Leftist Solidarity

[DarkTravesty]

This idea constantly comes up within my head, and I should probably just put it out there even though I know that it will most likely be rejected quickly.

For some reason I feel the need for a strong organization of the Left, this site is excellent, but I almost feel the need for a more structured (sorry, my anarchist comrades, this is just an idea and not meant to attack you) mechanism to drive us forward. My belief in this type of thing is what primarily prompts me to classify myself as a Leninist.

Anyway, though these organizations are not taken seriously, I do find the structure of a 'micronation' to be ideal. That or a strongly structured political party.

It is my strong belief that structure is necessary to drive the revolution forward, without it our progress is limited and what little we do make will hit a ceiling eventually.

So, if there is any support or additions to this idea at all, I would like to hear it, and if there is enough I believe we should go ahead and see what we can do to make it happen.

Forgive me if I am crossing any lines or seeming a bit too radical here, I am relatively new to this community and do not mean anything by it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:39 AM
For some reason I feel the need for a strong organization of the Left, this site is excellent, but I almost feel the need for a more structured (sorry, my anarchist comrades, this is just an idea and not meant to attack you) mechanism to drive us forward. My belief in this type of thing is what primarily prompts me to classify myself as a Leninist.
There already are...

And very few people, including anarchists, disagree that we need a strong organisation.

It's what you mean by strong that could cause contention?


It is my strong belief that structure is necessary to drive the revolution forward, without it our progress is limited and what little we do make will hit a ceiling eventually.

Of course structure is necessary to "drive the revolution formward". The question is; what structure?


So, if there is any support or additions to this idea at all, I would like to hear it, and if there is enough I believe we should go ahead and see what we can do to make it happen.

There are already countless political organisations who have been established for years that have these "ideas."

Check out the political organisations thread in my signiture.


Forgive me if I am crossing any lines or seeming a bit too radical here, I am relatively new to this community and do not mean anything by it.

The problem is, there's nothing at all radical about what you have said.

[drain.you]

I have tried to initiate some kind of unity. I believe there is many aspects of leftwing politics that all lefties agree on whether they are lennists, anarchists or whatever.
But to be blunt, I think we will all unite for the revolution when it comes and we will just fight it out (in debate or perhaps literal fighting) to decide how our future society will be. Its like uk parliament, they all support some common aspects of capitalism yet they still argue, but despite this, society still "works". Compromise amongst the left will be needed after the revolution and it will come naturally.
Saying this, the revolution could probably be sped up if the left was more organised and united.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:57 PM
I have tried to initiate some kind of unity. I believe there is many aspects of leftwing politics that all lefties agree on whether they are lennists, anarchists or whatever.
What are they?


But to be blunt, I think we will all unite for the revolution when it comes and we will just fight it out (in debate or perhaps literal fighting) to decide how our future society will be.

Historically Leninists have violently suppressed anarchism or actively subverted anarchist uprisings.

Why do you think it would be different in the future?


Its like uk parliament, they all support some common aspects of capitalism yet they still argue, but despite this, society still "works".

The differences between the Tories, Lib Dem's and Labour are all aesthetic. They may vary slightly in how they implement policy but essentially they are exactly the same.

Anarchism and Leninism are diamentraically opposed on fundamental issues. How do you expect to reconcile them?

For instance Leninists believe in the perpetuation of a state and anarchists believe in the opposite. How can anarchists work with Leninists when there is a state and vice-versa?


Compromise amongst the left will be needed after the revolution and it will come naturally.

Anarchists are not going to compromise on the state, authoritarianism and the organisation of democracy and neither are Leninists.


Saying this, the revolution could probably be sped up if the left was more organised and united.

The left, to the extent it can be, is organised. Unfortunately very small, but organised nonetheless.

This notion of unity is unfortunately an idealistic pipe dream.

[drain.you]

What are they?
We all want public ownership of land and resources, no class system. We all want to get rid of racism and sexism, surely?
Pretty much the left is working for a better society for everyone not just an elite.


Why do you think it would be different in the future?
Guess trying to unite ourselves could prevent it. Its difficult to forecast politics, especially radical politics - I'm sure when the majority of the world is revolting, there will be a way to allow anarchists and commies to have their own way. Half the world could be commie and half anarchist, i dunno lol.


How can anarchists work with Leninists when there is a state and vice-versa?
how about old labour and tories? they have now adapted and radically changed their policies. but maybe they cant work together, then whatever the majority of people want then we will have.
perhaps communism is a stage before anarchy can be implemented. its so hard to tell what would happen but it will happen, these groups are going to have to battle it out so way or another after the revolution. maybe one will suppress another, not particularly good but if thats the only option...


This notion of unity is unfortunately an idealistic pipe dream.
Yeah, you are probably right.

[Nachie]

I am involved in an organization that from the get-go tried to sort through all the ideology and just put together a wide program of action based on all compatible belief systems. It's actually quite amazing how many supposedly-"opposing" groups we have brought together under the banner of direct mutual aid and common respect for diversity of tactics.

But any such union must be horizontal and decentralized and cannot serve as a tool for which statists can recruit from within the libertarian or anarchist tendencies. Examples of this bullshit would be the SPUSA's Direct Action Tendency (thankfully now RIP).

[drain.you]

Perhaps its a problem that many people dont align themselves with a branch. If they did then we would know where we all stand and be able to work stuff out amongst the branches.

[Nachie]

You mean in terms of labelling themselves?

Many of my comrades are ex-anarchists or communists who found the label to be too much of a burden for their work and now sometimes continue just under the name of the network (RAAN) as "RAANistas" or under no self-identification at all when not engaged in affiliated activity.

We don't need more labels to sort out who's who, we just need to be really honest and open with people about what our visions for revolution and the practical action in the meantime are, and then learn to sniff out the rats.

[LoneRed]

whats your beef with the Direct Action tendency that used to be?

[Nachie]

Well their Website (http://www.actiontendency.net/) is still up but from my understanding they're dead in all but name.

My critique revolved around this:


Originally posted by "DAT Points of Unity"
1. Membership in the DAT is open to members of the Socialist Party, USA who are in basic agreement with DAT's general statement. Individuals who are not members in good standing of the SPUSA shall not be eligible for membership.

2. A member of the DAT shall strive to be active in broader movements for social change, and shall be committed to building the Socialist Party, USA.

3. A member of the DAT shall conduct himself/herself in a manner that promotes the ideals of the Socialist Party. Disagreements shall be expressed in a respectful, comradely manner. Personal attacks, accusations and other disruptive behaviors are not consistent with the Party's principles.

...

9. We will work cooperatively, for our goal is to further the work of the Party, not merely our own positions within it.
I spoke to one anarchist in the DAT who said he had never heard of these rules and wasn't a member of the SP himself, just the DAT. Another said that when they proposed focusing the party's resources away from electoralism at the last conference, they were totally silenced. I told both that these contradictions couldn't remain, and the DAT couldn't say it was one thing and be another. This led to a lot of internal debate in the tendency and then eventually the two lead personalities in the DAT let their memberships lapse in protest and left.

Another good example of this kind of shit was the RCP's "Draft Program" collective debate a few years ago. Anarchists were invited to take part and shape the Maoist doctrine of the future, etc.

Basically the end result is that any group which tries to blend revolutionary anti-politics with reformism or Leninism, ends up biting the dust out of unsustainable internal divisions in belief, strategy, and character.

[DarkTravesty]

I'm talking something along the lines of a 'shadow government', and I was under the impression that was a pretty radical. But, if you don't think so, then I am in the right company.

[LoneRed]

had to add "leninism" in there eh, that piece you posted was from earlier in their history, and changed before it dwindled to let anyone in the DaT. Either that happened or people that were "supposedly" in it were just supporters.

[Nachie]

I think a bit of both. At any rate they certainly never changed it on their website. Some people may have been supporters yes, but that just adds to the whole confusion, particularly when it's the membership itself that is confused!

I did add Leninism because the DAT was a prime example of trying to mix anarchists into a non-specific "radical" alliance that of course included Leninists. Consequently it imploded.

[Enragé]

"For instance Leninists believe in the perpetuation of a state and anarchists believe in the opposite. How can anarchists work with Leninists when there is a state and vice-versa?"

it is my understanding that there were anarchist representatives in some (regional or national-ish) parliament during the spanish civil war

and bolshewiks were part of the soviets (councils), which wasnt exactly a state (untill they made one, but thats besides the point)