Greetings Comrades

[New International]

I think we're at an important point in history where we can actually win again. We are seeing attempts at unity with groups such as Syriza and Podemos, which show that the Left becomes popular again when Capitalism inevitably collapses. We also see an increasing in the far right, and the so-called moderate groups are beginning to lose the faith of the masses.

What has frustrated me is the fragmentation of Leftist groups. This has historically always been a problem, and it is the main reason why when we have come to power violence has occurred between us. I hope we have learned from history and can move forward and build a new International based upon the current social conditions.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

I agree with you on the need of unity. The central question however is: Unity based on what? What kind of programme would you unify around. I'm asking because you mention Syriza. Later this month Greece has general election and we need to ask: What if Syriza wins? (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1040/what-if-syriza-wins/) It would be a disaster under present conditions and with their current programme.

[New International]

While Syriza might not be as radical as we'd like due to the fact that any attempt at unity will water down a revolutionary programme, our main problem today is appealing to the masses after two generations of anti-Leftist propaganda. And convincing modern workers that the Left represents viable alternatives -- and is the only defence against the rising extreme Right. Even a small victory here represents a new beginning for us after years of defeat.

We should unite on nationalisation as opposed to privatisation and increased worker-control of the new enterprises while opposing austerity. We should focus on building a new International out of the infrastructure that globalisation and technology has provided. If this happens, we'd be in a stronger position to push more radical programs.

[Q]

While Syriza might not be as radical as we'd like due to the fact that any attempt at unity will water down a revolutionary programme
With that kind of logic we might either stop being revolutionaries altogether as the masses will only "water down" any such programme or being Blanquists and build revolutionary conspiracies, 'guiding' the masses as if they were sheep.

Both approaches are problematic, to say the least.


our main problem today is appealing to the masses after two generations of anti-Leftist propaganda. And convincing modern workers that the Left represents viable alternativesThat remains to be seen. The linked article in my previous post sketches quite a few issues with Syriza coming to power. At the same time it also outlines under what context we could come to power as a class with, yes, a revolutionary programme.


and is the only defence against the rising extreme Right. Even a small victory here represents a new beginning for us after years of defeat.I would argue the opposite: Prematurely coming to power will ensure a new cycle of defeat. There is no victory in sight at this point in time.


We should unite on nationalisation as opposed to privatisation and increased worker-control of the new enterprises while opposing austerity.Nationalisations done by capitalist states have been done in the recent past. What we've seen is that these companies are run like normal corporate enterprises. You raise the demand that these companies should therefore be run under worker control. This implies a political takeover of the state and thorough democratisation of society in order to break the bureaucratic stranglehold of the state. This in turn implies breaking from the international hierarchy of states and, therefore, a necessarily continental view of taking power if we are not to isolate ourselves in the way North-Korea is expelled from international life, with all the disastrous results that would follow from that.

So no, nationalisations under workers control is not the first priority. Dismantling the capitalist state, on a continental level, is what we should aim for before we can start changing society.


We should focus on building a new International out of the infrastructure that globalisation and technology has provided. If this happens, we'd be in a stronger position to push more radical programs.Agreed, it should be our top priority. Right after communist unity based on a communist programme and building mass party-movements where we could organise our class as a class-collective.

[RedKobra]

Welcome New International, I have to say I agree with Q's analysis. Those who don't learn from history and condemned to repeat it as the saying goes.

Nationalisation solves nothing as the fundamental class contradictions still exist. The sad fact is if we tried, under the auspices of bourgeois democracy, to make any genuine change to the system the forces of Capital would unleash hell. Bourgeois democracy guarantees nothing but the maintenance of the system as it is. It doesn't matter if you vote in a sincere social democrat, a sincere green democrat, a sincere democratic socialist or even a full blown Revolutionary Socialist the system contrives to bind the politician in every way possible. Socialising production would be an act of war and it would pit the government of a single nation and its working class against the entire force of global capital. Defeat would be inevitable.

Sadly there are no short cuts to revolution and when ever short cuts to revolution have been tried in the past they've been redused to the rankest kind of opportunistic vanguardism.

[Blake's Baby]

... any attempt at unity will water down a revolutionary programme...

Why? Do you mean 'unity among revolutionaries' or do you mean 'unity with non-reovlutionaries'?

The first doesn't mean watering down the revolutionary programme (not entirely sure what 'the revolutionary programme' is in concrete terms but never mind), it means strengthening the revolutionary organisation and thus its usefulness to the working class; the second... is a stupid notion. We don't make ourselves or the working class stronger by uniting with our enemies.

[RedWorker]

Podemos is a terrible party. I've wrote an article detailing its whole history: Exposing the Podemos fraud (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19183). It is remarkable that the party has managed to go from a good social democratic party to terrible so quickly.

[contracycle]

Well, just so New International is not left alone to be dogpiled, I'm going to agree with the OP. I think the situation is dire enough that unless left politics of any variety, including reformist, can start showing it can achieve solid gains, we're fucked.

And no, I don't believe that this in any way compromises or undermines either the relevance or effectiveness of revolutionary politics.

[New International]

I think it's a false dichotomy and a tactical mistake to split Comrades into "Revolutionary" and "non-Revolutionary" camps. There is no reason why multiple tactics cannot and should not be employed. A series of small successes that builds up confidence and public support can create the space for bigger changes, as opposed to waiting for perfect and total revolutions. As Lenin said, try again. Fail again. Fail better. Yes, a Syriza government could implode -- but to assume total defeat for anything other than perfect Revolutionary conditions is self-defeating. If we refuse to participate or support anything other than the ideal, the Right is happy to step in. Such is the case with Golden Dawn in Greece, as was the case with the Freikorps in Germany.

The fact is that starting from the beginning of the public relations industry founded by Bernays, Capitalist countries have been extremely effective at pushing populations toward the right while highlighting the failures of the Left in the minds of the public. This can be seen in opinion polls and by our position at the political fringes of society. I know certain sections of the Left object to this fact, but we must consider social conditions as they are, learn from them and undermine them. As opposed to further alienating ourselves.

One of my objections having attended conferences, meetings and protests is the way some of the Left treats other Comrades with different tactics. Some even fight over the narcissism of the smallest differences, even branding others as "enemies" "counter-revolutionaries" or outright character assassination. This is the type of behaviour that leads to fragmentation and infighting. I think we should improve upon this and pursue more flexible approaches.

This type of strategy was employed by Marx when he suggested a list of actions and groups to support based upon the different social conditions of each country in "The Principles of Communism." For example, in the United States he called for support of the "National Reformers" who ran on the platform of "vote yourself a farm" under obviously less than ideal revolutionary conditions. Excerpt:

"In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers."

[Blake's Baby]

So; in concrete terms which enemies of the working class, or if you like 'comrades with different tactics', are you prepared to work with? Just so we know if it's the PKK or ISIS, the US Army or Russian Special Forces, the PLA or Ukrainian fascists?

Just give us some clues, please.

[Creative Destruction]

I think it's a false dichotomy and a tactical mistake to split Comrades into "Revolutionary" and "non-Revolutionary" camps. "

They're diametrically opposite camps, so I don't know why you wouldn't. Non-revolutionaries do not seek an end of the current system, otherwise they would be revolutionaries.

[contracycle]

Poison that well!

I disagree with NI about the difference between reformists and revolutionaries not being important, I think it is. But come on, NI didn't say "reactionaries", that's over extension to an illogical degree.

This should probably be taken to another thread but...

.. come on now. If the Tories win the next election, their austerity policies are going to lead to people dying on gurneys in hospital corridors, just as happened before they were kicked out in '97; only it's probably going to be much worse. Are you really going to turn your back on the workers, tell them you won't lift a finger to help, just because they aren't quite ready to mount Richard Branson's head on a spike? Because I don't remember reading that chapter in How To Win Friends & Influence People.

[New International]

The point I'm trying to make is that just because you support a strategic or temporary reformist measures doesn't mean you eschew the ultimate goal of revolution. It's not an either-or proposition. Marx was very clear about coopting different strategies depending on the particular social conditions of the society. The hard work of winning public opinion and trust depends on the perception of the Left and its perceived viability as a legitimate alternative. It makes no sense to wait around for conditions to deteriorate to the point that the world is on fire before we can sweep in with our revolutionary programs.

The comment about working with fascists and reactionaries is purposely inflammatory and exactly the type of behaviour I'm talking about.

[Blake's Baby]

Right. So you'll work with reformists, who are in parties that sanctioned the murder of revolutionaries and the working class (the SPD, the Labour Party, the French Socialists etc), but you won't work with revolutionaries, because they're a bit rude and call you out on your terrible politics?

I'd say, go all out for unity, as long as you leave the revolutionaries out of it.