Question posed to all.

[Prairie Fire]

Okay here is a question for all: Suppose you were in a revolutionary organization that has a members that come from a variety of different ideological affiliations. While all members of your group are revolutionary socialists, you find that the group contains very different, even contradictory, outlooks on socialism. Now, while you do not doubt that all members of the organization want a communist revolution and are commited socialists, you believe that some members have certain erroneous concepts of socialism, that could be an impedment to the building of a socialist society after revolution.

In a situation like this, it seems futile to try and convince your comrades of the errors in their ideology, but it also seems counterproductive to split the organization and form yet another communist organization in an allready fractured movement.

What would you do in these shoes?

[détrop]

Our differences would be minor when compared to our similarities.

The rankings in the group should be decided by a democratic vote...the result being a majority rule.

The only time it would be necessary to organize rankings would be in the event of taking action toward a goal, while meager discussion is irrelevent to the groups action.

Differences in ideology do not matter to an inactive group of revolutionaries.

[Ander]

What I find is that there are far too many separate groups which have the same basic idea. We lefties should stick together...if we are all divided by minor differences we're going to get nowhere.

[RNK]

I would do my best to stick with it and agitate the group to co-operate and work democratically. I'd suggest broad discussion groups where everyone can have a chance to discuss socialism, their particular view of it, and observe what other people's thoughts are on the matter, as a learning process. I think too many leftists are frightened by variety. None of us can seriously claim to be more correct socialists than anyone else (usually). We need to focus on our similarities and worry about our differences AFTER the revolution.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:21 pm
that could be an impedment to the building of a socialist society after revolution.
Deal with it after a successful revolution.

[Prairie Fire]

Allright, so what I'm getting is that, until we make revolution, none of these ideological differences are a problem.

Still, I can't help but wonder... Lenin said that after the bourgeosie is defeated/overthrown, they increase in resistance and strength ten fold. Is this really the time to have errors in judgment within the ranks of the revolutionary movement?

[Whitten]

Those are problems which are irrelevant unless there is a socialist revolution. I would remain a member, unity is essential. I would try to alk fellow members over to my way of seeing things, but united action is more important, especially in the current political situation.

[Janus]

There's nothing wrong with debating/discussion of such issues. It certainly doesn't need to be hostile or sectarian if you approach it with more of an open mind, in which case you have a chance to convince others to your side or maybe even vice versa.

[rouchambeau]

I would try to ignore it. Nothing productive ever comes from debates about such issues. If everyone decided to drop their ideological conflict, then the group could get on to discussing and acting on things that actually matter.

[YSR]

The only time it matters is when it would practically effect the way your organize. I'm thinking here of democratic centralism vs. anarchist organizing.

[manic expression]

Minor differences don't matter. As long as you share common goals, work toward those objectives first and then worry about what comes after that.

Basically, don't cross a bridge you don't have to until you come to it.

[Coggeh]

This should be in Theory.

Well I see it ok to have an organisation of socialists/ communists working together but if you bring in left centralists/anarchists who share a goal of destroying capitalism come the time of a successful revolution they will slowly become reactionaries to a state concept of socialism and in whole might pose a problem in creating a socialist state.So I know its bad to split the left but I think in the anarchist and socialist group section its best to keep separate and only unite when it comes to issues you can agree on e.g Anti-war .

That sounds a bit sectarian but I mean it the same way like if an Anarchist society came along socialists might become reactionary .

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Okay here is a question for all: Suppose you were in a revolutionary organization that has a members that come from a variety of different ideological affiliations. While all members of your group are revolutionary socialists, you find that the group contains very different, even contradictory, outlooks on socialism. Now, while you do not doubt that all members of the organization want a communist revolution and are commited socialists, you believe that some members have certain erroneous concepts of socialism, that could be an impedment to the building of a socialist society after revolution.

In a situation like this, it seems futile to try and convince your comrades of the errors in their ideology, but it also seems counterproductive to split the organization and form yet another communist organization in an allready fractured movement.

What would you do in these shoes?
Fuck all.
In my local Action Group there are christians, eco-anarchists, Communists, and non-ideologically aligned workers (normal people) I'd wager that we hardly agree on much when it comes to in depth-theory.

But we have established a sort of tactical unity. As long as you have proper democracy, it doesn't matter if you have various opinions.

as it's an ideological, debate. Moved to theory (?)

[Coggeh]

Wouldn't that group get like absolutly nowhere lol . What happens when they start voting in favour of a reformist tactic ? or just in a backwards mannor and your not the majority .

[Vargha Poralli]

The OP has asked a lot of questions based on mere assumptions. This certainly do not fit in theory but in chit chat.

[Floyce White]

Working-class activists must unite on the basis of being working-class activists. We must unite on the basis of being (material) and not belief (ideal.) We must form a party of working-class people only. I discussed this in my Antiproperty essays. You can find them by clicking on the WEBSITE>> button below my posts.

As an aside, it is a debaters' trick to distract from the issues with a tug-of-war about moving or splitting a thread.

[Fawkes]

As an aside, it is a debaters' trick to distract from the issues with a tug-of-war about moving or splitting a thread.
That's a trick?

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:45 am

As an aside, it is a debaters' trick to distract from the issues with a tug-of-war about moving or splitting a thread.
That's a trick?
Fawkes - you are aware that it is also a debaters' trick to question whether an obvious debaters' trick is a debaters' trick? ;)

[Pilar]

Our biggest post-revolutionary problem will be the same one we have now: Dictators who claim to be socialist, who hoard foodstuffs and useful items, and who give to their family members benefits, all under the banner of socialism.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:43 pm
Our biggest post-revolutionary problem will be the same one we have now: Dictators who claim to be socialist, who hoard foodstuffs and useful items, and who give to their family members benefits, all under the banner of socialism.
Indeed. China, North Korea and the Soviet Union all had this problem. This is a far greater threat to the cause than slight differences in opinion. So long as we all believe in the basic concepts of socialism, there should be no civil war. Organized discussion of ideology would help the rifts between members, but most of it will have to be dealt with after the takeover. Until then, it is inconsequential.

[che_juevara]

i think the question is how to stick to geather >>
having same ideas and dreams>>>
puting our heros in our mind like ernesto ch juevara>>>>>>>>>

[Lamanov]

Revolutionary groups that don't put forward any type of coherent / unified theory and practice sentence themselves to nonexistence and passivity.

Wide fronts that exist for only single fragmentary purpose might be usefull, but only if there exist groups that create practice/theory which unite the totality of elements.

[bezdomni]

This is why we have democratic centralism.

[Comrade_Scott]

in this case everyone should just hush up an get on with life. i mean we all want the same end product and we are all what 80% the same in political ideology? get on vote for leaders majority rules, we as the left have always been so bent on creating fractions and factions within that nothing ever gets done. united we stand divided we fall comrades, we either fight together as comrades or die and fail as comrades see a pattern

[EwokUtopia]

If we are talking about a large group, the answer is simple. Forget our differences while we are still in struggle, and afterwards, create different autonomous communes for people to go to whatever one best suites them.

[hajduk]

YOU GOTTA DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO