Overcoming Sectarian Differences

[RED VICTORY]

I wasn't sure where to post this and thought this would be a good location. I was just wondering, and I am sure this has came up before, if anyone has any ideas on how we are going to overcome the obstacle of sectarianism? I'm sure that everyone has realized that if we are to instruct our fellow members of the working class on the shortcomings of the current system of capitalism then we have to have a united front. I know this has been attempted so many times, but how can we seriously bring unity to our movement? What are you doing as an individual to promote unity? Our revolutionary goals can only be realized when we come together as revolutionaries on a global scale.

[Louis Pio]

Good topic I think, quite relevant to bring up.
In my oppinion I think we should we work together on the things we agree on. The basis of a united front is to march together but always being able to have your own slogan, both on a small and big scale if you know what I mean.
In pracsis I've worked together with everything from anarchosyndicalists over stalinists to reformists on the things we could agree on in big campaigns, while every grouping have of course maintained their right tp provide their own analysis and additional slogans to the things in question, of course only working with groups from the workers movement. This have worked quite well.
A problem is however that some people are more content with having small group wars than advancing the class struggle. These people are in my oppinion utter shit and we don't really need to bother with them since their politics quickly fails when put to the test, since they in every aspect distance themselves from the workers movement and the struggle in general.

[apathy maybe]

Everything would be fine if it weren't for all those stupid Leninists ...

I mean if everyone was an anarchist we would not have any trouble, but Leninists all want to be the next Lenin, and that leads to infighting between Leninists. And of course anarchists and autonomous Marxists don't want to have anything to do with Leninist.


And seriously, (though some of what I said above was only partly tongue in cheek) the Leftist movement is not a single homogenise movement. Neither for that matter is the Right a single movement, but at the moment they have the power and it is easier to hide differences when you are in power.

Yes most people on RevLeft want a single end goal (communism or some related variant of anarchism), but there are also State Socialists who think that we need a state for whatever reason.

So while we can all move together towards a final goal, at some point our paths will diverge, or some people will stop moving while others want to keep moving.


Unfortunately our differences do show up before they have to, this is partly a result of differences in organisational philosophy, and partly as a result of other crap.

We are all different, and I see that as a good thing.

[Louis Pio]

Edit: changed my mind on this post so I deleted it

[blueeyedboy]

I think to organise on a global scale is a very hard thing to accomplish because in a lot of countries where capitalist expolitation is rife, the workers there don't have much access, if any, to our beliefs here on RevLeft and the Internet. There needs to be more media coverage of socialism and communism, pulling away from the idea that communism is evil. This won't happen as the media is a tool of the ruling class, so this just would not happen. I beleive if this is accomplished, the revolution would happen maybe 5-10 years sooner than it will, whenever that is.

Nevertheless, this was an excellent thread, and a great topic to bring up, Red Victory.

[RED VICTORY]

Great responses so far Teis, Apathy Maybe, blueeyedboy.

Well thought out replies. I hope everyone has a chance to stumble onto this thread. The value and reward of discussing this topic lies in hearing the various opinions and tactics of the very factions that need unity, even if on a big campaign scale.

on the things we could agree on in big campaigns, while every grouping have of course maintained their right tp provide their own analysis and additional slogans to the things in question, of course only working with groups from the workers movement. This have worked quite well.


Anyone else have any Ideas?

[The Feral Underclass]

While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I believe that the only reason Leninists want to "mend fences" with the rest of the left is because they are a dying breed grasping to that final sliver of light before exiting stage south to the delight of all the worms and parasites.

They will say and do anything to draw just one more raspy breath.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2006 10:00 pm
While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.
out of touch with reality

sectarian nonsense

[cb9's_unity]

i say fuck sectarian differences. i mean anarchists and leninests both hate capitalism. how about we work together to bring that down and then we can ***** about our diffences.
so if your a lenininest and won't have anything but your vanguard party then fuck you. and if your an anarchist who will never work with any government or other political ideoligy ever then fuck you to. both of you are destoying the leftist movement and thus supporting capitalism.
we have to break capitalisms back and then argue about were we go from there. now we are anarchists or communists or socialists but when the time comes we must simply be revolutionarys.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by LoneRed+October 26, 2006 12:00 am--> (LoneRed @ October 26, 2006 12:00 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2006 10:00 pm
While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.
out of touch with reality [/b]
Justify this opinion please.


sectarian nonsense

How can it I be sectarian when we don't belong to the same movement. If opposing Leninism is "sectarian" then I'm fine with that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by cb9'[email protected] 26, 2006 12:40 am
i say fuck sectarian differences. i mean anarchists and leninests both hate capitalism. how about we work together to bring that down...
Can you please explain to me how anarchists and Leninists can "work together". On what basis is that possible?


...and then we can ***** about our diffences.

"*****ing about it afterwards" usually results in Leninists imprisoning or executing anarchists.


and if your an anarchist who will never work with any government or other political ideoligy ever then fuck you to.

And there's precisely the problem? Working together essentially means that anarchists have to compromise on a fundamental theoretical point and if we don't agree the result has historical meant death.

[Louis Pio]

Can you please explain to me how anarchists and Leninists can "work together". On what basis is that possible?

In the day to day class struggle, done it before. Shouldn't be a problem for people caring about their class. But of course if people wan't to put differences first, diferences that nobody on the workplace give's a rat's ass about, then fine. Just keeps those people out on any influence at all which ain't all bad in my oppinion.

[which doctor]

Pointing out ignorance is not sectarian.

[Comrade_Scott]

secretarianism the way i see it has always been our downfall... i think i said it before until we unite and look past stalin and trotsky we will never get anywhere, and the capitalists will laugh and go on oppresing the masses..... screw secretarianism is what i say

[Louis Pio]

The thing with secterianism is it doesn't depend on what line this or that group follows. It depends on how you engage in the class struggle. Are you willing to work with rank and file from reformist organisations? Anarchist? and so on? Thing is working with this people doesn't mean you can't come out with criticism. To get the mass of workers to reach revolutionary conclusions, those who are now in reformist organisations like a tradeunion (or labour parties) you need to stand shoulder to shoulder with your workmates, while you of course always point out your criticism of the leaders. A large part of the socalled left don't bother with that work, they think it "tedious", "slow" and whatever. They prefere staying pure in their ivory tower, now this may sound harsh, but am sick and tired of small circle mentality. Has accomplished nothing but giving the rightwing in the labour movement a big lead.

[LoneRed]

It is nonsense, Bolshevism Does NOT exist anymore, it existed in Russia when the bolshevik party was present. To say that when they are around there is no freedom is total bullshit. A see a successful feudal-bourgeois revolution, where are your credentials?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2006 10:00 pm
While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.
When there is no bolshevism, there will be no socialism. Let's face it. Anarchy is just utopian masturbation. The farthest steps it has had is a failed anarcho-trotskyist revolution. It has made no steps towards socialism in any sizable scale.

Leninism is the only option. I don't see what the problem is with a organized, democratic party. It is a tool for organization which is crucial during a revolution.

Leninists do not see themselves as the next lenin as Apathy thinks, we just recognize the fact that anarchism will not lead us anywhere. In a revolution, a organized vanguard is necessary or else the movement falls apart and is ineffective at overthrowing militarized capitalist states.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 01:58 am
It is nonsense, Bolshevism Does NOT exist anymore, it existed in Russia when the bolshevik party was present. To say that when they are around there is no freedom is total bullshit. A see a successful feudal-bourgeois revolution, where are your credentials?
Bolshevism as in a broad term for leninism; ie maoism, trotskyism, etc..

[Louis Pio]

anarcho-trotskyist

Please do not, I repeat do not put these words like they fit together. Theoretically they are quite apart. Which once again doesn't mean that we can't work together on the shop floor. I have however only worked with individual anarchists, since their organisations in my experience doesn't bother with union work on an organised scale (and no, setting up your own union as a substitute for a party doesn't count).

[sanpal]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 25, 2006 12:56 am
I mean if everyone was an anarchist we would not have any trouble, but Leninists ....

.... but there are also State Socialists .....


Leninist: "If everyone was a leninist we would not have any trouble ..."

State socialist: "if everyone was a socialist ...", etc



Yeah, it is sectarianism of course. If sometime god would make a proletarian revolution so the next day after revolution every ....ist would paint the face of other ...ist.


CompañeroDeLibertad:


Sectarianism means putting the program of your organization, (or your personal outlook), above the interests of the working class. That's the definition comrades. It's being used incorrectly alot around here, and that doesn't help anyone.


... interests of the working class
This is the point! + a bit common sense so a new general conception is needed.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)Sectarianism means putting the program of your organization, (or your personal outlook), above the interests of the working class. That's the definition comrades. It's being used incorrectly alot around here, and that doesn't help anyone.[/b]But I think that my opinion will help the working class the most ...

My organisation's program is the best program out of all of them for helping the working class, how can I put it above the interests of the working class?


sanpal
Leninist: "If everyone was a leninist we would not have any trouble ..."

State socialist: "if everyone was a socialist ...", etcIt was a joke. Not a very good one I know.

My point was that often people say such things, and it does not really help that much See also my reply to CDL.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:56 am
Good topic I think, quite relevant to bring up.
In my oppinion I think we should we work together on the things we agree on. The basis of a united front is to march together but always being able to have your own slogan, both on a small and big scale if you know what I mean.
In pracsis I've worked together with everything from anarchosyndicalists over stalinists to reformists on the things we could agree on in big campaigns, while every grouping have of course maintained their right tp provide their own analysis and additional slogans to the things in question, of course only working with groups from the workers movement. This have worked quite well.
A problem is however that some people are more content with having small group wars than advancing the class struggle. These people are in my oppinion utter shit and we don't really need to bother with them since their politics quickly fails when put to the test, since they in every aspect distance themselves from the workers movement and the struggle in general.
I would agree with this, and contrary to what some have thought of me at this site, I have managed to work just fine with other organiztions at demos and such, most recently the Labor Day Immigrants Rights one I was at (others included RCP, CWI, US SWP, and a Maoist organization I can't remember the name of.). I manage to get along with some local Anarcho-syndacalists (I am not sure who they are all with. One is with the IWW. Don't know about the other two.).

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2006 11:00 pm
While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.
Didn't Adolf Hitler say that in 1941?

Lets get real, when things kick off are we going to be there battering capitalism in to history or battering each other while the working class thunders for change? Are we going to mess it all up again?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 03:07 am
When there is no bolshevism, there will be no socialism. Let's face it.
That's fine with me.


Let's face it. Anarchy is just utopian masturbation.

I should face it should I?

This argument gets banded around many times (although it's not really an argument, more of an attack) and it still manages to confuse me? Why have you learnt this language?

What is is specifically about anarchism which is "utopian masturbation"?


It has made no steps towards socialism in any sizable scale.

Anarchists aren't and never have been attempting to move "towards" socialism...


we just recognize the fact that anarchism will not lead us anywhere.

Why do you recognise that? How do you recognise it? You talk about anarchism never moving towards socialism, but at what point has Leninism moved towards communism and that is, after all, what this is all about.

Leninist theory is flawed and that has been proven time and time again. Leninism can never create communism.


In a revolution, a organized vanguard is necessary or else the movement falls apart and is ineffective at overthrowing militarized capitalist states.

What is an organised vanguard?

Also, it may be effective in fighting the capitalist state, but it will never lead to communism and that's the point here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+October 28, 2006 07:04 am--> (The Dissenter @ October 28, 2006 07:04 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2006 11:00 pm
While Bolshevism exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no Bolshevism.
Didn't Adolf Hitler say that in 1941?[/b]
You just made that up! Actually, that sentence is paraphrased from Lenin.


Lets get real

I love it when people attempt to attack an opinion by claiming it isn't "real" and whatever you have to say is obviously real...


when things kick off are we going to be there battering capitalism in to history or battering each other while the working class thunders for change?

It's not as simple as that.

The way different groups of revolutionaries react will depend on what kind of revolution it is. Historically, anarchists have always looked for support from Leninists in times of anarchist social upheavel of this scale. The reverse of that however has historically lead to mass imprisonment and execution of anarchists.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not expect the same in the future. Let's just hope that any revolution that happens will be a decidedly anti-authoritarian one.


Are we going to mess it all up again?

Who's this "we"?

[RebelDog]

You just made that up!

He very likely said something similar but for different reasons, I was being ironic.


I love it when people attempt to attack an opinion by claiming it isn't "real" and whatever you have to say is obviously real...

If things were to kick off in Britain tomorrow would any of us sit at home and play no part? Such a historical earthquake would have us all on the streets. I was merely suggesting that revolution will have us all involved in the destruction of the British ruling class. Hopefully united, comrades in arms. I refuse to fall back to the popular stance that unity in struggle cannot be achieved among a broad anti-capitalist revolutionary movement. It is essential in my mind.


There is absolutely no reason why we should not expect the same in the future. Let's just hope that any revolution that happens will be a decidedly anti-authoritarian one.

How could I disagree.


Who's this "we"?

Sorry disregard "we" and replace it with who you think is to blame.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 29, 2006 04:50 am
Hopefully united, comrades in arms. I refuse to fall back to the popular stance that unity in struggle cannot be achieved among a broad anti-capitalist revolutionary movement. It is essential in my mind.
It's desirable, but it's not possible.

You cannot build a broad based anti-capitalist movement that includes anarchists and Leninists working together.

Both ideas are fundamentally opposed on key theoretical, practical and tactical points. There simply isn't room for unity unless one side drops, for example, the issue of the state or drastically reforms the idea in order to reach a compromise.

Even then, you will find hardcore people on both sides who won't accept the outcome.