops.

Can we really say anarcho-syndicalists had no influence among the working-class? No, that'd be insane. But we do disagree with them. We must not delude ourselves with that non-sense and actually deal with these groups.

[Alexios]

What I don't really understand is why there are copious amounts of socialist parties that seem to be pretty non-denominational in different parts of the world, like CPUSA, Socialism and Liberation, SWP etc.

Well almost no real-life party openly proclaims their tendency, but they certainly adhere to a program associated with it. The PSL puts people to sleep with their nat lib and DPRK posturing, even if they act like liberals given the opportunity. Meanwhile the SWP and other Trotskyist parties follow Lenin's and Trotsky's doctrines of party organization, etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Do you mean Catholics?

Though Stalin reportedly asked 'how many tanks does the Pope have?' I wouldn't want to underestimte the ability of the Catholic Church (or any comparable religious group) to rally the most reactionary elements of contemporary society.

The Catholic Church obviously still has a significant amount of power (even if it's power has waned), but I think he was referring more to these people (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabashed-internet-reactionaries-t166409/index.html)

[ArisVelouxiotis]

The problem is that this "no basis in the working class" is and has been used as a massive cop out mostly clearly by stalinists but every other tendency has its fair share of saying that. Stalinists say trotskyites have no basis among the working class so we don't have to bother with them. Marxists say it about anarchists and so on. The problem is that it is pure self-delusion. We'll have to deal with these tendencies because they have had (in these examples) influence among the working class and it is not unlikely that such tendencies will be revived or new tendencies will come about as the class-struggle develops.

Can we really say anarcho-syndicalists had no influence among the working-class? No, that'd be insane. But we do disagree with them. We must not delude ourselves with that non-sense and actually deal with these groups.

I know this is off topic but how could you deal with these groups?

[The Idler]

I'm confused as to what your question is. Are you asking how you, personally, can help bring about the end of specific tendencies? You don't, if you're right and they have nothing to offer the working class, then they should die out on their own. Although I can't help but point out the irony of this post coming from a SPGBer.
Why would it be ironic from the SPGB? The SPGB is not determinist nor is 'impossibilism' determinist. Many sciences have little basis in working-class understanding which doesn't mean they don't hold true, 'impossibilist socialism' is one of them. Doesn't mean everyone understanding and supporting it cannot die off. I don't think certain tendencies will inevitably exist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What's more interesting is the way certain tendencies go practically extinct in one country while flourishing in another (say, Maoism in the 1st world vs Maoism in Nepal or India's so-called "Red Corridor"). It shows how certain tendencies highlight certain divisions which are more relevant in one society than another, and how certain tendencies offer more realistic/effective short term solutions

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I know this is off topic but how could you deal with these groups?

I think most of this would be on an ideological basis. So instead of ignoring them it would mostly mean debating them, polemics and the like combined with trying to spread your own ideas.

[blake 3:17]

To be honest it's not just supporters that tend to ignore evidence but also those opposing a particular tendency. The simple fact is that despite proclaimations of "materialism" and being "scientific" alot of the time it really is bullshit with "materialism" and being "scientific" becoming reminiscent of "God wills it!"

thanks 4 this -- goddam if somebody had said what you just said at the right time, I could've spared myself a lot of grief.

[Illegalitarian]

Do you mean Catholics?

Though Stalin reportedly asked 'how many tanks does the Pope have?' I wouldn't want to underestimte the ability of the Catholic Church (or any comparable religious group) to rally the most reactionary elements of contemporary society.

Stalin may have said that, but as Gadaffi said, "Islam can conquer the world without firing off a single shot". Never underestimate the power of religion, especially Catholicism, which played a huge role in the rise of fascist Europe, lending a lot of support to the Ustase, Iron Guard, Mussolini during his on-again-off-again Catholicism and then at the end stages, helping smuggle war criminals into Spain and Latin America (Peron :cursing: )

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Stalin may have said that, but as Gadaffi said, "Islam can conquer the world without firing off a single shot". Never underestimate the power of religion, especially Catholicism, which played a huge role in the rise of fascist Europe, lending a lot of support to the Ustase, Iron Guard, Mussolini during his on-again-off-again Catholicism and then at the end stages, helping smuggle war criminals into Spain and Latin America (Peron :cursing: )


Isn't that more or less what Blake's Baby was saying though?
Gadaffi must have been pretty clueless if he actually thought that, though I would not deny the power religion has either.