Tendency?

[Comrade Jacob]

Give me your tendency you egg.

Lin Biaoist-Maoism

[The Feral Underclass]

ultraleft communist

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Libertarian Marxist/Marxian anarcho-communist.

[Sentinel]

I don't know what I am anymore to be honest, somewhere between a libertarian Marxist and a left wing Leninist I guess. I've 'always' found myself somewhere inbetween marxism and anarchism, thus not fitting properly in either camp and getting shit slinged at me from both the left and the right :grin:

I feel close to certain forms of more 'red' anarchism such as anarcho-syndicalism and platformism. At the same time I haven't so far been fully prepared to give up on the idea of some kind of workers state, or using bourgeois elections as a platform either - despite heavy disillusionment resulting from the practical experience of belonging to a Leninist party.

But yeah it's starting to get a bit frustrating now as I've pretty much been sitting on my ass for a year soon, since I quit the party, so I'm open to persuasion efforts from different directions.. Yeah, well almost all directions.

[Zoop]

Libertarian Communist

[Sasha]

#yachtcommunism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

#accelerate

[G4b3n]

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-second worldist of the right leaning Trotskyist school with affiliations of the Hoxhaist variety of the semi-revisionist lineage. Just like anyone who isn't a petty-bourgeois. Duh

[motion denied]

M a r x
a
r
x

[PhoenixAsh]

Red tube.

I mean...wait...eh...can I change my answer to Anarchism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I am a Trotskyist, as any real socialist would be :lol:

Given that most people have their tendency already listed, a more interesting discussion would ask, what tendency other than your own is the least annoying to you? A good idea for a thread, I think.

[The Feral Underclass]

^Trotskyism

[Blake's Baby]

Luxemburgo-Damenist.

Combines the passion of German Left Communism with the organsiational ability of the Italian Left. Oh yeah.

[John Nada]

Homicidal

[The Intransigent Faction]

Sometimes:


Libertarian Marxist/Marxian anarcho-communist.

and sometimes:


Homicidal.

[Quail]

Libertarian communist (think my tendency is/was set to anacrha-feminism on here though).

[Q]

'Orthodox' Marxist. I believe my positions are pretty clear.


I am a Trotskyist, as any real socialist would be :lol:
Of course dear.


Given that most people have their tendency already listed, a more interesting discussion would ask, what tendency other than your own is the least annoying to you? A good idea for a thread, I think.
Hmm, Leninists are least annoying where they support democracy in the movement (barely any do though, unless they're hypocritically calling for the right to form factions inside other parties and organisations).

[consuming negativity]

groups are always defined by their out-groups, and human society is thus defined by conflict between groups ranging from the singular to the near-universal. the purpose of the state is to resolve these conflicts in a way that maintains state power and the principle of hierarchy. if you talk to anybody, they will say first and foremost that the state needs defense forces and police forces: to defend against enemies of the state within and outside of its realm. if there are no enemies abroad or within, what point is there, then, of the main functions of the state?

conflict is necessary and it is maintained like a controlled nuclear reaction by the state. every time an enemy falls, a new one emerges. there are always two sides to the coin: good vs evil, red vs blue, black vs white, whatever you want to call them. but the point is that the game never actually ever ends. the christian rapture never came, and so the church hierarchy remained. socialism was never achieved, and so the ussr continued to exist. safety is never achieved, so the capitalist military-industrial complex grows larger. if everybody actually became a republican or a democrat and agreed on everything, what point would there be to politicians to represent opposing points of view?

to be radical is to reject hierarchy and power on principle: to demand an end to the game and a complete resolution of the conflicts of society by having one side of the coin triumph over the other and completely eliminate hierarchy. because the only way you can resolve the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is by getting rid of the class distinctions that create the two opposing sides. by destroying capitalism entirely and changing the mode of production to one that negates the need for a state.

it is always hope of change later on, it is always the possibility of making things a bit better, that leads us to accepting the principle of hierarchy and playing the game. we can win in the future if we just try a little bit harder! we can have a few more things if we work just a little bit harder! the state, when everything seems hopeless and we start getting ready to get rid of capitalism, gives us a glimmer of hope and adapts itself to the situation so we can be deluded into thinking that we've made progress. all the while our situation is actually getting worse in real terms as a society, with wealth inequality being at an all-time high, globally-speaking.

we are like horses trying to catch a carrot that we don't ever reach; we're chasing a high that we'll never find, and that's why we keep using the drug of power. i choose to reject the premise of the situation entirely. the only enemies we have are our own shadows, cast by the black light of fear onto each other in the darkness, who we slaughter mercilessly while genuinely feeling that we did the only thing we could in the given situation.

[mushroompizza]

Marxian ultraleftist left communist Luxembourgist democratic socialist libertarian socialist internationalist feminist anti theist with zapatisto sympathies.

[lutraphile]

Closer to a libertarian socialist but a member of a Trotskyist party (CWI).

[Art Vandelay]

Closer to a libertarian socialist but a member of a Trotskyist party (CWI).

This is one thing - well one of many things really - I found extremelly frustrating about the CWI. In terms of the politics of it's members, the organation is entirely heterogeneous. There is no shortcut to building a revolutionary party and big tent, family of the left, lowest common denominator approaches do more harm then good. There is such an odd assortment of characters in that organization. You're just as likely to come across someone whose knowledge of the works Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky is exhaustive, as you are someone who doesn't know what a transitional demand is. During my time in the CWI I organized with dedicated and talented individuals I'd be proud to call comrades and also people who lectured me on the necessity for voting democrat in the US. It's baffling to me how they use the history and theory of the Bolsheviks to justify an approach to party building that stands in direct contradiction with that advocated by Lenin and Trotsky.

For Marxists the only basis for common political work is the same as it has always been, programmatic agreement.

---

When asked by people unfamiliar with the radical left I simply identify as a Marxist. For those who are aware of the distinction, an orthodox Trotskyist.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

my tendency is sitting alone being sad

[RedWorker]

Marxist communist.

[Q]

This is one thing - well one of many things really - I found extremelly frustrating about the CWI. In terms of the politics of it's members, the organation is entirely heterogeneous.
Having been a member for more than 8 years, including being a representative to the International Executive Committee for the Dutch section at one point, I can only disagree.

Sure, there is a relative willingness to let new faces join and there is a relative willingness to listen to dissenting voices. But at the end of the day, disagreements, where they exist, may only happen internally; the leadership is wholly consolidated towards the official point of view and if you are a real annoyance, you'll "find yourself outside the organisation" as Taaffe is used to saying. Overall, the organisation is very homogeneous indeed as dissenting voices drop out or are gagged to silence. But that is my experience with mostly the European sections.

Maybe it is still too heterogeneous for your taste though. It probably is, in fact, as you're quite authoritarian in your party building methods.


There is no shortcut to building a revolutionary party and big tent, family of the left, lowest common denominator approaches do more harm then good. With "revolutionary party" you obviously mean nothing more than a sect that is pure, following the "correct" method. This has little to do with what the Bolsheviks were doing, despite what you might think.


For Marxists the only basis for common political work is the same as it has always been, programmatic agreement.Again, the method of a sect. The common basis happens to be on programmatic acceptance. Comrades have in the past made remarks that this is just silly word trickery, but it actually means something different.

In the method where you strive for programmatic agreement, you end up with an organisation where the programme (or, more commonly for Trotskyists, programmatic 'method', as a programmatic document often simply doesn't exist) is the product of the leadership and will be vehemently be protected by the leadership. It results in a stratified organisation. The programme can never be genuinely altered under new circumstances, as the leadership is the personification of it. Towards the wider working class the party sect then acts as a united front ideologically, political disagreement would after all only 'confuse' workers. The principal task of the party then is to bring out the "correct" slogans at any one time. This patronising attitude is a disease all 'Leninists' share.

In the method of programmatic acceptance, there is room for disagreement. You only enforce the programme as it was agreed by a majority. Minorities can and should openly debate their disagreements, as long as they abide to commonly held decisions of course. Minorities can also keep the leadership to account, and they should. All this political life serves to educate the wider working class in high politics, a principle revolutionary task if there ever was one as it prepares our class to rule society under its own banner.

[VivalaCuarta]

Some of us are building a revolutionary workers party, not a social democratic discussion salon.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Some of us are building a revolutionary workers party, not a social democratic discussion salon.

Is this supposed to be a reply to Q?

[Tim Cornelis]

Some of us are building a revolutionary workers party, not a social democratic discussion salon.

That's a wonderful one-liner, but isn't the reality that you have been building this "revolutionary workers' party" for decades without any progress? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results, and many Trot sects have done the same thing for decades and are still irrelevant and small. Isn't it fair to say then that these strategies are insane? And then you have things like Philly Socialists and SeaSol, that approach things differently, that both have gained, in a matter of years, a membership larger than the English-Canadian CWI section (apparently) which they have built for decades.

[VivalaCuarta]

They are not revolutionary. Marxists build a party to lead the proletarian revolution. If history has ended, then we will remain irrelevant. But if history has not ended, then all your "successes" will be counterrevolutionaries.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why do you think that they not revolutionary?

There may be some truth to that, that's why I advocate a dual organisational structure. A more mass-based movement and a communist party that recruits the most class conscious workers. Somewhat like the CNT and FAI, or KKE and PAME I guess. But then an organisation like Philly Socialists and SeaSol is still necessary as platform to radicalise workers and to form a communist party. Because both those organisations have done more to entice workers to radical politics than the strategies of various Trot-sects.

[Ele'ill]

nihilist

[Sewer Socialist]

I find myself agreeing with left- and council-communists for the most part when reading and on RevLeft, but I rarely find these people in the real world, where I find myself a bit out of place amongst Maoists and Troskyists on one side, and anarcho-syndicalists and post-leftists on the other, which are mostly the 4 sorts of revolutionary leftists I encounter. I usually say I'm a "Marxist", often to the surprise of people who assume I'm an anarchist.

I'm still figuring myself out, too, which is why I came here in the first place.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I just call myself a Marxist because i don't like to pigeonhole myself into one strict tendency. However i guess i would be abit of a Marxist-Leninist as well as a Marxist-Humanist. I do like alot of aspects of Anarchist Communism as well though i am not a Anarchist.

[Sasha]

nihilist

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.





;)

[The Modern Prometheus]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.





;)

Lol whenever i hear the word Nihilist i always think back to that scene :grin:

[Counterculturalist]

I hover around the ultraleft. I suffer from an infantile disorder.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm pretty infantile as well and one day my mother told me to fuck off using that very word. Then I realized I should research all of this ultraleft thing.

Now seriously, broadly left communist (I guess some people who use the label "semi-modernist" - or even full blown modernist - as criticism :lol:).

[Rafiq]

Some of us are building a revolutionary workers party, not a social democratic discussion salon.

I cannot believe people can think like this today... Don't you know what what defined, and distinguished both Marx and Lenin was a complete rejection of this phrase-mongering attitude?

Are you literally unaware of, for example, Marx's undying, prolonged wrath against the "true socialists" was exactly an assault on the kind of attitude that distinguishes "revolutionary workers parties" and "social democratic" talk. The whole point was that the true socialists, in the midst of the breaking of the old feudal bonds, were quick to simply attack the developments and unconditionally oppose them by merit of the effects which they would wrought - i.e. the breaking of old feudal bonds, for example, would lead to more exploited proletarians, and so on. They absolutely opposed engaging in the political process for these reasons. It is summarized, briefly, in the Communist Manifesto:


The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things those attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.


Except of course, we might differentiate the decaying old feudal bonds - which were almost purely political vestiges, from today's emergence of globalized capitalism and the dislocation of the coordinates of struggle since the end of the second world war and finally, the collapse of the international Left. What might even be more frightening, however, is that today's "revolutionary socialism", as you put it, often times serves as part of the Armada of global Putinist reaction - regardless of the official positions of the them regarding him. You see RT welcoming not only reactionaries, libertarians and conspiracy theorists on its show, but also "revolutionaries". We even see these kinds of dangerous developments - you know how stereotypically worthless the Left has become when Marine Le Penn is confident enough to demonstrate support for Syriza in Greece, purely as a means of reducing them to being a vehicle through which the aims of the European reaction can be realized. You see it when Fascists are absolutely content with lauding their support over to the Chavista, when "Communists" in the near east are content in serving as cosmetic reinforcement for Assad and the hezbollah, who in turn welcome their useful idiots apathetically.

That is not to say that the intentions of the Left are ones of malice, but that they have failed to make themselves a force of a politically independent working class. With all the empty harking of "revolution" in a time where it is not even close to being possible, and fervent opposition to all things worldly, they become merely an instrument of a higher power. To build a "revolutionary workers party" you first need an actually effective, and real workers party. Because having enough food for dinner, or making enough to pay your rent is presently a much higher on the list of priorities of the working people, than your abstract "revolution", it is absolutely worthless to attempt to build a genuine workers party with such worthless sloganeering. Social democratic cowardice only arises when, in the course of fighting for these "small" things, it becomes apparent that ONLY more radical demands can sustain the vitality of the movement, and the leaders of the working people back out, and compromise.

[Art Vandelay]

Sure, there is a relative willingness to let new faces join and there is a relative willingness to listen to dissenting voices. But at the end of the day, disagreements, where they exist, may only happen internally; the leadership is wholly consolidated towards the official point of view and if you are a real annoyance, you'll "find yourself outside the organisation" as Taaffe is used to saying. Overall, the organisation is very homogeneous indeed as dissenting voices drop out or are gagged to silence. But that is my experience with mostly the European sections..


First off, there is nothing wrong with a leadership publishing or disseminating only the line democratically decided upon by the majority within the organization. The issue arrises when the line hasn't been reached by a democratic majority, when the rank and file of the party have not been educated to the point where they can make an informed decision on the matter at hand (think of the group of 11 debate), or when avenues for debate within the organisation are shut down.

The second issue here, is that ideas - especially political ones - don't manifest themselves in isolation. Far from existing in a vacuum, they are the representation of existing class interests. One of the most elementary tasks of Marxists is to see the ideological strings connected to a given idea or viewpoint and trace it to the hand which gives it life. The notion that all minority positions should be published and given equal space within party propaganda is as patently absurd as the demand of the petite-bourgeois opposition within the SWP (US) to have their own official newspaper.


Maybe it is still too heterogeneous for your taste though. It probably is, in fact, as you're quite authoritarian in your party building methods.

It's heterogenerous by the standards of anyone who is interested in having an organisation with a common political perspective (yes, how authoritarian of me), or who disagrees with you, that what is ideal is some big tent organisation that is filled with everything from anarchists to Maoists. Within the CWI you will find everything from state-cap theorists, to orthodox Trotskyists, libertarian socialists, anarchists, liberals and individuals with no discernable politics at all. If you think that is homogenous, then I simply don't know what to say.


With "revolutionary party" you obviously mean nothing more than a sect that is pure, following the "correct" method. This has little to do with what the Bolsheviks were doing, despite what you might think.

And your analysis of what the Bolsheviks were doing is one which is rejected by quite litterally - and I can't stress this enough - every single student of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, outside of Lars Lih and the folks who clutch Lenin Rediscovered like it's the bible. Not only this, but it flies in the face of the facts of the matter. Go take a look a party membership numbers for the Bolsheviks. The notion that it was a mass organisation is a fantasy. Outside of the brief swelling of it's ranks during revolutionary situations (1905,1917), the Bolsheviks remained a cadre organization.



Again, the method of a sect. The common basis happens to be on programmatic acceptance. Comrades have in the past made remarks that this is just silly word trickery, but it actually means something different.

In the method where you strive for programmatic agreement, you end up with an organisation where the programme (or, more commonly for Trotskyists, programmatic 'method', as a programmatic document often simply doesn't exist) is the product of the leadership and will be vehemently be protected by the leadership. It results in a stratified organisation. The programme can never be genuinely altered under new circumstances, as the leadership is the personification of it. Towards the wider working class the party sect then acts as a united front ideologically, political disagreement would after all only 'confuse' workers. The principal task of the party then is to bring out the "correct" slogans at any one time. This patronising attitude is a disease all 'Leninists' share.

In the method of programmatic acceptance, there is room for disagreement. You only enforce the programme as it was agreed by a majority. Minorities can and should openly debate their disagreements, as long as they abide to commonly held decisions of course. Minorities can also keep the leadership to account, and they should. All this political life serves to educate the wider working class in high politics, a principle revolutionary task if there ever was one as it prepares our class to rule society under its own banner.

Yes and we all know what type of programme you advocate for, a bare bones document that could be agreed upon by everyone from platformists to stalinists; the essence of lowest common denominator politics. What we stand for, however, is the Marxist programme, which we refuse to relinquish, for it is the embodiment of the dearly paid for lessons of history, a programme paid for by the blood of the working class. What you seek to create is a new mass workers party which you can subsume and liquidate yourself in. We, on the other hand, understand what Lenin meant when he said that there was a material basis for opportunism in the workers movement and know that the tasks of Marxists today is to above all swim against the current, to form fighting propaganda groups and to focus on cadre development. This approach is grounded in the understanding that the vanguard, above all else, represents the consciousness of the class, whose task it is to facilitate and effectuate the unification of the proletariat on a revolutionary basis, in other words as a class for itself; a unification which is only possible on the basis of doctrine and programme.

You are correct that there is a gulf that seperates these positions, one is the stance of Bolshevism, the other a rehashing of the worst tactics of the political swamp that was the 2nd international.

[Sharia Lawn]

Not welcoming people with anti-Marxist politics into your Marxist propaganda group is "authoritarian organizing"?

Please tell me that is a joke.

[#FF0000]

This is one thing - well one of many things really - I found extremelly frustrating about the CWI. In terms of the politics of it's members, the organation is entirely heterogeneous.

At what level are they heterogeneous though? The CWI in the US (Socialist Alternative, right?) strikes me as very similar to the ISO in that the rank-and-file are pretty much entirely clueless in regard to politics and no attempt is really made to change that because they're just fodder for activism and newspaper selling.

And I think it's fair to say that groups like the CWI are authoritarian in their structure, because like in a lot of Marxist parties (read: cults), it isn't just about agreeing with a programme but also agreeing with the official theory behind it.


The second issue here, is that ideas - especially political ones - don't manifest themselves in isolation. Far from existing in a vacuum, they are the representation of existing class interests. One of the most elementary tasks of Marxists is to see the ideological strings connected to a given idea or viewpoint and trace it to the hand which gives it life. The notion that all minority positions should be published and given equal space within party propaganda is as patently absurd as the demand of the petite-bourgeois opposition within the SWP (US) to have their own official newspaper.

lol now this is some true-believer shit

[#FF0000]

I find myself agreeing with left- and council-communists for the most part when reading and on RevLeft, but I rarely find these people in the real world, where I find myself a bit out of place amongst Maoists and Troskyists on one side, and anarcho-syndicalists and post-leftists on the other, which are mostly the 4 sorts of revolutionary leftists I encounter.

I'm more or less in the same place though I find myself agreeing less and less with left-communists these days, and agreeing more with those ortho-marxist dorks.

[VivalaCuarta]

Rafiq you have no idea what Marx & Engels were writing about! Yes Marxists opposed "true socialist" idealists who opposed a bourgeois revolution against the old regime.

What does that have to do with your opposition to proletarian revolutionary politics today? Nothing, but it proves that you are an ignorant blabbermouth!

[VivalaCuarta]

lol now this is some true-believer shit

Count me as one too then. I believe that the Russian Revolution happened. I believe that a lot of other revolutions were crushed, and revolutionary opportunities squandered. I believe that the revolutionary party should defend what we have learned from history against those who would repeat all the worst betrayals in the history of the workers struggle.

Workers and oppressed pay with their lives for the foolishness of you left dilettantes who refuse to learn.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

'left dilettantes who refuse to learn'

'Reforge the 4th International'

[#FF0000]

Count me as one too then. I believe that the Russian Revolution happened. I believe that a lot of other revolutions were crushed, and revolutionary opportunities squandered. I believe that the revolutionary party should defend what we have learned from history against those who would repeat all the worst betrayals in the history of the workers struggle.

The true-believer shit was, specifically, the idea that there's no reason to allow minority opinions in the party newspaper because apparently party editors can tell what the legitimate working class views are.

[VivalaCuarta]

The true-believer shit was, specifically, the idea that there's no reason to allow minority opinions in the party newspaper because apparently party editors can tell what the legitimate working class views are.

No, minority opinions are not guaranteed in the party press of a revolutionary party. Not because they are or aren't "legitimate working class views" whatever that means (does it mean something different if you use italics?) but because the party press is for promoting one point of view, the party's program.

Go write a blog, have your freedom of criticism there, or on "rev" left. Some of us would rather have a party for workers revolution.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://a1.s6img.com/cdn/box_005/post_15/620626_5160355_lz.jpg

Finally!!! Now I have an excuse to justify posting that picture...

[motion denied]

I also find myself agreeing with leftcoms sometimes. But where do I find them? Internet? Study groups in University? Yes and yes. In unions? No, they're too reactionary - they're basically the state. Parties? All existing parties are reformists, social-democrats or traitors. Social-movements in general? Not really, they don't confront capital in its totality. Many autonomists (well, more like Lefort's ICO than anything) might as well erase the proletariat cuz theory is prettier than reality.

I too find myself amongst class struggle anarchists, trotskyists and stalinists. I don't belong. Sux.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq you have no idea what Marx & Engels were writing about! Yes Marxists opposed "true socialist" idealists who opposed a bourgeois revolution against the old regime.


The siding with the ancien regime, however, was only symptomatic of a larger problem among the true socialists - a problem that is not simply reducible to their "idealism". It was their incessant opposition to engaging in the world of politics in general, that which they considered to be - much like you do - "corrupted" and so on. In the process, they ended up for the ancien regime, much like how in the process of opposing politics, most leftists will be for the bloody reaction.

[Q]

First off, there is nothing wrong with a leadership publishing or disseminating only the line democratically decided upon by the majority within the organization. The issue arrises when the line hasn't been reached by a democratic majority, when the rank and file of the party have not been educated to the point where they can make an informed decision on the matter at hand (think of the group of 11 debate), or when avenues for debate within the organisation are shut down.
Yes, there certainly is an issue when avenues of debate get shut down, which is what 'Leninist' organisations habitually do. Open debate often conflicts with "educating" (really training) members to make "informed" decisions ("informed decisions" always happens to mean "decisions that concur with the leadership" in these groups). Then there is an interesting dynamic where 'Leninist' groups are often using formal democratic norms (congresses and such), where the leadership feels it isn't under threat of any kind.


It's heterogenerous by the standards of anyone who is interested in having an organisation with a common political perspective (yes, how authoritarian of me), or who disagrees with you, that what is ideal is some big tent organisation that is filled with everything from anarchists to Maoists. Within the CWI you will find everything from state-cap theorists, to orthodox Trotskyists, libertarian socialists, anarchists, liberals and individuals with no discernable politics at all. If you think that is homogenous, then I simply don't know what to say. Maybe Socialist Alternative really is a 'big tent' organisation. With a membership barely reaching 200 souls I kinda doubt that though. So I rather suspect that my initial post where I described the European sections as having a stratified organisation is perfectly applicable to the US situation. 'Leninist' groups indeed tend to become more stratified as they aim to get bigger, as the leadership wants to consolidate its position. So, while anarchists may indeed reside in the organisation (shock! horror!), they will never get a majority for their views as there simply is no room for their viewpoints to be made (aside from a few formal alleys, mainly the internal bulletin).


Outside of the brief swelling of it's ranks during revolutionary situations (1905,1917), the Bolsheviks remained a cadre organization. Yes, this is the mistaken 'Leninist' view on that party, I'm well aware of it. You need t maintain this line as it enables you with historic 'proof' that little sectlets on the far left can one day become mass organisations, under the right revolutionary conditions.

The actual reality of the matter was that while the RSDWP wasn't massive in membership numbers - due to police state conditions - it really had a massive influence. This was indeed underlined in the revolutionary conditions, when the Tsarist police state was weak enough for ordinary workers to become members.


Yes and we all know what type of programme you advocate for, a bare bones document that could be agreed upon by everyone from platformists to stalinists; the essence of lowest common denominator politics.It is kind of sad how you were once sympathetic to orthodox Marxist politics, yet are able to make such blatantly wrong statements.

Working class power is 'bare bones'? The politics of democracy, internationalism and the independent political position of our class is a 'lowest common denominator' that Stalinists (of all currents!) could find themselves agreeing? You actually believe what you're saying?


You are correct that there is a gulf that seperates these positions, one is the stance of Bolshevism, the other a rehashing of the worst tactics of the political swamp that was the 2nd international.Yawn.

[consuming negativity]

No, minority opinions are not guaranteed in the party press of a revolutionary party. Not because they are or aren't "legitimate working class views" whatever that means (does it mean something different if you use italics?) but because the party press is for promoting one point of view, the party's program.

Go write a blog, have your freedom of criticism there, or on "rev" left. Some of us would rather have a party for workers revolution.

"i want food!"

"alright, well we have some seeds here, why don't we plant them and with a lot of work we'll ha---"

"IF YOU WANT TO PLAY FARMER YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD BUT SOME OF US WOULD RATHER HAVE OUR FOOD NOW BECAUSE WE'RE HUNGRY"

a complete separation of the left-wing of the working class from the rest of the working class does nothing but serve the interests of capital by creating divisions. change the character of the class from within it or you won't at all without becoming exactly what you hate. do you guys not realize that the entire idea of a revolutionary vanguard is nothing less than the separation of part of the working class to be placed above the rest? it is the creation of hierarchy. it is exactly what we are opposed to and you think it's necessary and it isn't and that is our entire point but you duplicitous fucks keep ruining it with your "realism" which is actually just the tempering of radical thought

[Blake's Baby]

I also find myself agreeing with leftcoms sometimes. But where do I find them? Internet? Study groups in University? Yes and yes. In unions? No, they're too reactionary - they're basically the state. Parties? All existing parties are reformists, social-democrats or traitors. Social-movements in general? Not really, they don't confront capital in its totality...

Actually, that's what we do. That's pretty much all we do - constantly over and over and over we try to get workers to realise that not confronting capitalism in its totality is a disastrous mistake.

The reason you can't find us in real life is because there are only 300 of us on the planet. We're spread very very thinly. So you go on a demo or something and there's 10,000 people there and 3 Left Comms. What's the chances you're going to meet them?

[Thirsty Crow]

I also find myself agreeing with leftcoms sometimes. But where do I find them? Internet? Study groups in University? Yes and yes. In unions? No, they're too reactionary - they're basically the state. Parties? All existing parties are reformists, social-democrats or traitors. Social-movements in general? Not really, they don't confront capital in its totality. Many autonomists (well, more like Lefort's ICO than anything) might as well erase the proletariat cuz theory is prettier than reality.

I too find myself amongst class struggle anarchists, trotskyists and stalinists. I don't belong. Sux.
Yep, you find us online most definitely, and depending on your location, demos, or organization premises. Contact is rather easy that way as well, but in many places any organizing, especially on the basis of organizing a writing collective with a tendency to constitute a political organization, is extremely hard and basically it starts from scratch. That's my experience and I think it's pretty much universal when it comes to places without any organizational and political history of that kind.

Now as far as unions are concerned, as far as I know, only the ICC have an explicit no union membership policy which is beyond stupid. In a few years you could find me, hopefully, in a union (not as an official though :lol:). But you're right that not many left communist would favor entryism in the sense of joining an existing reformist party. In fact, I'm not so sure I'd say avoiding this is a matter of principle as I'd stress that the class composition of the party is hugely important, but still my one real life example where I live involved me not joining a SYRIZA wannabe organization (with a whole load of its own problems which can't be reduced to the general framework of contemporary reformism).

In many cases left comms would advocate coalescing from the ground up as a favored mode of organizing re: what I said above about existing parties.

[Sharia Lawn]

Q, I think it is misleading to attribute violation of democratic norms to "Leninism" when the two most publicized cases that I can recall revolve around orgs that abandoned Leninism long ago, in order to move in the direction of the kind "democratic" and "anti-authoritarian" openness you seem to be advocating here. Those two are the CWI and the British SWP, both of which try to vacuum up as many members as possible from various movements it dips its toe into. The result is a rank-and-file membership with very little understanding or experience in the sorts of theoretical issues that are debated when questions of program arise. It is a rank and file membership that ends up browbeaten, bullied, and silenced the second it steps beyond the boundaries of what the leadership deems acceptable.

In the supposedly authoritarian modes of organizing that you condemn, that doesn't happen. The agreement on program makes real internal democracy possible, without a leadership heavy-handedly imposing its vision to try to reconcile the irreconcilable political views of its 'diverse' membership.

[Cliff Paul]

In the supposedly authoritarian modes of organizing that you condemn, that doesn't happen. The agreement on program makes real internal democracy possible, without a leadership heavy-handedly imposing its vision to try to reconcile the irreconcilable political views of its 'diverse' membership.

This is true, there's less interparty bickering in traditional M-L organizations. Usually because people with disagreements split off and create other organizations, leaving us with hordes of politically irrelevant Leninist parties, each of which claims to be the true heir to Leninism.

[Sharia Lawn]

This is true, there's less interparty bickering in traditional M-L organizations. Usually because people with disagreements split off and create other organizations, leaving us with hordes of politically irrelevant Leninist parties, each of which claims to be the true heir to Leninism.

No organization on the 'revolutionary' left today, including those of left communists or the CPGB 2.0, is more than a sect. There is no shortcut out of this, short of jettisoning a revolutionary program and lining up behind various social democratic or bourgeois parties. I am not sure why, but practically every poster on this website seems to think that building a force capable of winning a revolution is a linear process of quantitative accumulation. It's almost as if their paradigm is implicitly electoralist, because it certainly doesn't account for the non-linear rhythms of class struggle that occasionally throw up revolutionary situations.

[Q]

Q, I think it is misleading to attribute violation of democratic norms to "Leninism" when the two most publicized cases that I can recall revolve around orgs that abandoned Leninism long ago, in order to move in the direction of the kind "democratic" and "anti-authoritarian" openness you seem to be advocating here. Those two are the CWI and the British SWP...
That is your opinion, which is duly noted. These organisations very much come from and still self-identify as a Leninist organisation.


... both of which try to vacuum up as many members as possible from various movements it dips its toe into. The result is a rank-and-file membership with very little understanding or experience in the sorts of theoretical issues that are debated when questions of program arise. It is a rank and file membership that ends up browbeaten, bullied, and silenced the second it steps beyond the boundaries of what the leadership deems acceptable.

In the supposedly authoritarian modes of organizing that you condemn, that doesn't happen. The agreement on program makes real internal democracy possible, without a leadership heavy-handedly imposing its vision to try to reconcile the irreconcilable political views of its 'diverse' membership.
You see a difference where both modes of organisation are really two sides of the same coin.

In one the organisation aims for a wider membership. Given the requirement on theoretical agreement, this results into a stratified hierarchy, where a sealed off pure leadership tolerate members that have different opinions, but don't accept them. Cue bureaucratic centralism.

In the other group, with the very same organisational standards, members are required to agree on the theory and programme before they can become a member. This results in smaller, but more homogeneous groups and, I suppose, one where individual members have a bigger say. The Spartacists are an example of this form.

Both are sects though and neither are a road to becoming a revolutionary party worthy of the name.

[Cliff Paul]

No organization on the 'revolutionary' left today, including those of left communists or the CPGB 2.0, is more than a sect.

Here's what wikipedia tells me about the US trotskyist organizations. Maybe things are different in the UK...

Socialist Action, The Freedom Socialist Party, The ICL, The Fourth International Caucus and the Socialist Equality Party are splinters of the Socialist Workers Party
The ISO and the RSL were formed from people who left the IS
Then the RSL split again and people joined the LRP
The LFI was formed from people who left the ICL
The Trotskyist League was a splinter of the Revolutionary Workers League
The SWO and the Socialist Organizer are splits from Socialist Action
Spark is a splinter from the ICL

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, there certainly is an issue when avenues of debate get shut down, which is what 'Leninist' organisations habitually do. Open debate often conflicts with "educating" (really training) members to make "informed" decisions ("informed decisions" always happens to mean "decisions that concur with the leadership" in these groups). Then there is an interesting dynamic where 'Leninist' groups are often using formal democratic norms (congresses and such), where the leadership feels it isn't under threat of any kind.

Attributing this to Leninism is simply innacurate. The point is that most groups that associate themselves with the politics of Lenin and Trotsky (CWI included) have nothing in common with Bolshevism. In fact, these organizations routinely evoke the politics of Lenin and Trotsky to justify activity that stands in stark condratiction to what they advocated.

I think Izvestia summed it up well when he/she said:

The result is a rank-and-file membership with very little understanding or experience in the sorts of theoretical issues that are debated when questions of program arise. It is a rank and file membership that ends up browbeaten, bullied, and silenced the second it steps beyond the boundaries of what the leadership deems acceptable.

It would be dishonest to attribute to Leninism the problems associated with the organizational techniques of ostensible Leninist parties.


Maybe Socialist Alternative really is a 'big tent' organisation. With a membership barely reaching 200 souls I kinda doubt that though. So I rather suspect that my initial post where I described the European sections as having a stratified organisation is perfectly applicable to the US situation. 'Leninist' groups indeed tend to become more stratified as they aim to get bigger, as the leadership wants to consolidate its position. So, while anarchists may indeed reside in the organisation (shock! horror!), they will never get a majority for their views as there simply is no room for their viewpoints to be made (aside from a few formal alleys, mainly the internal bulletin).

The last membership numbers I saw had SALT at 1000 members if my memory serves correct. Now can CWI stats of one of their own section's membership be trusted to have not been inflated? Probably not. But they are certainly much larger than 200. Regardless, I think that is entirely beside the point. The key word in my comment, that you left out, was 'approach'. I didn't claim that the CWI was a big tent organization (although that is certainly what they seek to become - their stated goal is the founding of a new mass workers party), but rather that big tent approaches to party building do more harm then good. And yes, it is ridiculous that anarchists are members of a 'Trotskyist' organization, although I'm sure you see nothing wrong with this, given your approach to party building. Leninists, however, don't seek to ally ourselves with people who will split with the proletarian vanguard the minute a revolutionary situation arises, due to their confused conception of the state. We don't care to have constant and unproductive debates with them, nor do we fetishize left unity. We seek to form a proletarian vanguard that will be built into a tool as efficient as the scalpel of a surgeon when the time comes to act. To accomplish this, we'll take quality over quantity for the time being.


Yes, this is the mistaken 'Leninist' view on that party, I'm well aware of it. You need t maintain this line as it enables you with historic 'proof' that little sectlets on the far left can one day become mass organisations, under the right revolutionary conditions.

The actual reality of the matter was that while the RSDWP wasn't massive in membership numbers - due to police state conditions - it really had a massive influence. This was indeed underlined in the revolutionary conditions, when the Tsarist police state was weak enough for ordinary workers to become members.

Again, this showcases either your unwilingless or inability to engage with the ideas of Lenin as they actually are and with the history of the Bolsheviks. You can continue your refrain that the organizational basis of the Bolsheviks was the German SPD model, but it is an ahistorical claim that ignores the most important lesson Lenin drew from the degeneration of the second international. The point he makes over and over again, is that there is a material basis for opportunism in the workers movement. This is why, for Marxists, the German SPD model is rightfully obsolete. Lenin's conception was clear and it differs in everyway from what you advocate. It is not until a revolutionary situation arises, when sections of the working class are acting in an objectively revolutionary fashion, regardless of what their theoretical conceptions are on a subjective level, that the doors of the party are thrown open and membership numbers swell. You seek to create a mass party outside of revolutionary situations; Leninists understand that if you build a mass party outside of revolutionary situations, there is going to be something very non revolutionary about your programme.


Working class power is 'bare bones'? The politics of democracy, internationalism and the independent political position of our class is a 'lowest common denominator' that Stalinists (of all currents!) could find themselves agreeing? You actually believe what you're saying?

Yes, you advocate the same type of programme that millions of people who supported world war one could agree with. The point is that what you advocate is something anyone from an idiosyncratic platformist to a stalinist could get behind and - as you well know - already do. In practise, the minimum-maximum programme is nothing but reformist claptrap, as it contents itself with discussing socialism as an abstraction and evoking proletarian revolution as merely a lifeless decoration to pretty up reforms.

[Sharia Lawn]

That is your opinion, which is duly noted. These organisations very much come from and still self-identify as a Leninist organisation.

And nazis self-identified as "socialists." As a self-identified Marxist, you should be aware that the same surface appearances can mask quite different underlying relations.


You see a difference where both modes of organisation are really two sides of the same coin.

In one the organisation aims for a wider membership. Given the requirement on theoretical agreement, this results into a stratified hierarchy, where a sealed off pure leadership tolerate members that have different opinions, but don't accept them. Cue bureaucratic centralism.

In the other group, with the very same organisational standards, members are required to agree on the theory and programme before they can become a member. This results in smaller, but more homogeneous groups and, I suppose, one where individual members have a bigger say. The Spartacists are an example of this form.

Both are sects though and neither are a road to becoming a revolutionary party worthy of the name.Please define what you mean by "sect." By my understanding, a sect is a group that is organizationally anchored in only a section of the working class because it has not won broad enough appeal to win the masses to its program and make a serious contention for political power. Not surprisingly, this characterizes every far-left group in existence in the Western world today, of all tendencies. For some reason, and I'm not sure why, you and others here seem to believe that "sect" is a swear word, as if it represented deliberately turning your back on all workers. That's not what it means. It represents the chasm between the workers as they currently are, and what they need to be if they are going to overthrow capitalism. I recall a discussion Trotsky had with members of the US SWP, where members were protesting that they weren't a "sect." Trotsky's response? "Yeah, you are a sect, actually. We should be honest with ourselves."

To think this can be overcome by adopting the right party-building strategy is the ultimate in anti-materialist organizational fetishism. A very middle-class, labor-aristocratic conceit. The reason the far left is splintered into sects is the incredibly sad state of organized and militant working-class struggle. The way out of this is put forward a political line that most clearly represents the class independence of workers: an internationalist revolutionary line that clarifies that the workers' interests is in overthrowing capital and not just reforming it. That way, when objective factors line up to push workers to the barricades (which we have no control over), a leadership will be in place to innoculate them from the 'reasonable' calls for class compromise and reform.


Here's what wikipedia tells me about the US trotskyist organizations. Maybe things are different in the UK...

Socialist Action, The Freedom Socialist Party, The ICL, The Fourth International Caucus and the Socialist Equality Party are splinters of the Socialist Workers Party
The ISO and the RSL were formed from people who left the IS
Then the RSL split again and people joined the LRP
The LFI was formed from people who left the ICL
The Trotskyist League was a splinter of the Revolutionary Workers League
The SWO and the Socialist Organizer are splits from Socialist Action
Spark is a splinter from the ICL

What difference do you think it would make if all these groups stopped being so "sectarian" and joined forces together? A group of 500 instead of 10 groups 50 makes no difference regarding what can be accomplished, as far as the goals revolutionaries as distinct from activists in general are concerned (the latter being covered by working in united fronts anyway). In fact, we don't have to do guesswork about what having that group of 500 would entail. The ISO in the US had over 500 people, but programatically it was an artificial construction of all sorts of different political ideas. What happened it that organization, as well as its sister organization in the UK that has the same character, were torn apart the second pointed political questions arose. The group became dysfunctional, as any big-tent 'revolutionary' group will be in a period before aggressive class struggle results in clearer programmatic class lines proven in practice.

The reason splits are frequent at this point is that maintaining clarity of program is difficult in a period of regressed class struggle, as the ability to test different lines becomes harder. Instead groups assume more and more the role of fighting against the current in terms of ideas to try to inject a clear revolutionary understanding into what little organized struggle is occurring. To skip this stage as a means of building a big umbrella group is to adapt to the regressed level of struggle and opportunistically become reformist, as that is the only basis on which a political group can become a non-sect at this point. Think the Democratic Party in the US, or the Labour Party in the UK.

[Sharia Lawn]

I am not a fan of long quotes, but Trotsky's statements here in "Principled and Practical Questions Facing the Left Opposition" (1931) are particularly relevant.


The Brandlerites say that we are a "sect" while they are for a "mass movement." Generally speaking, this is the classic accusation that the Mensheviks hurled against the Bolsheviks. In counterrevolutionary periods, the Mensheviks adapted-to a certain extent they simply followed closely all the turns of the workers' movement-while the Bolsheviks selected and educated cadres. Today, in another situation, under other conditions, at another stage of development, precisely the same difference is the basis of the conflict between the left and the right….

In the projected platform [Theses of the International Left Opposition on the Russian Question], the state of the Bolshevik Party, which rests entirely upon an administrative apparatus, is described in detail. The ideology that holds the party together is today so formalistic and full of contradictions that the party will shatter into several pieces at the first severe shock. Thus, within the Comintern there are at least two large sections that are strong as organizations, but extremely weak as parties. It is precisely this fact that determines our role as a faction with respect to the official party in the immediate future. First of all we are creating the elements and preconditions for a Marxist crystallization within the official party. We are creating cadres. Whether we are a sect or not will be determined not by the quantity of the elements who are at present grouped around our banner, nor even by the quality of these elements (for we are very far from the point where all are of the highest quality), but rather by the totality of the ideas, the program, the tactics, and organization our particular group can bring to the movement.


This is why at the present stage the struggle of the Left Opposition is above all a struggle for program and for strategic principles. To say that we must speak to the needs of the masses, and to counterpose this truism to the Left Opposition means to fall to a fatal level of vulgarity; for our task is precisely to know with what ideas to address ourselves to the masses, with what perspective to develop their demands, including their partial demands. At one time the Stalinists in China appealed to huge masses. But what did they appeal with? With the program and methods of Menshevism. They destroyed the revolution. When the Brandlerites say "We can't feed the German masses with the Chinese revolution," they are not demonstrating their fancied realism but their vulgar opportunism. Spanish communists who have not assimilated the lessons of the Chinese revolution can destroy the Spanish revolution. And when a revolutionary situation develops in Germany, the German workers will look for cadres whose flesh and blood have been nourished by the lessons of the Russian, Chinese, and Spanish revolutions.


At a time when we are just beginning to educate and reeducate the cadres, the Brandlerites counterpose mass work to cadre education. That is why they will have neither one nor the other. Because they have no principled positions on basic questions and therefore are unable to really educate and temper their cadres, they spend their time carrying out a caricature of mass work.


FYI, the apparatus did indeed shatter. It was called the Great Purges.

[human strike]

Marxist-Pessimist

Some kind of post-left nihilist communist insurrecto autonome, but I prefer to simply call myself a communiser.

[Rafiq]

FYI, the apparatus did indeed shatter. It was called the Great Purges.

This is not however what Trotsky had been referring to: Although there was a purge, the party did not "shatter", rather the opposite was true: What would become the Communist party of the Soviet Union became distinctively politically homogeneous and ideologically uniform. Trotsky's prediction was that the party would become divided into several splinters by merit of its internal ideological strife, but even throughout the course of the purges the hegemony of the party remained unquestioned - as a matter of fact, those convicted were accused of conspiring against it in secret, demonstrating its enduring legitimacy.

[Sharia Lawn]

This is not however what Trotsky had been referring to: Although there was a purge, the party did not "shatter", rather the opposite was true: What would become the Communist party of the Soviet Union became distinctively politically homogeneous and ideologically uniform. Trotsky's prediction was that the party would become divided into several splinters by merit of its internal ideological strife, but even throughout the course of the purges the hegemony of the party remained unquestioned - as a matter of fact, those convicted were accused of conspiring against it in secret, demonstrating its enduring legitimacy.

What Trotsky meant was pretty clear. The Soviet apparatus in the early 1930s, in his view, was a mix of all sorts. The party did come uniformly under the thumb of Stalin by the late 1930s, but only by wiping out the opposing currents, including all sorts of cliques and oppositionists and former oppositionists. Those diverse cliques were certainly staffed overwhelmingly with counterrevolutionary careerists, but their politics were not exactly in line with Stalin's and they didn't owe Stalin or those within his clique their allegiance. Thus the hotchpotch nature of the bureaucracy that Trotsky wrote about.

You correctly point out that the hegemony of the party remained stable, but what wasn't stable was the exact political nature of that hegemony. Trotsky hoped to exploit the fissures within the party to reform the bureaucracy into a healthy workers' state. His assessment changed a couple of years later after the rise of Hitler to power, and he came to believe that whatever different cliques and sundry political currents existed within the bureaucracy, potentially revolutionary ones were so outnumbered and isolated that they were no longer a real political force inside the party. That led him to the conclusion that steering the revolution back on course was going to be impossible without a forcible overturn of the bureaucracy. If he was wrong, it was in understimating in the early 1930s just how thoroughly beholden to imperialism those various cliques were that represented in Trotsky's view an artificial unity.

The official reason for the convictions during the show trials, I hope you understand, is pretty irrelevant for understanding the role played by those trials in the social development of the Stalinist regime. It goes back to Q's earlier conflation of self-identification with the actual social or ideological nature of a person.

[Ele'ill]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.





;)

embrace the void

[StromboliFucker666]

Libertarian post marxist with anarchist sympathies

in other words, a leftcom

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Libertarian post marxist with anarchist sympathies

in other words, a leftcom

Not really.

Left communism is a historical current based on certain left-wing elements that existed in the Third International before the "Bolshevisation" of Western Communist parties. The Italian PCInt and the German KAPD are examples of historic left-communist organisations. Modern Left Communist organisations include the ICC and the ICT, although there are a lot of LeftCom militants outside these organisations.

This conflation of left communism with councilism and both with "libertarianism" and anarchist sympathies seems to be the work of Wikipedia whose editors, to be honest, simply don't seem to know much on that particular subject.

[Blake's Baby]

Libertarian post marxist with anarchist sympathies

in other words, a leftcom


Not really.

...

This conflation of left communism with councilism and both with "libertarianism" and anarchist sympathies seems to be the work of Wikipedia whose editors, to be honest, simply don't seem to know much on that particular subject.

Yes, this. If you want to find out more about Left Communism, there is a Left Communist user group here, though (like most groups now) it isn't very active. Or you can contact those of us who are Left Comms and find out more.

[sanpal]

Anti-Duhringist = anti-stalinist. I see nothing bad in traditional classic marxism. What about Revolutionary Marxism ... I don't understand how it have become mine, seems DNZ attached this label on my back when I was invited in his group

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure that's possible sanpal.

If you're a member of a user-group that you want as your 'tendency', go to that group, go into the tools on the upper right and click on the 'set as primary tendency' option.

[Faust Arp]

What a certain orthodox Trotskyist said about me:

"You're either the most right-wing leftcom or the most left-wing socialdemocrat to have ever walked the earth."

[Blake's Baby]

So, you're a Trotskyist then?

What is it that makes you a 'right-wing Left Comm' or a 'left-wing Soc-Dem'?

[The Idler]

Bit late but I am Classical Marxist / Marxian / Morrisist / Impossibilist. I've turned a couple of revlefters on to this but not many.

I've also noticed the hardcore dogmatists often Stalinists you might meet in real life on demos aren't interested in joining revleft for discussion so they are disproportionately under-represented here.

[SonofRage]

What a certain orthodox Trotskyist said about me:

"You're either the most right-wing leftcom or the most left-wing socialdemocrat to have ever walked the earth."

Sounds like a Democrat Socialist to me.

[Faust Arp]

So, you're a Trotskyist then?

What is it that makes you a 'right-wing Left Comm' or a 'left-wing Soc-Dem'?


Sounds like a Democrat Socialist to me.

I'm actually a very heterodox Trotskyist (Cliffite, mostly) with heavy Luxemburgist and Marxist-Humanist influences. I fully subscribe to the basic tenets of Leninism, but still tend to be more critical even of the pre-NEP Bolshevik regime than the average Trot, from a left-wing perspective (I like Victor Serge a lot). But on the other hand I hold some views on strategy and frontism which some Trots, like this one, find "opportunistic" and "right-deviationist" - namely working with minority groups which don't have to be strictly working-class in nature, but lean to the left, on the basis on intersectionality. The latter is where the "soc-dem" part apparently comes from, but I don't take that dude very seriously. :grin:

[sanpal]

I'm not sure that's possible sanpal.

If you're a member of a user-group that you want as your 'tendency', go to that group, go into the tools on the upper right and click on the 'set as primary tendency' option.


Thank you for advice. But I don't see a user-group that I want as my 'tendency', only if to create new one ... therefore I let 'Revolutionary Marxists' to be mine. Though this group is not understandable enough for me. Reading the Q's writings tell me that his (not open) user-group 'Orthodox Marxism' could be suitable for me not less than 'Revolutionary Marxists' but I'm afraid there there are no answers too on the questions I ask in Revleft for many years: economy and politics during transition period from capitalism to communism; how to leave from money and hence wage labour as comodity category; Proletarian parliament and selfmanagement/soviets; etc. etc. More than decade I'm in Revleft but all that I see is not more than political fight between different 'tendences'. It is sad.

[Guardia Rossa]

Libertarian-Vanguardist Revolutionary Marxist

Basically, I am against all conservatism, all forms of state-capitalism, against bourgeois infiltrations, somewhat nihilist.

I am very influenced by leftcom but their strategy sucks.
I was a neo-trot and pan-bolchevik (under the name "Neo-Leninism").

Also I like North Korea more then Cuba.

I also find funny to see people around here screaming bullshit about Kim.

[Sewer Socialist]

Thank you for advice. But I don't see a user-group that I want as my 'tendency', only if to create new one ... therefore I let 'Revolutionary Marxists' to be mine. Though this group is not understandable enough for me. Reading the Q's writings tell me that his (not open) user-group 'Orthodox Marxism' could be suitable for me not less than 'Revolutionary Marxists' but I'm afraid there there are no answers too on the questions I ask in Revleft for many years: economy and politics during transition period from capitalism to communism; how to leave from money and hence wage labour as comodity category; Proletarian parliament and selfmanagement/soviets; etc. etc. More than decade I'm in Revleft but all that I see is not more than political fight between different 'tendences'. It is sad.

You need to select the "Leave Group" option on the page of your current tendency before you will be able to see a "Join Group" option.

I left my current tendency, Revolutionary Marxists, to test this and forgot I need to be approved to join. Oh, well. :o

[G4b3n]

Bit late but I am Classical Marxist / Marxian / Morrisist / Impossibilist. I've turned a couple of revlefters on to this but not many.

I've also noticed the hardcore dogmatists often Stalinists you might meet in real life on demos aren't interested in joining revleft for discussion so they are disproportionately under-represented here.

Very true. The vast majority of commies I have met are stalinists. At least were I am, Stalin is actually winning the battle against Trotsky for the hearts and minds of western uni campuses. Not that there are any differences in my view, but an interesting phenomenon it seems.

[sanpal]

You need to select the "Leave Group" option on the page of your current tendency before you will be able to see a "Join Group" option.

I left my current tendency, Revolutionary Marxists, to test this and forgot I need to be approved to join. Oh, well. :o

Thanks for the help.

[sanpal]

Revolutionary Marxists group:
For those ... who acknowledge the need to bring about "the merger of [Marxism] and the worker movement" (Kautsky) and solve the crises of theory


I expected to see revolutionary decision on overcoming crisis in theory or trying to solve it.