why do we argue so?

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

Okay i know that there's a big difference between marxist communism, and other communisms are different in details, and yet we all argue and ninny pick (your not a Marxist! Liar! Poser! :( ) when we forget that they all have the same base idea which is,well, communism! :angry: :unsure:

[anti-cappie]

agreed

[Marukusu]

As it appears, the whole "left" movement will forever be splitted until a sole victor will emerge from a long and destructive period of civil war between the revolutionary factions after the "great revolution".
Very sad, but that's at least what I think. Some (many) leftists hate other leftists more than they hate the bourgeois.

But then again I'm extremely bad at being a fortuneteller.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

"Uncertainty about the way to be followed constantly and repeatedly troubles the minds of the combatants; and doubt is a factor in division, of internal quarrels and conflicts within the workers' movement. It is useless to deplore these conflicts as creating a pernicious situation that should not exist and which is making the workers powerless. As has often been pointed out, the working class is not weak because it is divided; on the contrary, it is divided because it is weak."

-----Anton Pannekoek

[Janus]

when we forget that they all have the same base idea which is,well, communism!
The problem is that there is a great deal of controversy and conflict on how to achieve it.

Anyways, moved to Learning.

[LoneRed]

Because there are theories that are inherently Anti-prole, and consequently give false promises and betray the movement for worker's liberation, i will not compromise with those that lead the worker's down lost paths

[rioters bloc]

oh, what does it matter really?

i don't mind arguing and debating, even when i think that the other's ideas are completely fucked.

the only problem is when people get so caught up in the theory that they'd rather sit on the net all day whingin' then actually go out and fucking do something :rolleyes:

[Janus]

oh, what does it matter really?
Division is counterproductive to our movement. It is definitely not something that we should actually try to create.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:24 AM

oh, what does it matter really?
Division is counterproductive to our movement. It is definitely not something that we should actually try to create.
if we have different ideas of what "communism" is, then why should we not argue?

i'd rather debate the "little" points then outright say that someone's not a communist cos they believe such and such.

i don't think that there is one singular movement, because everyone's experiences are so different and varied. like the movement here in australia for example would be completely different from the movement in bangladesh because of the different social and economic situation of the people who are part of that movement.

grand narratives of any kind are problematic, especially when on this forum (due to the demographic makeup as well as who has access to the internet worldwide) these grand narratives almost always come from a first-world pov.

we shouldn't try and "create" divisions, but they're there, and we should acknowledge that and work shit out rather than say "why can't we all just hold hands and sing!"

[bezdomni]

I'd rather have a movement that argues and knows where it stands than have a movement that agrees but goes nowhere.

We're talking about the future of humanity. We'd better know what the hell we're doing, because fucking up is inexcusible.

[loveme4whoiam]

But the problem is that people seem to be more preoccupied with arguing than doing something about the problems we are all against - while we may all have different ideas for the future, can we not put them aside in order to fight for the present??

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:59 PM
But the problem is that people seem to be more preoccupied with arguing than doing something about the problems we are all against - while we may all have different ideas for the future, can we not put them aside in order to fight for the present??
Well yeah, sectarianism is a problem...but disagreement is helpful.

[Janus]

if we have different ideas of what "communism" is, then why should we not argue?
I never said that we should not debate or argue but that splits and more extreme forms of divisions are counterproductive.

Arguing and debating is necessary to solidify and gain criticial analysis on ideas and plans. It's quite useful and should not be tossed away for a simply monotonous party line or anything like that.

I was originally addressing your statement on why divisions mattered.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:59 PM
But the problem is that people seem to be more preoccupied with arguing than doing something about the problems we are all against - while we may all have different ideas for the future, can we not put them aside in order to fight for the present??

Some of the people on here don't even have a clue what it means to fight capitalism.

Some "communists" refuse to fight reaction by the available means... and some "leftists" insist upon "fighting" the bourgeoisie through completely baseless methods that don't fucking get anyone anywhere.

I'm of course talking about the people who think that supporting Hezbollah is reactionary, but putting stickers in the subway is revolutionary.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:35 AM
I never said that we should not debate or argue but that splits and more extreme forms of divisions are counterproductive.

Arguing and debating is necessary to solidify and gain criticial analysis on ideas and plans. It's quite useful and should not be tossed away for a simply monotonous party line or anything like that.

I was originally addressing your statement on why divisions mattered.
fair enough.

but the original poster didn't say "why are we divided" but said "why do we argue"... and that's why i answered saying what does it matter if we argue, when it's as you say "necessary to solidify and gain criticial analysis on ideas and plans."

that's all :)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:46 AM
Some of the people on here don't even have a clue what it means to fight capitalism.

Agreed. Some people think forming networks and sumit mobilisations, economic sabotage and land takeovers are pointless. While saying you support a reactionary group, who are doing something, somehow means you ahve done something yourself.

It's mad!

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:46 PM


Some of the people on here don't even have a clue what it means to fight capitalism.

Some "communists" refuse to fight reaction by the available means... and some "leftists" insist upon "fighting" the bourgeoisie through completely baseless methods that don't fucking get anyone anywhere.

I'm of course talking about the people who think that supporting Hezbollah is reactionary, but putting stickers in the subway is revolutionary.
This is a question I ment to ask during the whole Hezbollah support debate but never did.

When people are saying they support Hezbollah in their fight against imperialism what kind of support are they actually giving? It appears that it is only verbal support, unless they are joing Hezbollah forces or donating funds which I doubt anyone on this forum is doing.

Is verbal support of Hezbollah fighting ¨reaction by the available means¨?

I can say I am against imperialism that does not do anything.

Does the argument of supporting Hezbollah mean anything if the support is mearly verbal?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19 2006, 09:48 AM
Some people think forming networks and sumit mobilisations, economic sabotage and land takeovers are pointless.
What economic sabotage have you done?

And on whose behalf do you take such actions? Of a mass movement of the working class, or of some drunk punks who think that wanton petty attacks from a group of a couple of dozen politically isolated anarchists against the establishment are gonna cause the downfall of modern capitalism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Revolution is the Solution+Sep 19 2006, 10:05 AM--> (Revolution is the Solution @ Sep 19 2006, 10:05 AM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 08:46 PM


Some of the people on here don't even have a clue what it means to fight capitalism.

Some "communists" refuse to fight reaction by the available means... and some "leftists" insist upon "fighting" the bourgeoisie through completely baseless methods that don't fucking get anyone anywhere.

I'm of course talking about the people who think that supporting Hezbollah is reactionary, but putting stickers in the subway is revolutionary.
This is a question I ment to ask during the whole Hezbollah support debate but never did.

When people are saying they support Hezbollah in their fight against imperialism what kind of support are they actually giving? It appears that it is only verbal support, unless they are joing Hezbollah forces or donating funds which I doubt anyone on this forum is doing.

Is verbal support of Hezbollah fighting ¨reaction by the available means¨?

I can say I am against imperialism that does not do anything.

Does the argument of supporting Hezbollah mean anything if the support is mearly verbal? [/b]
No, it doesn't.
Hezbollah, however, are effectively fighting reaction through the available means to them... which means a lot more than a handful of anarchists vandalizing public property and squatting in some abandoned apartment. Anybody can randomly "fuck shit up".

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:11 AM

No, it doesn't.
Hezbollah, however, are effectively fighting reaction through the available means to them... which means a lot more than a handful of anarchists vandalizing public property and squatting in some abandoned apartment. Anybody can randomly "fuck shit up".
I agree that Hezbollah is fighting imperilism when they fend off Israeli forces but I don´t think that those who say they support Hizbollah are in any why fighting imperilism because of it. Hizbollah is doing the actual fighting.


You said
Some "communists" refuse to fight reaction by the available means, being not supporting Hezbollah. How is that verbal support any more helpful in fighting capitalism then say squatting, which could be argued is not a completly useless act.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
What economic sabotage have you done?

Do you mind me not going into detail on a public message board?


And on whose behalf do you take such actions? Of a mass movement of the working class, or of some drunk punks who think that wanton petty attacks from a group of a couple of dozen politically isolated anarchists against the establishment are gonna cause the downfall of modern capitalism?

Neither, Closer to the former, of all the active organisations I've been involved in, I would say their interests are certainly with the working class. But this is far from a mass movement.

As for punks, I absolutely detest the 'political' Punk scene - or at least, am very aware of the limits of it ( though I do personally enjoy the music). Unfortunately, your criticism is painfully valid in many instances, some proposed actions do seem very isolated and "activist clique-y" I completely agree with you. Though It's more than Punks, the Travellers movement has also created an alienating image. Fortunately the need for mature, effective and practical actions that benefit us as a class, is noticed, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that im in an organisation that plans along these lines.

[LuXe]

Arguing is advance. When we argue; We solve issues. Therefore we build ourselves and others as communists. We can of course talk sense into a cappy from time to time, to share some opinions.

Arguing is from my wiew a great way to share opinions, and learn other your definition of the ultimate "thruth".

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

Im glad we can agree to that we argue amongst ourselves more than we argue against the system we hate so much... this is one of the reasons why nothing (physically) is probably not happening. I mean there's a Communist Party in the states and all they do is argue over marxism and other communisms'.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by -=Viva La Revoultion=-@Sep 19 2006, 07:28 PM
Im glad we can agree to that we argue amongst ourselves more than we argue against the system we hate so much... this is one of the reasons why nothing (physically) is probably not happening. I mean there's a Communist Party in the states and all they do is argue over marxism and other communisms'.
See the irony? (:P) We are arguing over arguing xD

Ps; everybody hates the system, Its kinda old news dissing it all the time. Therefore we use our time to "prefectionise" communism.

[Jiub]

Do you realize we are arguing about arguing now?

[LuXe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:54 PM
Do you realize we are arguing about arguing now?
Thats why I said so mister ;)

[More Fire for the People]

I do not think the source of our argumentative behavior is not ‘nit-picking’ but rather the methodology of our theories. Barring those groups who wish to shove theory under the intellectual rug in order to focus on organizational tasks—how can you organize if you don’t know how to organize—Marxists and non-Marxists differ on the methodology of knowledge, the role of knowledge, and the organizational tasks of communists.

I do not think that these disputes are excessively dangerous unless they threaten the workers’ revolution itself. In fact, these disputes are healthy for the proletarian-democratic process. Only through our collective mistakes and triumphs can we understand what is necessary. Only through struggle and unity can we know the proper—and I mean ‘proper’ in a concrete sense—means to struggle for revolution and communism.

[Esplin]

Arguing over arguing.....Oh dear.

Yes, when a idea unlike others that came before it arises and is projected and accepted by a large audience, it is inetivable that it splinters and takes new forms that differ in various ways. Communism is no exception. Bickering between these groups is quite dangerous, as the act may be all these gropus do, ignoring the advancement of the revolution altogether. I agree with Hopscotch Anthill. Those who favour action and ignore thought and reasoning may have no idea what they are doing. But perhaps, at least of all they do something.

To Me!

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 19 2006, 08:49 PM
I do not think the source of our argumentative behavior is not ‘nit-picking’ but rather the methodology of our theories.


I do not think that these disputes are excessively dangerous unless they threaten the workers’ revolution itself.


heres the problem it is slowing the revolution down, so we have a problem. but you do make a strong point thanks for contributing!

by the way we are arguing about arguing guys, so.....that wasn't the point I was trying to make. we should worry about which one is better later, and they are not completely different really, well no i take that back...im amazed though we are on to 2 pages already! :D

[More Fire for the People]

heres the problem it is slowing the revolution down, so we have a problem. but you do make a strong point thanks for contributing!
I fail to see how are arguementative behaviours ‘slows down’ the revolution. A revolution requires a material, objective basis: an alienated, exploited working class ['For revolutions require a passive element, a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people.']; however, revolution alse requires a subjective basis: class conscioussness. I fail to see how our bickering slows down class conscioussness as it is mainly class conscioussness people who are doing the bickering. ['The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy']

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

i know that are arguing can some times be considered "discussing political theories violently", but no matter how you put it....it's still slowing us down :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

at this rate "the people's revolution is gonna be a podcast!"

[RNK]

What needs to happen is, everyone of sound mine who recognized the level of infighting in the Leftist movements needs to spend his/her time and effort trying to build bridges and create communication and unity. IMO there's no sense in trying to appeal to the public, in even protesting against the system or creating public mischief or any of the revolt, if we as a movement can not even sit down at a table and work together. All of these movements are simply sabotaging everyone else -- like a race where every runner is trying to trip the other guy. The only problem is, while our team is desperately trying to trip the rest of our team up, the real enemy, capitalism, is far, far ahead.

[Kurt Crover]

Originally posted by -=Viva La Revolution!=-@Sep 26 2006, 08:48 PM

at this rate "the people's revolution is gonna be a podcast!"
I've been drinking for quite a while now. I see your point my friend. Let's go attack some McDonalds and Burger Kings.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:40 PM
I'd rather have a movement that argues and knows where it stands than have a movement that agrees but goes nowhere.

We're talking about the future of humanity. We'd better know what the hell we're doing, because fucking up is inexcusible.
Well said.

As to answering the topic of this thread, to an extent I agree that leftists sometimes fight more against each other than the real enemy; the capitalists. I don't see anything wrong with debate and critical discussion, even lengthy debate and critical discussion, as long as everyone understands that no matter how heated the arguments may get, us, revolutionary leftists are generally fighting for the same thing: the liberation and empowerment of working people and the abolishment of predatory capitalism.