Why can't we be comrades?

[pharaohbanker]

Dear Comrades,

It is very difficult for various groups and ideologies on the left to genuinely work together, I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed basically any posts, videos and so on by left wing outlets. I am wondering if it is ever possible to put aside our differences and work together for the greater goal which we mostly share, the Socialist Revolution.

Does it matter whether you are a communist, anarchist, Maoist, Leninist, you name it -ist? Of course it does! Our differences are sometimes so great that we have a hard time giving one another the time of day even on this forum, not because we differ in goal, but because we differ in the theoretical road that will take us there.

My question is, wouldn't it be a good move for all of us to form a united front towards the enemy? To join forces and stand united when the greater goal of building Socialism is concerned? If a group of our comrades on the left needs our help, our support, our presence at rallies, our labour to build another (small) piece of the Revolution, should we stand idly by because they happen to subscribe to another variation of our ideology?

I think not. As far as I'm concerned the overarching goal should always be greater than our internal struggles, however righteous they might be. (I am not at all saying that we should just become one grey mass, we should stay concious of our beliefs and defend them valiantly!) We should, at those times, join forces and fight for those things that we hold so dear and we want to see happen for all of mankind (and animalkind). Even when that means we have to work together with less popular figures within our ranks, we could probably learn a thing or two from one another, and work out our stances and theories even deeper than we already have.

If that means working together with people like mr. Unruhe, who isn't very popular around here (I'm not blaming people) because he has youtube cloud and can help us reach out and bring our messages about gatherings, protests, injustices, you name it to the inbox of his subscribers, this would help us gain more revolutionaries, it would show that we can work together, and we can make use of resources that are available, but locked off due to differences that in the end, only elude us from our common goal.

Just my two cents, and this isn't just about Unruhe, we should consider a wider united front when it comes to these matters, without losing our own specific views of course.

Respectfully,

The banker

[reviscom1]

I agree that it should be easier than it is to unite around the goal of achieving power, because then we are defined by what we stand against. This is what I find so shocking about the behaviour of the different Republican factions during the Spanish Civil War.

When we actually achieve power then we will each come to be defined by what we are for. That equals a greater potential for disunity. And more than disunity. Where lefties are concerned any deviation from each individual's personal preferences tend to be seen as "betrayal"/"not true socialism"/"capitalism by other means" and so on. And in a sense it is right that lefties behave like that. How can they really be expected to do anything else? There is a lot at stake and everyone can see the danger of a missed opportunity.

[Ele'ill]

Not all of us have the same goals or see the means in any given tendency as being a method to achieve our goals. What we find in that praxis might take the form of an inadequate and self deluded character. I'm not saying that I don't like to hang out with furious people of varying tendencies and talk or work on projects with them though. It just means that left unity isn't an achievable goal.

[e_e]

My question is, wouldn't it be a good move for all of us to form a united front towards the enemy? To join forces and stand united when the greater goal of building Socialism is concerned?

Believe me, we've tried before. It rarely works, and when it does it doesn't last long.

[Bala Perdida]

Democracy is shit anyways. Trying to mimic it in a smaller circle is only committing suicide with the cop's gun.

[RedSonRising]

Yes, it's absolutely necessary. The right should be fucking laughing at how self-important all the Maoist and Leninist parties and Anarchist groups behave, and how obsessed they are over century old conflicts. Are there legitimate historical and ideological bases for disagreements? Of course. Does it justify the piss poor strategizing and robotic allegiance to particular versions of what happened nearly a century ago in peasant societies? No. We are losing people. Losing. And it's not just an unequal, exploitative system of wealth distribution and the usual atrocities committed by capital we're facing, but complete human catastrophe. Capitalism cannot sustain itself with finite resources, and that's what this planet has to offer. The crises are already starting. "Socialism or Barbarism" has never been more apt. Or perhaps "Socialism or Extermination" is what people need to get into their heads. It's not easy, it's not simple, but a united red front is the only way to advance working class interests in any meaningful way. If we can't organize a functional resistance movement, what hope could we possibly have of engineering a society based on participation and cooperation?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Because sectarianism.

I'm a branch committee member of the Revolutionary Alliance of Trans People Against Capitalism-Puget Sound, and an anarchist book store has refused to work with us on a project to support trans prisoners because we're "communists"--even though we're non-sectarian anti-capitalists and have anarcho-communists in our ranks.

[o well this is ok I guess]

left unity thread no. 39546467

[BIXX]

Because sectarianism.

I'm a branch committee member of the Revolutionary Alliance of Trans People Against Capitalism-Puget Sound, and an anarchist book store has refused to work with us on a project to support trans prisoners because we're "communists"--even though we're non-sectarian anti-capitalists and have anarcho-communists in our ranks.

Tbh what I remember from when I looked into RATPAC before sounded uninteresting, and generally undesirable in terms of goals if I remember correctly.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Tbh what I remember from when I looked into RATPAC before sounded uninteresting, and generally undesirable in terms of goals if I remember correctly.
We're doing work on the ground in support of fellow trans people and pursuing a non-sectarian approach to anti-capitalism. If that's undesirable, then I can't even guess what would be desirable to you.

At any rate, that anarchist book store is acting sectarian.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

left unity thread no. 39546467
And on and on they'll go, since the Left seems to have no interest in tackling sectarianism.

[Ele'ill]

Because sectarianism.

I'm a branch committee member of the Revolutionary Alliance of Trans People Against Capitalism-Puget Sound, and an anarchist book store has refused to work with us on a project to support trans prisoners because we're "communists"--even though we're non-sectarian anti-capitalists and have anarcho-communists in our ranks.

Did they explain why?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Did they explain why?
They said they don't want to organize with communists, even though we have as many anarcho-communists as Marxist-Leninists in our ranks, and even anti-capitalists who don't consider themselves communists. Apparently their purity is more important than organizing to support trans prisoners on Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity (January 22nd).

[Ele'ill]

They said they don't want to organize with communists, even though we have as many anarcho-communists as Marxist-Leninists in our ranks, and even anti-capitalists who don't consider themselves communists. Apparently their purity is more important than organizing to support trans prisoners on Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity (January 22nd).

Did they say they want to maintain their purity and not support an event because they don't care about trans prisoners?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Did they say they want to maintain their purity and not support an event because they don't care about trans prisoners?
It's implied when they say they won't organize with communists around that issue.

[Ele'ill]

It's implied when they say they won't organize with communists around that issue.

So whenever I, or a group i'm in, doesn't want to work on projects with communists or anarchists, which ever depending on the situation, I/the group is betraying them and others? Do you really think that anarchists in the PNW would do something like that just for scene points?






Yeah, perhaps.

[Rudolf]

They said they don't want to organize with communists, even though we have as many anarcho-communists as Marxist-Leninists in our ranks, and even anti-capitalists who don't consider themselves communists. Apparently their purity is more important than organizing to support trans prisoners on Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity (January 22nd).


Wow, how'd you all manage that one? MLs ive met irl have been really disruptive and insulting hence i can't work with them.


But tbh if im gonna organise with someone with shit politics they best not be a politico, that takes the piss.

[Guardia Rossa]

And on and on they'll go.

Evil "kaustskists" unite! You have nothing to lose but dogmatism!


Wow, how'd you all manage that one?

I'm also interested. The big problem in Brazil is that half of the left is M-L and the M-L's HATE everyone else (And themselves)

[Guardia Rossa]

If a group of our comrades on the left needs our help, our support, our presence at rallies, our labour to build another (small) piece of the Revolution, should we stand idly by because they happen to subscribe to another variation of our ideology?

Yes, because they are evil Nazis corrupting the true revolution (Ironic mode off)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Left unity is a nice goal, and certainly many of the great revolutionary movements in history brought Leftist forces together.

Of course, memories die hard. If you sneeze and it sounds too much like "Kronstadt" at your Left Unity event, you may well end up calling multiple ambulances in a few minutes.

[Comrade Jacob]

I've tried to be comrades with other tendencies, most of them end up rejecting the offer and cry "Stalinists-Statists", so I've given up not only that but they have a totally different analysis than I do, so we aren't on the same page.

[Art Vandelay]

Not only is left unity not on the agenda, it's not even desirable. To claim that this is simply do to sectarianism is to seriously misunderstand the term in the Marxist sense. The only basis for common political work, as far as Marxists are concerned, is programmatic agreement. Most of us don't have the same goals, same approach, or common theoretical principles. So why on earth would we want to work together? The fact that so many ostensible Marxists favor this big tent approach, is merely testament to the conciliatory nature of their politics.

[reviscom1]

The fact that so many ostensible Marxists favor this big tent approach, is merely testament to the conciliatory nature of their politics.

Surely it is also testament to the fact that they want to win? Surely we can save the divisions for after we're in power rather than let them hamper the obtaining of it.

The danger of getting involved in silly, pointless factional disputes is amply demonstrated by the behaviour of the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, which quite possibly bequeathed Spain 40 years of Fascist Dictatorship.

In that situation I would quite happily work with anyone from liberals through right wing Social Democrats to Stalinists.

[Art Vandelay]

Surely it is also testament to the fact that they want to win? Surely we can save the divisions for after we're in power rather than let them hamper the obtaining of it.

The danger of getting involved in silly, pointless factional disputes is amply demonstrated by the behaviour of the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, which quite possibly bequeathed Spain 40 years of Fascist Dictatorship.

In that situation I would quite happily work with anyone from liberals through right wing Social Democrats to Stalinists.

The Spanish Civil War is a great example, although not in the way that you intend.

The fact that you would have been willing to work with Stalinists under those circumstances (Andres Nin broke from the 4th International over precisely this issue and it didn't turn out well for him), is precisely what would have done you in. The Stalinists were the gravediggers of the Spanish revolution, who imprisoned or murdered their supposed allies in the fight against fascism.

Working with liberals in those circumstances, except under the conditions of the united front (which means rank and file, not the organizations themselves), would be just as treacherous and counter-revolutionary as working with the Stalinists. The fact that anarchists were willing to follow such a line in the Spanish Civil War, ultimately leading them into selling out their principles and entering into a bourgeois government, is one of the gravest stains in the history of anarchism as a political movement.

Lets be very clear about something: it wasn't sectarianism that ensured the rise of fascism in Spain, but on the contrary the refusal of revolutionaries to pursue a Bolsehvik-Leninist program that protected the political independence of the working class. Political differences cannot be masked over and a revolutionary vanguard cannot be built by disparate elements who have no basis for common political work.

[reviscom1]

"Working with liberals in those circumstances, except under the conditions of the united front (which means rank and file, not the organizations themselves), would be just as treacherous and counter-revolutionary"

Well, no it wouldn't, because you would both be fighting against Fascist Dictatorship.

"Lets be very clear about something: it wasn't sectarianism that ensured the rise of fascism in Spain, but on the contrary the refusal of revolutionaries to pursue a Bolsehvik-Leninist program that protected the political independence of the working class"

Er, no it wasn't. It was the fact that stupid divisions about abstract points diminished the military effectiveness of the anti-Fascist side.

"Political differences cannot be masked over and a revolutionary vanguard cannot be built by disparate elements who have no basis for common political work"

In the context of the Spanish Civil War, we are talking about common MILITARY work, not political work.

Admittedly in talking about the Spanish Civil War I have taken us away from the main point. I wouldn't normally advocate working with liberals, only in the context of a war against Fascism.

I would, however, advocate working with a broad range of Socialist opinion in the interests of overthrowing Capitalism.

[Zoop]

Because left unity is a joke - an idea that needs to be buried with all the other imbecilic ideas.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I've tried to be comrades with other tendencies, most of them end up rejecting the offer and cry "Stalinists-Statists", so I've given up not only that but they have a totally different analysis than I do, so we aren't on the same page.

It doesn't help that Stalin and Mao both imprisoned or butchered people from other Leftist tendencies for being everything from Nazi collaborators to closet capitalists (not to mention, various other atrocities like ethnic cleansing as collective punishment for Nazi collaboration, or the moralistic criminalization of homosexuality, which are both viewed as beyond the pale by most Communists and Anarchists today). This is one of the basic problems with organizing for "left unity" - often, the actions of certain one tendency kills any possibility of trust that other tendencies might have had.

Of course, I kidded about Kronstadt, but that event paled in comparison to the actions Stalin took against groups such as the Trots. And a Trotskyist has a fair point here - why would he trust someone who sought to have their entire tendency violently wiped off the face of the earth - again, for the ludicrous charge of Nazi collaboration? Moreover, if Trotsky really WAS a Nazi collaborator, how could you in good conscience seek unity with those who follow him?

[pharaohbanker]

Dear Comrades,

Reading through the responses to my original post, the impression I get is one of mistrust, most of it has been proven (be it historically or ideologically) to be well-found. My personal opinion is that we have come to a point where humanity is getting more and more ready to change towards the next evolutionary step from capitalism, namely Socialism. The great "spectre" and scare that radical left ideas held when they were first becoming organized and put to paper have become more accepted by the general populace, no longer do they only fear the red scare, they have also seen the benefits of social programs like minumum wage, labour unions, social housing, et cetera.

When the inevitable fall of capitalism comes, most of the violence will probably be from the fading elite, with the great majority of the people (now no longer in fear of new ideas) in favour of change, in favour of a more socially and ecologically sound system. One of the small examples is the fact that in the past a man like Bernie Sanders, flawed and bourgeois as he is, would never be allowed anywhere near U.S. political circles.

There will be less need for paranoia and searching for counter revolutionaries, as the time is now ripe for the change, whereas the great revolutions of the 20th century happened in the times when capitalism was still able to bring the promise of prosperity.

When capitalism falls, and the left is not ready to take over, we will miss the greatest window of opportunity we will ever be given, and our failure to stand together in that time of greatest need will plunge the world into the most horrible claws of reactionay "leaders" who will no doubt use fascism to promise the masses a return to "the days of old", another example of this is obviously also found in the U.S., and in many other countries like the baltic states and France.

The failure to bring together and peform the next (last) great Revolution will be on our hands, since we are (mostly) the new generation of Revolutionaries.

Respectfully,

The banker

[Exterminatus]

"Muh Trotsky"
"Muh Stalin"

I wonder if the left is ever going to drop this madness mantra. If not i sure as hell hope those people don't lead the next revolution.

[BIXX]

We're doing work on the ground in support of fellow trans people and pursuing a non-sectarian approach to anti-capitalism. If that's undesirable, then I can't even guess what would be desirable to you.

At any rate, that anarchist book store is acting sectarian.

I mean, I agree that the bookstore is not really giving any sort of useful reason as to why they don't want to work with you, I was throwing out other possibilities based on the small research I've done into RATPAC.

[John Nada]

I am wondering if it is ever possible to put aside our differences and work together for the greater goal which we mostly share, the Socialist Revolution.No because STALINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!:laugh:

Seriously first response brings up the Spanish Civil War, which tell you the time period most the left's minds are in. You'd think the war was all but won if all sides just either liquidated themselves into one side or at least didn't circular firing squad themselves to defeat. Almost forget there was a fascist enemy with the support of imperialism, other fascist countries and a significant minority of the populous that defeated the Republicans. With no guarantee that a solid united front would've prevented this.

Besides, there's no need to liquidate all sects into a slightly larger sect. You're just going to have people disagree no matter what, let alone with regular progressive sympathizers. People can respectfully disagree, yet work together on a few things where it's beneficial. That's why it'd be at a tactical level, and not as a strategy.
They said they don't want to organize with communists, even though we have as many anarcho-communists as Marxist-Leninists in our ranks, and even anti-capitalists who don't consider themselves communists. Apparently their purity is more important than organizing to support trans prisoners on Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity (January 22nd). "We don't work with communists," WTF? Are they 1950s liberals or something? Only I could actually imagine a liberal putting ideology aside to help trans prisoners, which is important work. Maybe they were just transphobes using anti-communism as cover?:glare: "Socialist in words, chauvinist in deeds."
In the context of the Spanish Civil War, we are talking about common MILITARY work, not political work.There is no divide between military and politics. The distinction is only within bourgeois ideology, and even much of the bourgeoisie still recognizes the distinction as false. "War is a continuation of politics by another means," as Carl Von Clausewitz said.

You probably mean tactical vs. strategic.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So whenever I, or a group i'm in, doesn't want to work on projects with communists or anarchists, which ever depending on the situation, I/the group is betraying them and others? Do you really think that anarchists in the PNW would do something like that just for scene points?
I'm not talking about all anarchists in the PNW, just that one collective which seems to have an issue. Since we publicized what happened, other anarchists have come forward to offer assistance.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Wow, how'd you all manage that one? MLs ive met irl have been really disruptive and insulting hence i can't work with them.
When we formed this branch, we just found it easy to work together. I think it's just a matter of us being able to see the bigger picture, both for trans issues and anti-capitalism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Maybe they were just transphobes using anti-communism as cover?:glare:
That's always a possibility. It would certainly be less damaging to them to claim they did it for sectarian reasons rather than transphobic ones.

[reviscom1]

Almost forget there was a fascist enemy with the support of imperialism, other fascist countries and a significant minority of the populous that defeated the Republicans. With no guarantee that a solid united front would've prevented this.

No guarantee, but it certainly would have helped in the situation you describe.



"There is no divide between military and politics. The distinction is only within bourgeois ideology, and even much of the bourgeoisie still recognizes the distinction as false. "War is a continuation of politics by another means," as Carl Von Clausewitz said.



In the context of the point I was responding to, it is valid to make a distinction between the military and the political.

Basically, if a whole load of Fascist tanks are advancing on you, and your General tells you to build an entrenchment, and the building of the entrenchment is integral to his wider plan, who cares whether he believes in Socialism in one Country, or Parliamentarianism, or a mixed economy, or Neo-Kautskian theories of labour?

[Crux]

To be honest, in real life political organizing Stalin vs Trotsky is rarely the issue, it might come as an afterthought but the problems in themselves tend to be different. Sure one could speak of a stalinist method, but as a general term it's a bit unwieldy, or to put it another way, it's perfectly possibly to come from a different starting point and end up in the same place anyway. Besides which stalinist method, the one of the third period or the one of the popular front? Anyway, I digress...An actual united front and being friends with people from different backgrounds on the left are two very different things. For instance, if I do manage to get out of this slump of inactivity I am in and get (back) into asylum rights work again, in a practical sense that will be a united front. Although that might be a bit grandiose of a term, I myself isn't a party in that way after all.

[newdayrising]

Communists should always defend the working class' interests in strikes and other struggles. However, the idea that "the left" is something worth uniting is the mother of all kinds of anti-working class opportunism. What good is it to "unite" with groups who's goal is to run the bourgeois state and make workers pay for the crisis, which is what any bourgeois state will always do. Or with people who support participation in wars and sending workers to die to defend the state?
This kind of unity doesn't lead to "victory" for the working class, it leads to it being betrayed and screwed over by left wing governments instead of right wing ones.

[Heretek]

No guarantee, but it certainly would have helped in the situation you describe.




In the context of the point I was responding to, it is valid to make a distinction between the military and the political.

Basically, if a whole load of Fascist tanks are advancing on you, and your General tells you to build an entrenchment, and the building of the entrenchment is integral to his wider plan, who cares whether he believes in Socialism in one Country, or Parliamentarianism, or a mixed economy, or Neo-Kautskian theories of labour?

I would probably object if he had me build it facing the other direction.

[Guardia Rossa]

Communists should always defend the working class' interests in strikes and other struggles. However, the idea that "the left" is something worth uniting is the mother of all kinds of anti-working class opportunism. What good is it to "unite" with groups who's goal is to run the bourgeois state and make workers pay for the crisis, which is what any bourgeois state will always do. Or with people who support participation in wars and sending workers to die to defend the state?
This kind of unity doesn't lead to "victory" for the working class, it leads to it being betrayed and screwed over by left wing governments instead of right wing ones.

Left unity doesn't includes not-leftists, like social-democrats and other bourgeois ideologues. At least in my understanding of it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Muh Trotsky"
"Muh Stalin"

I wonder if the left is ever going to drop this madness mantra. If not i sure as hell hope those people don't lead the next revolution.

As neither a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, I agree with you, however these historical grudges unfortunately become relevant as a good many Leftists adhere to one doctrine over another. The point is, when you wrongly declare an entire tendency to be fascist collaborators or degenerate bureaucrats, it makes it hard to justify working with these people in the future. The implication is that even if these people say they are working for the same cause as you, they are really not. The sectarianism of the other party only reinforces the sectarianism of your own - thus, Stalin arresting Trotskyists proves to the Trots that his position was for a degenerate and authoritarian bureaucracy pursuing its self interests, while Trotsky condemning the Soviet regime as degenerate proves to the Stalinists their unwillingness to defend the world's first revolutionary leftist state when it was under the threat of Imperialist assault. Sectarianism has a historical context, and moving beyond that history is more complicated than just telling people to let bygones be bygones.

There is also a basic issue of praxis. If two groups are trying to work together to set revolutionary policy, one would hope that they could come up with a common set of principles and proposals. The problem is that people fundamentally disagree with where to put their energy and resources. In this sense, what is needed isn't just the belief that we should all work together, but a set of institutions that can mediate the significant differences between these groups. Some parties have achieved this, creating parties which draw from Trotskyist, Maoist and other traditions. A good example is ANTARSYA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarsya) in Greece, as well as the ruling party SYRIZA. However, unfortunately, experiences with parties like these taking power, be they the FMLN in El Salvador and SYRIZA in Greece, have only resulted in moderate social democracy thus far.

I'm all for building coalitions of leftist forces, but to do this, people have to understand (1) the mistakes of their own ideological ancestors (2) the nature of their differences in terms of practice and (3) the need to let their own commitments aside for the decisions of a common democratically centralist body. It won't come out of the sky by magic, and it won't come by just berating sectarians (as annoying as they can be).

[Decolonize The Left]

There seem to be two major issues with left unity:

1) The concept of "winning" and "losing." These terms have already been tossed around in this thread a couple times. What, exactly, do these terms refer to? The revolution, I presume. But what, exactly, is that? An event? Is it scheduled? Is there an invite list? Sarcasm aside, "the revolution" is a ideological concept that divorces the left, as a whole, from reality. Revolutions aren't conceptualized and then realized; they are realized and historically conceptualized afterwards. If people took all the time they spent trying to "unify" and dedicated this time to material change, the revolution would be fast approaching.

2) The context of capitalism. Not only is the left not unified because of the above, but also because capitalism is a fragmenting and alienating social condition. Feudalism offered clear castes for humans to fit into and rebel against. Not so with capitalism. Under capitalism, human beings are commodified and broken and thus their social settings reflect this reality. One cannot "unify" a front in a non-unified world.

[o well this is ok I guess]

And on and on they'll go, since the Left seems to have no interest in tackling sectarianism. If it were gonna happen, and it were gonna happen in a revleft thread, then it would have happened about a few hundred threads ago. It's more difficult to imagine the end of the world than the end of our particular sort of sectarianism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A certain level of sectarianism is necessary to build alliances, ironically enough. For instance, while we might want to bring in a wider variety of Left forces, building alliance with parties like the KPRF with their blatant homophobia is counterproductive.

Simply put, if you look hard enough, you will find other groups on "the left" whose politics you will find too problematic to work with, no matter how anti-sectarian you are (or try to be).

[Thirsty Crow]

My question is, wouldn't it be a good move for all of us to form a united front towards the enemy? To join forces and stand united when the greater goal of building Socialism is concerned? If a group of our comrades on the left needs our help, our support, our presence at rallies, our labour to build another (small) piece of the Revolution, should we stand idly by because they happen to subscribe to another variation of our ideology?Nah, it would be as futile as a bird shitting in the ground and trying to eat it.

The most important thing being no amount of left wing politicos and aspiring public spokespersons (especially those) can bring about the change that is social revolution.


Left unity doesn't includes not-leftists, like social-democrats and other bourgeois ideologues. At least in my understanding of it.
Problem is, left unity sooth-speak mistakes the effect for the cause; the organized group of people for communism for social revolution.

[newdayrising]

Left unity doesn't includes not-leftists, like social-democrats and other bourgeois ideologues. At least in my understanding of it.

Self proclaimed social democrats are hardly the only people that fit that description. Most of the so called "far left" parties either support bourgeois wars or trying to run the bourgeois state apparatus.

If your definition of "leftist" means just communists, then you have a point. But that's not really what people usually mean when they talk about "the left". Most so called "communists" are, in practice, just standard leftists disputing their piece of the bourgeois state through democratic means or trying to implement a bourgeois state of their own by force.

[ComradeAllende]

2) The context of capitalism. Not only is the left not unified because of the above, but also because capitalism is a fragmenting and alienating social condition. Feudalism offered clear castes for humans to fit into and rebel against. Not so with capitalism. Under capitalism, human beings are commodified and broken and thus their social settings reflect this reality. One cannot "unify" a front in a non-unified world.

I think we can all agree that capitalism can be an atomizing and alienating system, but I doubt that it is always inherently so. (After all, Fordist capitalism (during the advent of the Second Industrial Revolution) produced Polanyi's famous "satanic mills", replete with barbaric work conditions that clashed with the professedly "humanitarian" values of capitalism's apologists. This sparked the labor movement in Europe and North America, alongside socialist movements to act in the name of a better future for man via the realization of his material potential (and that of society).

Of course, capitalism always had atomizing elements (especially the connotation of a "free market", which hides the coercion required to establish and maintain them). But I think that the advent of the Internet and the establishment of informal and temporary employment as the norm, alongside the taming of the unions (or their virtual-extinction, as in the US), heightens the atomizing elements of capitalism by isolating us from one another and depriving us of the collective workplace and experience necessary for radical agitation. This is more a product of contemporary capitalism, as opposed to capitalism's previous phases (mercantilism, industrial/Fordist, etc.).

[Decolonize The Left]

This is more a product of contemporary capitalism, as opposed to capitalism's previous phases (mercantilism, industrial/Fordist, etc.).

Very true and well put. Does this alter the claim regarding fragmentation and non-unity within the left?

[ComradeAllende]

Very true and well put. Does this alter the claim regarding fragmentation and non-unity within the left?

Not entirely, but somewhat. Fordist capitalism (as opposed to today's "postmodern capitalism") posited an easily-visible divide between the "classes": the urban proletariat vs. the bourgeois capitalist, with all other classes either disappearing (peasants, aristocracy) or wavering in their political and social status (petite-bourgeois).

In stark contrast, "postmodern capitalism" has left the old industrial/urban proletariat in disarray thanks to globalization and the demise of "traditional" support mechanisms/institutions (trade unions, social clubs, etc.). The fall of the USSR, while a victory for anti-totalitarians everywhere, proved to be the icing on the anti-communist cake, furthering the delegitimation of Marxist analysis and radical-left polemics in general.

Basically, what I'm saying is that "left unity" (whatever that means) was far easier to achieve prior to World War II than after, thanks to the underlying changes in the economy (mass consumption, outsourcing, etc.) as well as the subsequent political and social developments. Thus, "unity" was (and still might be) a possibility in capitalism given the clear and visible divides between the contending classes. Nowadays the "social perspective" is designed around the ideal of a "middle class" society, such that everyone is either "upwardly mobile" or not worth incorporating into the "social ideal."

[RedSonRising]

There seem to be two major issues with left unity:

1) The concept of "winning" and "losing." These terms have already been tossed around in this thread a couple times. What, exactly, do these terms refer to? The revolution, I presume. But what, exactly, is that? An event? Is it scheduled? Is there an invite list? Sarcasm aside, "the revolution" is a ideological concept that divorces the left, as a whole, from reality. Revolutions aren't conceptualized and then realized; they are realized and historically conceptualized afterwards. If people took all the time they spent trying to "unify" and dedicated this time to material change, the revolution would be fast approaching.

2) The context of capitalism. Not only is the left not unified because of the above, but also because capitalism is a fragmenting and alienating social condition. Feudalism offered clear castes for humans to fit into and rebel against. Not so with capitalism. Under capitalism, human beings are commodified and broken and thus their social settings reflect this reality. One cannot "unify" a front in a non-unified world.

Winning would be making those material changes you're talking about. While I partly agree on your statement stating that revolutions are conceptualized afterwards, social change comes about through popular organization. Those who organize and succeed on one front or another do so by popularizing concepts and forming strategies with one another. Those who eschew the idea of organizational unity imply, intentionally or not, that some spontaneous mass shift in consciousness that's completely out of our control is the only way a revolution can come about. Let's not forget: "The revolution is not an apple that falls when ripe. You have to make it fall."

Also, Neoliberal capitalism should theoretically be making it easier to "proletarianize" those who consider themselves apart from the working class, but still sell their labor (teachers, doctors, etc.). Urban blacks are organizing against police brutality, trans people are fighting to become visible and respected, Latino communities are rallying against vicious immigration policies, the environmental movement is ever present, and labor struggles like the fight for 15 are resonating. Not to mention Sanders's attacks on inequality are involving young people who were otherwise apolitical. The substance is there for leftists to engage and strategize and build power through unified fronts. The power is there. It always lies with the working class. But fighting over what to call the Soviet Union and who's fault it was that quickly industrialized peasant societies reverted to capitalism is holding that back in a very real way. I don't think a lack of left unity is the only problem, but it's one worth addressing.

[Tim Cornelis]

*whose

It's not a matter of what to call the Soviet Union, it's a matter of how we see what we're working towards. If you think the USSR was a workers' state or socialist, then it follows that you will seek to emulate the approach that lead to the formation of the USSR. If I argue that that approach lead to a capitalist society, then obviously we cannot work together as we have very distinct ideas of how we should go about fighting for socialism.

How would I work together with, say, an Art Vandelay if he argues that the failure of the Spanish Revolution was not following a Bolshevik-Leninist programme when I have reached the conclusion that Leninism was a reformulation of Marxism to explain away the Bolshevik counter-revolution?

I really don't understand what people propose I do. Where is the line drawn? Would I be expected to work together with someone that considers the DPRK worthy of active defense and political support? I can't stomach that. Yes, there's needless splits and sectarianism that could be united, but this is distinct from working with anyone and everyone with a hint of red.

[RedSonRising]

*whose

smh I hate when I do this.


It's not a matter of what to call the Soviet Union, it's a matter of how we see what we're working towards. If you think the USSR was a workers' state or socialist, then it follows that you will seek to emulate the approach that lead to the formation of the USSR. If I argue that that approach lead to a capitalist society, then obviously we cannot work together as we have very distinct ideas of how we should go about fighting for socialism.

How would I work together with, say, an Art Vandelay if he argues that the failure of the Spanish Revolution was not following a Bolshevik-Leninist programme when I have reached the conclusion that Leninism was a reformulation of Marxism to explain away the Bolshevik counter-revolution?

I really don't understand what people propose I do. Where is the line drawn? Would I be expected to work together with someone that considers the DPRK worthy of active defense and political support? I can't stomach that. Yes, there's needless splits and sectarianism that could be united, but this is distinct from working with anyone and everyone with a hint of red.

This is true. I suppose because I mostly interact with Marxists and other anti-capitalists who aren't married to an organization or a particular tendency, it seems to be easier to find common ground. The extent to which the Soviet Union was a workers' state is a matter of debate that we can discuss without assumptions about our politics. The same with the outcome of the Spanish Revolution and anarchist experiments in general.

Your line about not being able to stomach defending states such as the DPRK and even Assad, Iran, etc. "from imperialism" in a false dichotomy resonates with me. I suppose what I'm proposing isn't an end to sectarianism, but a new, more objective, more experimental, less ideologically dogmatic left. Perhaps something independent altogether of existing leftist tendencies. Whether that comes from attempting to unify current organized parties and cutting away those who refuse to make certain strategic compromises, or creating an entirely new front consisting of working class organizations that aren't as tied to historically influenced, or a combination of both, I'm not sure. Some might look at that idea as stupid and useless. But I don't think the left is very relevant today because of a stubborn refusal to look at the flawed outcomes of all anti-capitalist movements of the past, and evolve.

[Decolonize The Left]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "left unity" (whatever that means) was far easier to achieve prior to World War II than after, thanks to the underlying changes in the economy (mass consumption, outsourcing, etc.) as well as the subsequent political and social developments. Thus, "unity" was (and still might be) a possibility in capitalism given the clear and visible divides between the contending classes. Nowadays the "social perspective" is designed around the ideal of a "middle class" society, such that everyone is either "upwardly mobile" or not worth incorporating into the "social ideal."

Given that--being the leftists/Marxists we are, we still believe that a Marxist economic analysis has validity and strength in spite of the aptly put post-modern economic shift in social classes--there still exists a fundamental opposition in economic wealth creation, could we not say that it is our terms that have failed us? You yourself paint a us/them picture with those who are "upwardly mobile" vs. those "not worth incorporating into the social ideal." Capital is the de-facto social ideal. It is now a part of our very bodies (human capital, social capital, etc). One cannot take back one's labor from oneself--have the very boundaries of resistance changed?

[Decolonize The Left]

Winning would be making those material changes you're talking about. While I partly agree on your statement stating that revolutions are conceptualized afterwards, social change comes about through popular organization. Those who organize and succeed on one front or another do so by popularizing concepts and forming strategies with one another. Those who eschew the idea of organizational unity imply, intentionally or not, that some spontaneous mass shift in consciousness that's completely out of our control is the only way a revolution can come about. Let's not forget: "The revolution is not an apple that falls when ripe. You have to make it fall."

Is the quote apt, though? The revolution is not an event (an apple dropping). The revolution--at least, the Marxist one--is a fundamental and total social shift: the abolition of capital, the end of history, etc. It could be analogous to when people stopped being nomadic and became sedentary; do you think they thought to themselves "say, now's a great time to fundamentally alter the course of human history"? Granted, that it's not exactly like that, but I am arguing that it is in scope.


Also, Neoliberal capitalism should theoretically be making it easier to "proletarianize" those who consider themselves apart from the working class, but still sell their labor (teachers, doctors, etc.). Urban blacks are organizing against police brutality, trans people are fighting to become visible and respected, Latino communities are rallying against vicious immigration policies, the environmental movement is ever present, and labor struggles like the fight for 15 are resonating. Not to mention Sanders's attacks on inequality are involving young people who were otherwise apolitical. The substance is there for leftists to engage and strategize and build power through unified fronts. The power is there. It always lies with the working class.

While I appreciate your optimism, history has proven your argument false. Leftist rhetoric and politics are less relevant today than they were during Fordist era (please see the accompanied discussion between myself and ComradeAllende). The left is far weaker today and the "fights" are not on class lines; they are valid and I support most all of them, but this does not make them "leftist" in any real sense.


But fighting over what to call the Soviet Union and who's fault it was that quickly industrialized peasant societies reverted to capitalism is holding that back in a very real way. I don't think a lack of left unity is the only problem, but it's one worth addressing.

This is very true and I don't mean to put down left unity entirely as some have. I was merely elaborating two phenomena that stood in the face of left "unity," two phenomena that I consider large enough to inhibit efforts towards a united left. This isn't even to address the issue of whether a united front is wanted (it isn't by many).

[ComradeAllende]

Given that--being the leftists/Marxists we are, we still believe that a Marxist economic analysis has validity and strength in spite of the aptly put post-modern economic shift in social classes--there still exists a fundamental opposition in economic wealth creation, could we not say that it is our terms that have failed us?

What do you mean by "terms"? Are they the goals of the general revolutionary left movement, which are the abolition of capitalism and the emancipation of the working classes? I don't quite understand what you're arguing here, and I don't want to misconstrue what you're saying.


You yourself paint a us/them picture with those who are "upwardly mobile" vs. those "not worth incorporating into the social ideal." Capital is the de-facto social ideal. It is now a part of our very bodies (human capital, social capital, etc). One cannot take back one's labor from oneself--have the very boundaries of resistance changed?

It must be stated that "capital" was not always the de-facto social ideal, even throughout the history of capitalism. In the parlance of modern social discourse, everyone is encouraged and pressured to invest and accumulate their own "capitals", namely "human capital" and "social capital". This is partly a result of the digital wave of technological innovation, whose reigning dogma (when there is one) is the "emancipation of humanity from drudging work" and the "development of individual skills and capabilities", as well as the decline of social-democratic and radical-left discourse within mainstream institutions. The word "labor" has virtually disappeared in the old anti-capitalist sense of the term, replaced by the expansion of "capital" to include elements once ascribed to "labor" (experience, work skills, etc.).

A few decades ago, there was a flowering of radical discourse against the dogma of "capital" on the left, primarily involving reinterpretations of "labor" (which was still held up as a contrast to "capital"). "Human capital" and "social capital" were rather obscure terms at the time; indeed, Google Ngram suggests that those terms only came into widespread circulation sometime after the collapse of the postwar order; "human capital" taking off in the 1960s and "social capital" in the 1990s. So "capital" has become ingrained in our bodies only because of the trajectory of social and political discourse over the past half-century; they are no more "innate" to our bodies and our actions than they are dominant (viz-a-viz "labor") in capitalism. The boundaries of resistance have indeed changed in favor of "capital"; the goal of the left (and the revolutionary left in particular) is to push back and redefine the boundaries of class struggle, rather than concede the fight and engage on capital's terms.

[SonofRage]

Because sectarianism.

I'm a branch committee member of the Revolutionary Alliance of Trans People Against Capitalism-Puget Sound, and an anarchist book store has refused to work with us on a project to support trans prisoners because we're "communists"--even though we're non-sectarian anti-capitalists and have anarcho-communists in our ranks.

That's a Communist Labor Party A thing, isn't it? I'm very curious about the CLP. A non-sectarian but revolutionary multitendency party seems like a good thing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's a Communist Labor Party A thing, isn't it?
RATPAC and the CLP have members in common, definitely, and CLP members were instrumental in getting the local RATPAC chapter going. But RATPAC is its own thing, and a lot of members like myself are RATPAC only.

[SonofRage]

A non-sectarian revolutionary multi-tendency party like the CLP seems to be can be a good step forward in my opinion. Years ago, when I was a member of the Socialist Party USA, there was constant bickering between the revolutionary wing and the reformist wing.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Left unity is a circle jerk. If leftists spent less time on left unity, and more time going to the masses then the left would, y'know, get bigger and develop lines rooted in concrete conditions.

[rufus magister]

While digging in, no. But the proper line before keeps you from being forced to such an extremity. And after, from making the best use of the new situation.

As a long-time Trotskyist, I would argue -- we have to recognize the desperate weariness of the Soviet people following the Great War and then the Civil War, isolated by the capitalist powers. But the Stalinists have to accept -- Trotsky's analysis of the inevitability of restoration, absent the world revolution, was spot on. The means of its degeneration were as he predicted.

And to the social-democrats, both tendencies must say -- had not the SPD used the Freikorps to repress the Sprartacist Rising (as well others in Munich, etc.), Luxemburg and Liebknecht might well have created the German revolution that all factions in RDSLP(B) acknowledged was necessary for them to overcome Russian backwardness.

[Mialectical Daterialism]

While I appreciate your optimism, history has proven your argument false. Leftist rhetoric and politics are less relevant today than they were during Fordist era (please see the accompanied discussion between myself and ComradeAllende). The left is far weaker today and the "fights" are not on class lines; they are valid and I support most all of them, but this does not make them "leftist" in any real sense.

It is your argument that is incorrect because based upon a poor implementation of marxist dialectics. "Leftist rhetoric and politics" are more relevant today than they were during the Fordist era because the contradictions of capital are currently more acute than then have ever been in history, the development of the labour unions during the Fordist period demonstrates in-fact the unsuitability of conditions for revolution and the destruction of capital in the west, because the material conditions allowed capital to co-opt elements of the proletariat in the west into the bourgeoisie fueled by unsustainable imperialism. The "left" as you have conceptualised them here are far weaker today because this “left” is the relic of trade unionism and other forms of liberal social democracy whos development was only made possible and permitted within capitalism in the west by the material conditions of the Fordist era which no longer exist. The current material conditions are in no way suitable for a revival of this form of leftism because the material conditions of capitalism have changed, become even more contradictory to the point where the baby-boomer "left" are the remnants of a highly unionised workforce with stable employment and are actually part of the bourgeoisie so of course they will work against the revolution.