Left unity and the fundamental divide

[G4b3n]

So, I have run across few people who believe the entire left can act in unison throughout a revolutionary material context.

So my question is: What is the fundamental division in the left?
Is it between the Leninist left and the left communists (anarchists included on the communist left).
Are there divisions too deep to reconcile even among Leninists themselves (trots vs Stalinists for example)?

I don't believe it is between Marxists and Anarchists as once was commonly believed. I think many anarchists have reconciled their differences with certain schools of Marxists. So what is it?

[Sewer Socialist]

It is between the reformist left and the revolutionary left.

There are reformists who call themselves anarchist, syndicalist, Marxist, socialist, communist, etc.

[Sinister Intents]

The entire left is Luke a shattered mirror where the biggest broken pieces have pieces that have broken off from those pieces. Anarchism is fragmented, Marxism is fragmented, the whole of the working class is fragmented.

There can be some unity, but workers' unity is of significantly more importance. Some Marxists are very close to anarchism and can work with them, and same with anarchists to Marxists.

There are also mutualists, voluntaryists, AnCaps, market socialists, and other groups that solely seek ideals that are impossible or they Just want reform.

There can be unity among workers, which workers' unity is of utmost necessity to a mass movement, but communist unity is secondary because those pieces will never fit together properly.

[G4b3n]

It is between the reformist left and the revolutionary left.

There are reformists who call themselves anarchist, syndicalist, Marxist, socialist, communist, etc.

When I say "the left" I mean the revolutionary left. Reformists not being part of the equation.

[Sinister Intents]

When I say "the left" I mean the revolutionary left. Reformists not being part of the equation.

I think it's possible between specific tendencies, but semantical and theoretical and historical differences make consolidation either almost impossible, or extremely difficult. Plus there are those among the revolutionary left that refuse to educate themselves and they may indeef repeat history.

[Art Vandelay]

I think the more important question is what tendencies or assumptions one may have, which lead them to the conclusion that the unification of 'the left' is in anyway desirable; find and root them out.

[G4b3n]

I think it's possible between specific tendencies, but semantical and theoretical and historical differences make consolidation either almost impossible, or extremely difficult. Plus there are those among the revolutionary left that refuse to educate themselves and they may indeef repeat history.

Okay, but lets look at the contemporary state of things. Revolutionary action right now is most relevant and realistic in the far east, where Maoists (or a sort of Maoism) are dominant. If you are like me, and see one of the major lessons of the 20th century is that Leninism should have died with the Lenin and the failed western revolutions, then this is just absolutely saddening.

How can we as communists who want genuine worker's control, not an absurd form of state centralization that winds up workers' rhetoric, cope with this? How can we work with the Leninist?

[Sinister Intents]

I think the more important question is what tendencies or assumptions one may have, which leads them to the conclusion that the unification of 'the left' is in anyway desirable; find them and root them out.

I think I've been doing exactly that

[Sinister Intents]

Okay, but lets look at the contemporary state of things. Revolutionary action right now is most relevant and realistic in the far east, where Maoists (or a sort of Maoism) are dominant. If you are like me, and see one of the major lessons of the 20th century is that Leninism should have died with the Lenin and the failed western revolutions, then this is just absolutely saddening.

How can we as communists who want genuine worker's control, not an absurd form of state centralization that winds up workers' rhetoric, cope with this? How can we work with the Leninist?

I wouldn't say Leninism is a failure, because Lenin was expounding upon Marxism and his writings on fascism and imperialism are still applicable today. I'd say we should not only learn from the problems that occurred with the Bolsheviks in power, but also with those that opposed them.

Russia was a semi-feudal nation, which is not what Marx and Engels spoke of as a nation where socialism could be built. That required advanced industrial nations with centralized public transport and communication.

I would try to expound upon what I'd like to say better which would be that we need to learn from the failures and successes of the past and apply them to the material conditions that exist today. Through educating about the past we might be able to get somewhere bettwr, and to create a generalized idea of what we want to achieve and how to achieve it. By creating a plan of attack by looking at the past and reflecting it to the future.

I think I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable on the subject because I'm not sure what to say as of yet besides learning from the past to create a road map to the future

[G4b3n]

I wouldn't say Leninism is a failure, because Lenin was expounding upon Marxism and his writings on fascism and imperialism are still applicable today. I'd say we should not only learn from the problems that occurred with the Bolsheviks in power, but also with those that opposed them.

Russia was a semi-feudal nation, which is not what Marx and Engels spoke of as a nation where socialism could be built. That required advanced industrial nations with centralized public transport and communication.

I would try to expound upon what I'd like to say better which would be that we need to learn from the failures and successes of the past and apply them to the material conditions that exist today. Through educating about the past we might be able to get somewhere bettwr, and to create a generalized idea of what we want to achieve and how to achieve it. By creating a plan of attack by looking at the past and reflecting it to the future.

I think I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable on the subject because I'm not sure what to say as of yet besides learning from the past to create a road map to the future

I don't think the problem with those of us on the communist left is with his conception of Imperialism (and as far as I know he didn't have anything notable to say about fascism but I generally take the standard Trotskyite stance on Fascism, most reactionary stage, etc), our problem is with his conception of political organization. And even if this conception were a necessity in semi-feudal Russia, they could no longer possibly be relevant in the age of the deindustrialized proletariat.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So my question is: What is the fundamental division in the left?
Is it between the Leninist left and the left communists (anarchists included on the communist left).

Why do people do this? Left communism is a very specific historical tendency, it doesn't include councilists, it doesn't include "Marxist humanists", and it certainly doesn't include anarchists. The main split today is between pro-October and anti-October groups. Leftcoms are pro-October. Councilists, most anarchists etc. are anti-October. Even in the pro-October camp, of course, there is no unity, and no unity is necessary or desired. "Left unity" means papering over real differences with compromise slogans.

[FSL]

When I say "the left" I mean the revolutionary left. Reformists not being part of the equation.

Reformists usually present their reforms as revolutionary and anything revolutionary as sectarian.

[G4b3n]

Why do people do this? Left communism is a very specific historical tendency, it doesn't include councilists, it doesn't include "Marxist humanists", and it certainly doesn't include anarchists. The main split today is between pro-October and anti-October groups. Leftcoms are pro-October. Councilists, most anarchists etc. are anti-October. Even in the pro-October camp, of course, there is no unity, and no unity is necessary or desired. "Left unity" means papering over real differences with compromise slogans.

I was more or less using the term as a catch-all phrase to refer to Marxists to left of Lenin. I don't see what is wrong with that. I was under the impression that only the Italian school ("return to Lenin", etc) was pro-October and most left coms (as a tendency) were anti-October?

If leftcoms in general are pro-october, what makes their Marxism even "left" besides their positions on imperialism, nat lib, etc., I mean in terms of political organization.

[Armchair Partisan]

"Left unity" means papering over real differences with compromise slogans.

And what's wrong with that? We can bicker about our differences after a revolution has happened, but the capitalists know how to put aside their own (equally real) differences in times of heightened class struggle and work together to suppress working-class movements. We are doomed if we don't do the same.

[motion denied]

Unity comes through struggle, not before it.

Also


To desire the unity of these through the union of the party executive and the general commission is to desire to build a bridge at the very spot where the distance is greater and the crossing more difficult. Not above, amongst the heads of the leading directing organisations and in their federative alliance, but below, amongst the organised proletarian masses, lies the guarantee of the real unity of the labour movement.

[BIXX]

And what's wrong with that? We can bicker about our differences after a revolution has happened, but the capitalists know how to put aside their own (equally real) differences in times of heightened class struggle and work together to suppress working-class movements. We are doomed if we don't do the same.
Its not capitalist unity that destroys anticapitalist movements but systemic annihilation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Enh. I actually don't see any real effective lack of unity on the left where I'm at.
Or, like, everybody isn't marching in lockstep and taking orders from the same central committee, but that hardly seems like the worst thing in the world. We can all more-or-less suck it up and send delegates/representatives to each others meetings, march in demonstrations together, etc. We all tolerate each other's stupid slogans (See: "Canada needs an anti-war government!" / "Canada needs an anti-government war!"), and it rarely escalates to anything beyond dirty looks. I'm perfectly happy with this level of unity! Hell, where I am, we're not even cutting each others grass - the folk organizing students/union staff/middle class "skilled workers", the folk organizing in the traditional poor neighbourhoods, and the folk gathering disaffected young skids are pretty distinct. Why is that bad?

Not that I'm particularly enamoured of 1917, but it didn't require left unity. Hell, leftists in Russia were literally assassinating each other. By that standard we're fucking BFFs here, haha.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was more or less using the term as a catch-all phrase to refer to Marxists to left of Lenin. I don't see what is wrong with that.

It groups currents and tendencies that not only have nothing to do with each other, but are actively hostile to each other. Can you seriously see a Bordigist and a Situationist admitting their politics share something nontrivial? I can't. In any case, there is a historical tendency called "the communist left", and calling everyone and their dog "left communists" is not taking these people seriously.

It also perpetuates the lazy myth spread by Wikipedia that "left communism" and "council communism" are near synonyms and include just about everyone except the Leninists (I mean Wikipedia calls Luxemburg a council communist at one point, go home Wikipedia, you're drunk).


I was under the impression that only the Italian school ("return to Lenin", etc) was pro-October and most left coms (as a tendency) were anti-October?

No, the same was true of the Dutch-German Left. E.g. the 1920 programme of the KAPD stated that:

" Of all the peoples of the Earth only the Russian proletariat has up to now succeeded in its titanic struggle to overthrow the domination of its capitalist class and seize political power. In a heroic resistance it has pushed back the concentrated attack of the army of mercenaries organised by international capital, and it now confronts a task of unsurpassed difficulty: that of reconstructing, on a socialist basis, an economy totally destroyed by world war and the civil war which followed it for more than two years."


If leftcoms in general are pro-october, what makes their Marxism even "left" besides their positions on imperialism, nat lib, etc., I mean in terms of political organization.

I'm not sure what the question is. You ask how the leftcoms are different from Leninists (or at least people that call themselves Leninists), then list the ways in which they're different.


And what's wrong with that? We can bicker about our differences after a revolution has happened, but the capitalists know how to put aside their own (equally real) differences in times of heightened class struggle and work together to suppress working-class movements. We are doomed if we don't do the same.

Because we aren't the ones who carry out the struggle against capitalism, but the working class. The various propaganda groups that exist today can merely present their programme to the working class and hope to win over a majority of the proletariat in motion to the side of the revolution. For that, clarity is paramount.

[G4b3n]

It groups currents and tendencies that not only have nothing to do with each other, but are actively hostile to each other. Can you seriously see a Bordigist and a Situationist admitting their politics share something nontrivial? I can't. In any case, there is a historical tendency called "the communist left", and calling everyone and their dog "left communists" is not taking these people seriously.

It also perpetuates the lazy myth spread by Wikipedia that "left communism" and "council communism" are near synonyms and include just about everyone except the Leninists (I mean Wikipedia calls Luxemburg a council communist at one point, go home Wikipedia, you're drunk).



No, the same was true of the Dutch-German Left. E.g. the 1920 programme of the KAPD stated that:

" Of all the peoples of the Earth only the Russian proletariat has up to now succeeded in its titanic struggle to overthrow the domination of its capitalist class and seize political power. In a heroic resistance it has pushed back the concentrated attack of the army of mercenaries organised by international capital, and it now confronts a task of unsurpassed difficulty: that of reconstructing, on a socialist basis, an economy totally destroyed by world war and the civil war which followed it for more than two years."



I'm not sure what the question is. You ask how the leftcoms are different from Leninists (or at least people that call themselves Leninists), then list the ways in which they're different.



Because we aren't the ones who carry out the struggle against capitalism, but the working class. The various propaganda groups that exist today can merely present their programme to the working class and hope to win over a majority of the proletariat in motion to the side of the revolution. For that, clarity is paramount.

Personally I do not identify with left communism as a historical ideaology. I simply view myself as a Marxist to the left of Lenin being in the anti-October camp for the most part. I would call myself a "libertarian" Marxist but I believe the rhetoric of liberty vs authority to amout to a shit concept intellectually. So I see no better way of describing my politics than left Marxism.

But upon farther research I do see some misconceptions I had about left commies as a wider tendency. Perhaps you could provide me with a historically respected work that does a decent job of summing up the various schools of left communism?