the left in devide

[Rockfan]

I was thinking about revolution and so forth when i thourt "would most of the left support this type of revolution or would it have to be this type". To me there is a lot of in fighting between the different sectors of the left and even the different parts of those sectors. Personally, I would soupport any leftist movment in my country (NZ) even thought I am socalist. What are other peoples thourts? Thanks.

[Guest1]

Please use the appropriate forum to post this important question. Choose between the "theory" forum, "politics" and "practice".

[between]

the above answer give you an idea about how structurized and autistic people can be and must think.no matter the side they are.still i agree with you ....let's all get united once for all!!!!

[NovelGentry]

I was gonna wait till this topic gets started in another thread or moved, but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen, so I'll respond here:


I was thinking about revolution and so forth when i thourt "would most of the left support this type of revolution or would it have to be this type". To me there is a lot of in fighting between the different sectors of the left and even the different parts of those sectors. Personally, I would soupport any leftist movment in my country (NZ) even thought I am socalist. What are other peoples thourts? Thanks.

It is my belief that the ideology leading into revolution is not what matters. I've heard countless times that people from the left (across many groups) would, as you have said, "support any leftest movement." Something which I firmly believe in is that the pre-revolution ideologies that will lead into revolution should be a discounted factor in a truly revolutionary proletariat. There are a number of ideologies which cross the line of revolution having both the means and the ideas of how we make revolution, they go on futher to cover the revolution itself and eventually post-revolution and the creation of post-revolutionary society. If indeed the proletariat is revolutionary these ideologies will fly out the window.

In short, I see the sectarian overview of the left built upon a non-revolutionary proletariat. Any pre-revolutionary organization (in the sense of an organization as a body, not an action) is open to the flaw of stenghtening itself in number with reactionary individuals -- some openly, such as Maoism. While this becomes a problem in pre-capitalist or early capitalist societies, due to the fact the proletariat is not necessarily a majority yet, it should not be an issue in an advanced capitalist nation which would require a rather vast movement to overthrow the traditional government and the social relations it upholds. This vast movement can ONLY be based on a revolutionary majority among the proletariat because of the nature of the society.

To explain further, the society in advanced capitalist nations is built on a proletariat who is the majority (in most cases by a long shot). Marx argued that reactionary classes, including the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie will side with a revolutionary proletariat in revolution (and I agree), however, the revolutionary proletariat cannot and will not move until it is a majority, thus all reactionary members of society, including those of the proletariat who have yet to become revolutionary will only be given the chance to "follow" under a revolutionary proletariat majority (as without that majority the revolution would not occur).

Once again, these various sects will not stop truly revolutionary people from joining in the revolution. If a Leninist vanguard were to push for the revolution a revolutionary proletariat would join that revolution. This does not mean they are joining the Leninists, becoming Leninists, or fighting under the clauses set fourth by the Leninist, they are fighting because they are revolutionary. If the amount of revolutionary proletarians are the majority, they will succeed, if they are not, they will fail and post-revolutionary society will not be given the chance to be sectarian as it will not even be given the chance to exist.

If, however, they succeed, it is a likely scenario that no vanguard of a single sect will "rule the day" -- a truly revolutionary people would not allow that to be the case, more to the point true revolutionary leaders will emerge naturally, not because they lead, but because the proletariat are willing to follow. Thus the vanguard which concludes the revolution will grow out of the revolution, but more importantly out of the revolutionary proletariat. Pre-existing vanguards of any form (including an anarchist union) would not have the capacity or the right granted by a truly revolutionary people to uphold post-revolutionary society against the will of a truly revolutionary proletariat. In fact, I would argue that their capacity as a vanguard to begin with is upheld by primarily reactionary people who are looking for "a slice of the pie in post-revolutionary society."

This is not to say that a revolutionary majority would not follow the leaders of a pre-existing vanguard, it is only to say that they will do so on their own accord and thus the pre-existing vanguard or union is unnecessary. More to the point, it is useless due to it's nature to attract the vast majority of reactionary people.

----

P.S: This is one of the better summaries of my ideology which has ever been presented, it is what Vladimir calls Gentism, and CyM calls bullshit. There will be much more detail in my extensive paper titled "Revolution and Communism in the U.S." which should be available in 1st edition on my website in about 6 months or so.

[DaCuBaN]

Excellent post, and I await your websites launch :)


it is a likely scenario that no vanguard of a single sect will "rule the day" -- a truly revolutionary people would not allow that to be the case

This particular sentance I feel somewhat in accord with; a "revolutionary proletariat" has overthrown one set of leaders, should another try to rise up we can simply do it again.

Except this time, we'll have some experience under our belts. :cool:

The failed revolution in Spain (which occured, typically, due to what amounted to infighting and treachery), and of course the villainisation of Trotsky, and later Stalin by some aspects of the "left" seem to cast grave shadows for such ideals - however, with any luck we will have learned from these mistakes.