Communist League

[Rawthentic]

Hello, I just wanted to ask this to see what people think about our worker organization, or any questions about it.

We have a seemingly "heretic" policy of allowing only working-class members into our party.

Basically:


There has been much talk lately of the Leagues character and stance on issues concerning world affairs and policies, I hope to dispel some of them here, and with some hope, halt the turning flood of backlash against the league. It must first be noted, that The Communist League(US) is a political organization that advocates the destruction of the capitalist state and all of its agents. In fact you can see this on all of our papers; the Working People’s Advocate (WPA) and on Worker’s Republic (WR). It is one of the first statements people see when visiting our site, and is core to the program of the league. The league came out of the inadequacy of the current left socialist movement, one that truly offered no alternatives to the current capitalist paradigm, one that allied itself rather to the petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals who hoped to sway the workers over to their side. The league is a backlash against that, but it is also the natural occurrence of workers rising up defending their own interests. The League has a worker only policy, which many have probably seen, and also takes other steps to assure that the petty-bourgeois influence is kept to its lowest. We see the degeneracy of so called socialism when the professionals get into the ballgame, we see them like we see the capitalists, they are oppressors, not simple outright oppression, but ones that try to destroy working class theory by their cunning and outright lies. That by advancing their causes try to seek the most support among the working and poorer classes in society. We find much fault with this. Firstly, The petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t know what its like to be a member of the working class, usually their whole life they have had things handed to them, and doesn’t know the attitudes, or attributes of the working class or its rightful politics. The Petty-bourgeoisie usually are graced with a better education than many working class members, due to their financial situation and this leads them to think of the working class as animals to be led astray, this way or that way, to wherever their “betters” want them to go. We find these people elitist and extremely naïve if they believe they can take advantage of us without any protest. This is what the league is about, the determination to eliminate the parasitic thought of the middle-class professionals who seek to twist and destroy Marxism, turning it into something that no longer advocates working class emancipation, to destroy communism from the inside this is how they operate. The working class faces, at the minimum two enemies by their very position, the petty-bourgeois, who enjoys their position in society, and work hard to keep their wealth and positions, and the capitalists, or bourgeoisie who seek nothing other than profit, whose very nature is too secure themselves a livelihood to extinguish all flames of protest or workers empowerment, as they mean an end to their privileged life. The league is a natural occurring force in fight for working class empowerment, it is worker’s taking their situation into their own hand, working to tip the turns to ever present day when the life support of the system comes crashing down. Another point must be talked about as well, and that is the analysis of the league.

And..

The Communist League (CL) is an organization whose goal it is to overthrow the current capitalist society. Of course a party can't do this alone, it needs the support of the working class. Class-conscious workers are the main members and founders of the CL. The CL is a party of workers, for workers.

Petty-bourgeois elements are kept out of the party by a rule. That rule is that only workers (or individuals who are from a workers family) can become a member of the party. So for example, a student can only become a member if he or she has workers as parents, or has a job themselves. The fact that the CL has this rule makes it unique amongst self-proclaimed communist parties. Another important point which makes the CL unique is the non-sectarian nature of the party. Anarchists, Marxists, Leninists, Maoists etc. are all welcome as long as they are part of the working class, and accept the basic principles.

I'll also add more reasons as to our working class composition:

For too long, the working people’s movement has been dominated politically by elements from the exploiting and oppressing classes, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. In those organisations they dominate, a class-based division of labour usually exists, where those from the exploiting classes are the ‘generals’ (both theoretical and practical) and those from the exploited class are the ‘foot soldiers.’

On occasion, someone from the working class is pushed forward as ‘proof’ of that organisation’s ‘proletarian’ stock, but it is usually done in a patronising and tokenistic manner, which only aids in exposing the non-proletarian character of that group.

That said, there are also organisations out there that are genuinely proletarian, including organisations that are not from the socialist or communist tradition, and we seek to work with as many of them as possible, whenever and wherever we can.

Fourth, and finally, we are an activist organisation, not a propaganda group that just stands on the fringes of the class struggle and issues paper proclamations. We are active in workers’ struggles because we are workers ourselves.

We do not stand above or apart from our class, but among it, presenting a communist perspective and working to organise a proletarian political movement that can sweep away all of the barbarism of the current capitalist system and those feudal vestiges of monarchy and nobility that continue to plague our society.

The liberation of working people must be carried out by working people themselves – that is the guiding principle of the League, and the guiding philosophy behind Liberation.

If you are a worker of any age, and this sounds like the kind of organisation you want to be a part of, we encourage you to contact us and explore becoming a member of the League.

[bretty]

What would be the point of letting elements outside the working class into a group which is part of the movement FOR the working class? I'm not a scholar on the subject but it seems like a necessary step. What is the logic behind the claim of 'heresy'?

[welshred]

I have read the basic princeples of the league and I agree with all of them. As for the working class only membership I think that it is necessary for such an organization to succeeed.

[Rawthentic]

Well you see, after constant debating here on revleft, it seems like people are so strongly for allowing petty-bourgeois and other non-working class elements.

And I also agree with comrade welshred that it is indeed a necessary step because we are workers and this is a movement of the working class. When we allow non-prole elements into our party we lose our self-organization as workers.

And if you comrades are further interested in the League, pm me please.

[Raúl Duke]

hmm..it makes sense they only allow proletarians...yet:

Who is classified as a petty-bourgeoisie in the terms of the CL? (let me rephase: who does the CL classify as a petty-bourgeoisie?)

This answer might help me understand why people might be against the "anti petty-bourgeoisie" policy because it seems some groups/people have a broad definition of it.

[Rawthentic]

Well, we allow only working class members, meaning that you are one that sells your labor power to survive. If there are any details that go along with this they can always be discussed and worked out as they have in the past. Since working class no longer means all factory workers but has a much broader definition, there is usually a need to discuss particular cases.

[Janus]

Who is classified as a petty-bourgeoisie in the terms of the CL?
The CL follows the general Marxist definition that is someone who works for him/herself (rather than selling his/her own labor power) in his or her own business yet does not control a significant portion of the means of production.

[Rawthentic]

Janus, weren't you a CL member? Or are you?

[Janus]

Yes, I'm still a member.

[Rawthentic]

Thats good to hear. Are you still active because we (well I) haven't heard or seen from you in a while.

[Janus]

Are you still active because we (well I) haven't heard or seen from you in a while.
Well, I haven't been really involved in any of the League discussions or meetings recently but I am currently trying to get something set up in my area in time for May Day.

[More Fire for the People]

I think the League is one of the better organisations to come around but I disagree with their raison d'être — i.e. the failure of the left movement being an alliance with 'petty-bourgeois intellectuals'. Some key communists including Marx, Pannekoek, Benjamin, etc. were petty-bourgeois intellectuals. I think what the League fails to realize , or rather refuses to acknowledge, that dissident petty-bourgeois intellectuals — i.e. intellectuals arising as theorists of the dominant mode of production as their profession — offer the working class a means to better their understanding of capitalism.

[Janus]

I think what the League fails to realize , or rather refuses to acknowledge, that dissident petty-bourgeois intellectuals — i.e. intellectuals arising as theorists of the dominant mode of production as their profession — offer the working class a means to better their understanding of capitalism.
Where is that prohibited? There's a major difference between accepting or learning from a petit bourgeois theorist's theories and allowing one to have a participatory role within a worker's movement. There's no reason why the former shouldn't be allowed and if it was it would mean that Marx and Engel's contributions would have to be ignored as you said.

[Rawthentic]

Exactly what Janus said. We hold tight to Marxist theory and the contributions of other theorists, but we hold a working class member only policy to emphasize self-organization.

The failure of the US left is in big part to its alliance with petty-bourgeois people because they have inhibited what we practice, and that is worker self-organization in the communist movement.

[More Fire for the People]

I was under the impression any affiliation with 'petty-bourgeois intellectuals' under the notion that theory is inseperable from practice or something like that. Again, I think the lambasting of groups as petite bourgeoisie or 'working class' only politics can lead to dangerous positions — exculsion of students, the lumpenproletariat, and peasants. Moreover, I disagree with the League's belief that the fault of past communist movements was because of their content rather than their organisational form when both require careful attention.

[Rawthentic]

For one thing, we are mainly based in the US and some parts of Europe, where there is no peasantry. We allow students, I being one, depending on their class background.

I would also like you to show me where we say this:


League's belief that the fault of past communist movements was because of their content rather than their organisational form when both require careful attention.

I dont think that is the case for we do pay careful attention to material conditions and other factors. Take this article from the Worker's Republic:

On the Lessons of the USSR Experience (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?48/#03)

[Janus]

I was under the impression any affiliation with 'petty-bourgeois intellectuals' under the notion that theory is inseperable from practice or something like that.
Where did you get this from? Again, I would remind you that consistent implementation of such policies would require one to completely throw out Marx and Engels' theories.


Again, I think the lambasting of groups as petite bourgeoisie or 'working class' only politics can lead to dangerous positions — exculsion of students, the lumpenproletariat, and peasants.
It really depends on the background of the student (obviously someone from a bourgeois background couldn't classify him/herself as a worker) or lumpenproletariat (do you classify anyone who exists outside the wage labor system as a lumpenprole or just anyone who exists outside it permanently?). But again, I don't see why having a "workers only" policy would be dangerous, rather the opposite seems much more dangerous.


Moreover, I disagree with the League's belief that the fault of past communist movements was because of their content rather than their organisational form when both require careful attention.
The CL has certainly stated that one of the reasons for the failure of former communist movements was due to their class composition but nowhere has it stated that it's the only reason.

[Rawthentic]

But again, I don't see why having a "workers only" policy would be dangerous, rather the opposite seems much more dangerous.
Precisely, it hurts proletarian self-management. By allowing petty-bourgeois, they consciously or unconsciously bring in their class nature by trying to steer the movement into a direction that suits them and allows careerist elements.

But like I said, todays class structure is much more complicated then in Marx's day and each case would need to be studied accordingly.

[Leo]

What Marx and Engels said is that petty-bourgeois who wanted to join a proletarian party needed to shed their petty-bourgeois outlook, and thus at the same time shed their class background.

I don't think that is what they meant, beside it was definately not what they have done - if Engels shed his actual class background completely, Marx would have starved to death.

I don't know about the Communist League, but currently the Ankara section of the EKS is all students from a proletarian background and even the publications are sucking the life out of us. If someone who was running a small-printing shop approached to us, started discussing with us and finally decided that s/he wanted to join the organization, it would be insane for us to turn her/him down because s/he is from a petty-bourgeois background!

[Rawthentic]

If someone like that wanted to assist in printing and publishing our publications, we would allow it, but membership would be another thing to discuss.


I don't think that is what they meant
Oh yes, they meant that petty-bourgeois could adopt a proletarian line without living a proletarian reality correct? <_<

[Leo]

I think that would be a very dishonest attitude towards a contact who is sincerely interested in getting involved in communist politics.


Oh yes, they meant that petty-bourgeois could adopt a proletarian line without living a proletarian reality correct?

Well, yes, this was what they meant and what Engels thought he was doing. It doesn&#39;t mean that it is the task of the petty-bourgeoisie or any other class to emancipate the proletariat simply because people from other class backgrounds can be communists because communists don&#39;t emancipate the proletariat to begin with - it is the proletariat who emancipates itself.

[Rawthentic]

We would not brush them off as if they were nothing, we would talk to them, and work with them where we could. We would discuss how membership could come about. We are in fact in that very process right now.


Well, yes, this was what they meant and what Engels thought he was doing. It doesn&#39;t mean that it is the task of the petty-bourgeoisie or any other class to emancipate the proletariat simply because people from other class backgrounds can be communists because communists don&#39;t emancipate the proletariat to begin with - it is the proletariat who emancipates itself.
It wont if it doesn&#39;t lead its own struggles. And lets remember that to hold a proletarian line you have to have a proletarian class back ground.

[Leo]

It wont if it doesn&#39;t lead its own struggles.

Don&#39;t worry, communists coming from petty-bourgeois background obviously won&#39;t be able to be at workers&#39; councils or mass assemblies and such.


And lets remember that to hold a proletarian line you have to have a proletarian class back ground.

This is not the issue. To be a communist militant, you don&#39;t have to be a proletarian. You won&#39;t be able to intervene and participate in class struggle, but you will still be able to sell the press, write articles, go to public meetings, defend the positions of the organization in discussions, pay dues, help other militants when they need it etc. A communist organization is a collective body: it is not the class background of individual members that determine if it is a proletarian organization; it is their political positions. Of course the members of the petty-bourgeoisie aren&#39;t dying to join proletarian organizations and proletarians do have and has to have an overwhelming majority in a communist organization in order to make it&#39;s interventions effective.

[Rawthentic]

I see what you are saying Leo, and I do agree.

[Leo]

Well then, that&#39;s something to discuss in the Communist League.

[Rawthentic]

So, it doesnt matter if the organization is all capitalists as long as they have the "correct" political positions? I think you go wrong there, comrade. We are proletarian because we are proletarian and hold the correct line.

[Leo]

So, it doesnt matter if the organization is all capitalists as long as they have the "correct" political positions?

I said: "proletarians do have and has to have an overwhelming majority in a communist organization in order to make it&#39;s interventions effective." I think it is clear.

This is not an ethical issue, it is a practical one.


We are proletarian because we are proletarian and hold the correct line.

In a political organization, the issue is the political positions. If the aim of the political organization is to intervene within the working class in order to become a weapon of the working class in it&#39;s revolutionary struggle, then obviously proletarians will have and overwhelming majority in it. However, it is not the class background that determines who should or shouldn&#39;t enter a political organization; it is political positions. The organs of the entire proletariat, in which no one who is not a proletarian can participate, which should be completely independent and which has the task of seizing power are soviets, workers&#39; councils, not the communist organization.

[Rawthentic]

Alright, so then why is this a problem with the Communist League? As far as I know, there are petty-bourgeois who aid us in several things, just not organizational decisions or anything like that.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 25, 2007 01:44 pm
We are proletarian because we are proletarian and hold the correct line.
Our organisation is made up of proletarians, and students from proletarian backgrounds.

That is not the reason that we &#39;hold the correct line&#39;.

I feel that the CL&#39;s policy is possibly a healthy reaction to middle class leftism. Fetishising the working class doesn&#39;t make your politics any different though.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Devrim, having a working class communist organization emphasizes working class self-emancipation and Marx&#39;s conception of the vanguard, the advanced section of the working class.

[Leo]

Alright, so then why is this a problem with the Communist League? As far as I know, there are petty-bourgeois who aid us in several things, just not organizational decisions or anything like that.

What I specifically said on the issue was this: To be a communist militant, you don&#39;t have to be a proletarian. You won&#39;t be able to intervene and participate in class struggle, but you will still be able to sell the press, write articles, go to public meetings, defend the positions of the organization in discussions, pay dues, help other militants when they need it etc. A communist organization is a collective body: it is not the class background of individual members that determine if it is a proletarian organization; it is their political positions. The Communist League seems interested in accepting everyone from radical left ideology (whether it is Maoist, Trotskyist, Autonomous Marxist etc.) regardless of political positions as long as they are proletarian. I think the Communist League is mixing the role of the communist organization with the role of proletarian organs.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 25, 2007 09:25 pm
Devrim, having a working class communist organization emphasizes working class self-emancipation and Marx&#39;s conception of the vanguard, the advanced section of the working class.
I don&#39;t get your point.
Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Yes, we are a non-sectarian organization, we aren&#39;t going to say, "oh, you have to be a Maoist or a Trotskyist to join here." Those are differences that are worked out into a common action platform.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 25, 2007 09:31 pm
Yes, we are a non-sectarian organization, we aren&#39;t going to say, "oh, you have to be a Maoist or a Trotskyist to join here." Those are differences that are worked out into a common action platform.
Yes, I still don&#39;t see what the last point was about.

On this point though, don&#39;t you feel that there is a world of difference between communists, and Maoists? Or communists, or social democrats?

Yes, the class composition of the organisation is important, but class politics are important too. Sociology is not enough.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Well duh, you have to be a communist and agree with our Basic Principles (http://www.communistleague.org/principles.html) to join.

[Leo]

Yes, we are a non-sectarian organization, we aren&#39;t going to say, "oh, you have to be a Maoist or a Trotskyist to join here." Those are differences that are worked out into a common action platform

This doesn&#39;t have anything to do with being a non-sectarian organization. Being non-sectarian is being open to discussion, not trying to get everyone to join your group. You can&#39;t work out real political differences, if someone is going to be a militant of a communist organization, this doesn&#39;t mean that the person will get a membership card and the leadership will keep doing everything, it means that the person is going to be actively involved in the organization, will actively intervene as a part of the organization, will actively discuss within the organization and more important will explain and defend the organizations basic political positions in political discussions with other people. This requires agreement on basic political positions.

[Rawthentic]

We do have overwhelming agreements, so this is not a problem, we agree far more than we disagree. Leo, what you said there, describes the League and a part of what we do.

[cenv]

Just because we don&#39;t limit our membership to a particular "ism" doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t be an efficient organization. You&#39;ll see that our "Basic Principles," which one must agree with to join, are pretty well-defined. We&#39;ve found that even as our organization continues to grow, our non-sectarianism simply isn&#39;t a hindrance. The bourgeoisie relies on division of the working class, and the vast array of "isms" often serves simply to separate comrades and pit them against one another. Another positive aspect of this policy is that it leaves room for comrades within the organization to develop new perspectives on matters -- they aren&#39;t constantly bombarded with propaganda stating that they must adhere to a particular ideology while all other ideologies are of the devil.

We still require that members believe in the ability of the working class to emancipate itself and so on... we just don&#39;t try to confuse and divide comrades with "isms." And despite your suspicions, things are working just fine.

[Leo]

Well duh, you have to be a communist and agree with our Basic Principles to join.


We do have overwhelming agreements, so this is not a problem, we agree far more than we disagree. Leo, what you said there, describes the League and a part of what we do.

Well, what is the League&#39;s position on trade-unions, on national liberation, on imperialism, on the nature of Russia, on state-capitalism, on decadence on Maoism or Stalinism, on Trotskyism and so forth?

[Rawthentic]

We have differing viewpoints on such things, and, as I&#39;ve stated earlier, they are deeply discussed to a point where we can reach agreement. Cenv sums up my positions as well. The Basic Principles are what the League "pivots" around, and what brings us together. That is what is important.

[Leo]

You&#39;ll see that our "Basic Principles," which one must agree with to join, are pretty well-defined.

They [mostly] aren&#39;t really specific political positions though, they have more to do with how the CL understands some basics of Marxism. Can you answer my question, what is the League&#39;s position on trade-unions, on national liberation, on imperialism, on the nature of Russia, on state-capitalism, on decadence on Maoism or Stalinism, on Trotskyism and so forth?


The bourgeoisie relies on division of the working class, and the vast array of "isms" often serves simply to separate comrades and pit them against one another.

I think this is the crux of the confusion. The communist organization is not a platform to unite the working class. In a strike, I would obviously fight shoulder to shoulder with fellow workers, regardless of their ideology. I wouldn&#39;t care if they are communists, Stalinists, Maoists, conservatives, fascists, social democrats, liberals or completely apolitical. However when it comes to a political organization, I would want the people who join the organization to agree with the organization&#39;s political positions.


Another positive aspect of this policy is that it leaves room for comrades within the organization to develop new perspectives on matters -- they aren&#39;t constantly bombarded with propaganda stating that they must adhere to a particular ideology while all other ideologies are of the devil.

But why does this have to happen within the organization? Do you have to recruit someone in order to discuss with them?

[Leo]

We have differing viewpoints on such things

But those are key points, they very deeply effect your entire practice. There are lots of issues which an organization can have differing viewpoints, this is a good thing, it develops theory further. A communist organization can&#39;t be completely monolithic. However, on political positions which directly act daily practice, the organization needs to have a common line to be an organization.

[Rawthentic]

They [mostly] aren&#39;t really specific political positions though. Can you answer my question, what is the League&#39;s position on trade-unions, on national liberation, on imperialism, on the nature of Russia, on state-capitalism, on decadence on Maoism or Stalinism, on Trotskyism and so forth?
No, I can&#39;t.


However when it comes to a political organization, I would want the people who join the organization to agree with the organization&#39;s political positions.
Thats what the Basic Principles are for. We aren&#39;t asking people to be left-communists or Maoists or any shit like that.


But why does this have to happen within the organization? Do you have to recruit someone in order to discuss with them?
No.

[Rawthentic]

But those are key points, they very deeply effect your entire practice. There are lots of issues which an organization can have differing viewpoints, this is a good thing, it develops theory further. A communist organization can&#39;t be completely monolithic. However, on political positions which directly act daily practice, the organization needs to have a common line to be an organization.
Haven&#39;t I been saying that those things are discussed to reach a common action platform?

[cenv]

But those are key points, they very deeply effect your entire practice. There are lots of issues which an organization can have differing viewpoints, this is a good thing, it develops theory further. A communist organization can&#39;t be completely monolithic. However, on political positions which directly act daily practice, the organization needs to have a common line to be an organization.

Sorry, but I don&#39;t quite see why we need to have a specific position on the Russian Revolution or on decadence to be an effective organization.


I think this is the crux of the confusion. The communist organization is not a platform to unite the working class. In a strike, I would obviously fight shoulder to shoulder with fellow workers, regardless of their ideology. I wouldn&#39;t care if they are communists, Stalinists, Maoists, conservatives, fascists, social democrats, liberals or completely apolitical. However when it comes to a political organization, I would want the people who join the organization to agree with the organization&#39;s political positions.

Yes, and our members do agree with the political positions.

But by demanding that our members adhere to a particular "ism" and by putting that specific "ism" in the forefront of our organization, we&#39;re just perpetuating artificial and counterproductive divisions. I just don&#39;t see why that&#39;s necessary. Whatever your theoretical criticisms of our position on "isms," things seem to work out quite nicely in practice.

[Leo]

No, I can&#39;t.

Okay.


Thats what the Basic Principles are for. We aren&#39;t asking people to be left-communists or Maoists or any shit like that.

Okay, let&#39;s try to do it this way: why?


Haven&#39;t I been saying that those things are discussed to reach a common action platform?

Yes you did, but until then what you have would be more of a discussion group, which is of course completely fine.

[Rawthentic]

Okay, let&#39;s try to do it this way: why?
Because we are non-sectarian organization.


Yes you did, but until then what you have would be more of a discussion group, which is of course completely fine.
The way the League is operating around the world, thats obviously wrong. Theoretically and practically because, since its natural to have differences on political issues, we debate them, but when it comes to practice, we all have our common line to follow.

[Leo]

Sorry, but I don&#39;t quite see why we need to have a specific position on the Russian Revolution or on decadence to be an effective organization.

Decadence is a specific point about saying that communism is or is not possible in the current period. I admit that the nature of the Russia is not that much of a key point now, but it would have been fifteen years ago as it would mean that you support or you don&#39;t support one of the major world powers. The same thing goes for China, Cuba, North Korea and so forth for today.

What about trade-unions, national liberation, imperialism, elections, on state-capitalism, on whether some bourgeois factions can or can&#39;t be supported, on whether capitalism can be progressive etc.


Yes, and our members do agree with the political positions.

As I said, what about trade-unions, national liberation, imperialism, elections, on state-capitalism, on whether some bourgeois factions can or can&#39;t be supported, on whether capitalism can be progressive etc. ? Those are political positions.


But by demanding that our members adhere to a particular "ism" and by putting that specific "ism" in the forefront of our organization, we&#39;re just perpetuating artificial and counterproductive divisions.

The division of what though? The division of the "left" or the division of the working class? I don&#39;t see how "putting that specific "ism" in the forefront of our organization" would perpetuate artificial and counterproductive divisions among the working class unless you think that your organization is the only platform of the unity of the working class. As for putting "isms" creating counterproductive divisions among the "left", first of all I don&#39;t think it is the task of the "left" to make a revolution but it is the task of the working class, secondly you already separate yourself from the left with the proletarian-only policy and thirdly I don&#39;t think that unity of the left is going to solve much because it is divided for a reason: political positions.

[Leo]

Because we are non-sectarian organization.

I don&#39;t think this has to do with sectarianism but that wasn&#39;t the kind of answer I was looking for, let me ask the question better: what are you hoping to achieve with not accepting a specific "ism"?


The way the League is operating around the world, thats obviously wrong. Theoretically and practically because, since its natural to have differences on political issues, we debate them, but when it comes to practice, we all have our common line to follow.

Okay, but how can you have a practical common line on a key issue which you don&#39;t agree politically? Is it the leadership who decides? Is it voted within the organization?

[Rawthentic]

I don&#39;t think this has to do with sectarianism but that wasn&#39;t the kind of answer I was looking for, let me ask the question better: what are you hoping to achieve with not accepting a specific "ism"?
A strong working class organization based around communism and Marxism. As opposed to a branch of the Russian Revolution (Maoism, Trotskysim, Left Communism, etc.) We have members from such tendencies, but we wont narrow ourselves to one. We don&#39;t want to divide working class communists against each other, but bring them together into a communist party. Let me point out that many of our members are ex-members of other "communist" organizations and parties, that all pandered around one line and "ism", which disgusted them, caused more splits, and attracted them to the League.


Okay, but how can you have a practical common line on a key issue which you don&#39;t agree politically? Is it the leadership who decides? Is it voted within the organization?
It is the entire membership that decides based on a vote after discussion.

[cenv]

Decadence is a specific point about saying that communism is or is not possible in the current period.
Yeah. I think we just had a discussion of decadence theory somewhere on here recently. Anyway, how is developing an "official" position on decadence so crucial to an organization?


The same thing goes for China, Cuba, North Korea and so forth for today.
Well, I think it pretty much follows from our Basic Principles that League members tend not to view those countries as socialist. However, I don&#39;t see why developing a uniform position on them is necessary to conducting our work. We don&#39;t agree on "official" positions for the sake of doing so... usually, we&#39;ll only do so if it&#39;s relevant to our practical work.


What about trade-unions, national liberation, imperialism, elections, on state-capitalism, on whether some bourgeois factions can or can&#39;t be supported, on whether capitalism can be progressive etc.
As far as trade-unions, we have several members who are also IWW members. We recently decided to work within trade unions to try to spread class consciousness and such, and we have quite a few unionized members. Imperialism... I believe we have a section on that in our basic principles. Same with (petty-)bourgeois socialism. Our agreement is that reformism doesn&#39;t solve much, and I think that&#39;s part of our basic principles too, although I&#39;m not sure. However, there are many issues that we haven&#39;t adopted positions on simply because we don&#39;t see the need to do so.


The division of what though? The division of the "left" or the division of the working class?
Both.


I don&#39;t see how "putting that specific "ism" in the forefront of our organization" would perpetuate artificial and counterproductive divisions among the working class unless you think that your organization is the only platform of the unity of the working class.
And this is precisely what tends to happen when an organization decides to put a specific ideology above all others. Moreover, dividing the communist movement up into a bunch of little factions based on labels just prevents comrades from collaborating.


first of all I don&#39;t think it is the task of the "left" to make a revolution but it is the task of the working class
I never said it was.


you already separate yourself from the left with the proletarian-only policy
This has already been discussed so many times. Anyway, I think class divisions are a little different than divisions based on some political ideology.


I don&#39;t think that unity of the left is going to solve much because it is divided for a reason: political positions.
Our organization isn&#39;t an attempt to "solve" the fragmented state of the "left." We just see no reason to limit our membership to a single ideology when we can substitute our basic principles for an ideology.

Really, it just boils down to this: if a comrade agrees with our basic principles, bulletins, and the general stance of our organization, there&#39;s no reason to exclude him/her because s/he&#39;s a "Leninist" or an "autonomous Marxist" as far as we&#39;re concerned. It&#39;s as simple of that. And as I&#39;ve already mentioned, it appears to be working very well in practice, so why on earth should we change that policy?

[Rawthentic]

Well, I think it pretty much follows from our Basic Principles that League members tend not to view those countries as socialist. However, I don&#39;t see why developing a uniform position on them is necessary to conducting our work. We don&#39;t agree on "official" positions for the sake of doing so... usually, we&#39;ll only do so if it&#39;s relevant to our practical work.
The majority view such countries as state capitalist, including Russia. The point is that if such an issue like national liberation came into a practical light, we would discuss and debate as an organization, then there would be a vote, the majority decision is carried through and an action platform created.


Well, I think it pretty much follows from our Basic Principles that League members tend not to view those countries as socialist. However, I don&#39;t see why developing a uniform position on them is necessary to conducting our work. We don&#39;t agree on "official" positions for the sake of doing so... usually, we&#39;ll only do so if it&#39;s relevant to our practical work.
And this goes to show the discussions that take place, and then the agreements that are made. Its called democratic centralism that we practice, as opposed to bureaucratic centralism.


Our organization isn&#39;t an attempt to "solve" the fragmented state of the "left." We just see no reason to limit our membership to a single ideology when we can substitute our basic principles for an ideology.
And sectarianism is the main reason of the fragmentation. When members are encouraged or forced to hold the same ideology and line as the organization, it ultimately breeds mistrust and splits because when a comrade deviates from the official party line, there is no form to vent off such differences. In the League, we do that, we dont wait for differences to explode and then cause splits, we discuss them and make sure that comrades get heard.

[KC]

Leo and devrim, I agree with much of what you say, but there are some points that I am in disagreement with you.


They [mostly] aren&#39;t really specific political positions though, they have more to do with how the CL understands some basics of Marxism. Can you answer my question, what is the League&#39;s position on trade-unions, on national liberation, on imperialism, on the nature of Russia, on state-capitalism, on decadence on Maoism or Stalinism, on Trotskyism and so forth?

I&#39;m not afraid to admit that the League doesn&#39;t have "official" positions on many of these issues - as in, we haven&#39;t presented a party line on these issues in the form of a bulletin or an official statement. However, we discuss these topics constantly as they become relevant to our practical experiences, and this is really where these topics are relevant.

All League members might not agree on these issues, but when it comes to practical experience and actually working within the working class, many, if not all (as I haven&#39;t had the chance to talk to all League members about this :P) League members are in agreement on a lot of issues. For example, we have many left-communists within our organization and, while they disagree with much of what Lenin has said and much of what the Bolsheviks have done, they recognize the necessity of professionalism and discipline within an organization.


I think this is the crux of the confusion. The communist organization is not a platform to unite the working class. In a strike, I would obviously fight shoulder to shoulder with fellow workers, regardless of their ideology. I wouldn&#39;t care if they are communists, Stalinists, Maoists, conservatives, fascists, social democrats, liberals or completely apolitical. However when it comes to a political organization, I would want the people who join the organization to agree with the organization&#39;s political positions.

You are correct; the communist organization is not meant to be a mass party, but simply a group of communists who implement the organization to coordinate and organize their work within the working class. Through creating an organization that doesn&#39;t commit itself to an -ism we are uniting communists in order to better increase that coordination, organization and participation. We must not only tackle the divisions within the working class, but the divisions within the communists.


But those are key points, they very deeply effect your entire practice.

Yes but these issues are brought up as they become relevant to our practice and their influence on our practice changes as our practice changes and as our organization evolves. Because of this, League members commonly find a general consensus on issues relevant to our practice.

[Leo]

Voz de la Gente Trabajadora


A strong working class organization based around communism and Marxism.

Okay. What do you consider communism and marxism? Do you think Maoist China was on road to communism? Do you think socialism can be established in one country? Do you think communism means nationalization or something else? What makes one a communist?

Calling oneself a communist is great but it is surely not enough by itself. You need a theory to back it up.


As opposed to a branch of the Russian Revolution (Maoism, Trotskysim, Left Communism, etc.)

Well, Maoism is not a branch of the Russian Revolution. Trotskyism and left communism are international movements. In any way, those are not meaningless labels, they are manifestations of political positions.


We have members from such tendencies, but we wont narrow ourselves to one. We don&#39;t want to divide working class communists against each other, but bring them together into a communist party.

Great, but what would make you consider someone a working class communist?


Let me point out that many of our members are ex-members of other "communist" organizations and parties, that all pandered around one line and "ism", which disgusted them, caused more splits, and attracted them to the League.

I can certainly understand how being involved with groups that upheld certain "isms" can disgust people, but I don&#39;t think Maoists for example split because of another "ism", nor do I think this is something that can be generalized. Most people are in fact not disgusted by groups that upheld certain "isms".


It is the entire membership that decides based on a vote after discussion.

So what do you do if 55% thinks there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and 45% thinks that Chavez is a capitalist?

cenv


Yeah. I think we just had a discussion of decadence theory somewhere on here recently. Anyway, how is developing an "official" position on decadence so crucial to an organization?

This doesn&#39;t have to do with "official" positions but basic political positions which create the basis of the group. If a group thinks that capitalism is decadent, it will see that communism is possible. If a group doesn&#39;t think capitalism is decadent, then for the group support for "bourgeois democratic tasks" would come first.


Well, I think it pretty much follows from our Basic Principles that League members tend not to view those countries as socialist.

But the problem seems to be identified with the petty-bourgeoisie rather than having a detailed analysis of what happened in so-called socialist countries.


However, I don&#39;t see why developing a uniform position on them is necessary to conducting our work.

I will admit that today it is not really that much of a practical issue but fifteen years ago, it would have been as it would have meant giving full support to a major world power or not. This is, I think, a significant issue. As for now, think of, for example, North Korea - would the organization go to a demonstration which was prepared for support for North Korea&#39;s "right" to have nuclear weapons? If not why? What is the criteria for deciding that?


As far as trade-unions, we have several members who are also IWW members. We recently decided to work within trade unions to try to spread class consciousness and such, and we have quite a few unionized members.

Okay, so someone who thinks that trade-unions are not proletarian organization anymore and that revolutionary work within them is not possible will not be able to join you. See, this is what I&#39;m talking about - this is a political position.


And this is precisely what tends to happen when an organization decides to put a specific ideology above all others.

But the communist organization is not a platform of workers to unite in&#33;


Moreover, dividing the communist movement up into a bunch of little factions based on labels just prevents comrades from collaborating.

What is called communist movement today is (well, mostly :P ) divided for political reasons - not simply a childish sectarianism.


This has already been discussed so many times. Anyway, I think class divisions are a little different than divisions based on some political ideology.

Obviously, but just before you defended that divisions based on political ideology divides the class.


Our organization isn&#39;t an attempt to "solve" the fragmented state of the "left." We just see no reason to limit our membership to a single ideology when we can substitute our basic principles for an ideology.

We are not talking about specific ideologies, we are talking about concrete political positions which specific ideologies only symbolize.


Really, it just boils down to this: if a comrade agrees with our basic principles, bulletins, and the general stance of our organization, there&#39;s no reason to exclude him/her because s/he&#39;s a "Leninist" or an "autonomous Marxist" as far as we&#39;re concerned.

Again, it sounds great when you are talking about merely names of ideologies but I am talking about concrete political positions.


And sectarianism is the main reason of the fragmentation.

I don&#39;t think so. You make it seem as if the entire left-wing groups could be united but aren&#39;t because of sectarianism. The reality is different. As I said, what divides the left is concrete political positions, not sectarianism.


When members are encouraged or forced to hold the same ideology and line as the organization, it ultimately breeds mistrust and splits because when a comrade deviates from the official party line, there is no form to vent off such differences.

I am not talking about a strict monolithic line, I am talking about basic political positions. A member should not be encouraged or forced to hold the same ideology, s/he should have the same ideology to begin with, otherwise why would s/he join an organization?

Zampano


I&#39;m not afraid to admit that the League doesn&#39;t have "official" positions on many of these issues - as in, we haven&#39;t presented a party line on these issues in the form of a bulletin or an official statement. However, we discuss these topics constantly as they become relevant to our practical experiences, and this is really where these topics are relevant.

Of course, but there was an old proverb saying "you can&#39;t change horses while crossing a river". It is important to have those basic political positions before facing a concrete example, otherwise there can be a crisis within the organization - it doesn&#39;t mean that there will be one, but there can be one.


You are correct; the communist organization is not meant to be a mass party, but simply a group of communists who implement the organization to coordinate and organize their work within the working class. Through creating an organization that doesn&#39;t commit itself to an -ism we are uniting communists in order to better increase that coordination, organization and participation. We must not only tackle the divisions within the working class, but the divisions within the communists.

Obviously, this is impossible to disagree in principle, however when you get down to the practice: what is a communist? A person who point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries and a person who always and everywhere represent the interests of the proletarian movement as a whole in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through. In other words, a person who defends the class interests of the proletariat. However, the definition of class interests varies from communist to communist. If I think that national liberation is against the interests of the working class, then there is no way I will be in an organization which thinks that national liberation is a good thing for the working class. It is natural.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 26, 2007 09:40 am

As far as trade-unions, we have several members who are also IWW members. We recently decided to work within trade unions to try to spread class consciousness and such, and we have quite a few unionized members.

Okay, so someone who thinks that trade-unions are not proletarian organization anymore and that revolutionary work within them is not possible will not be able to join you. See, this is what I&#39;m talking about - this is a political position.


I think that this is a key point. Our organisation is left communist. We believe among other things that the trade unions are anti-working class. Now for us workplace struggle is central to our activity. We couldn&#39;t be in an organisation which advocated work within the trade unions.

The CL members on this thread seem to be saying that politics aren&#39;t important. We can make it up as we go along. If we are all working class, we will automatically pick the right line.

Let&#39;s take three basic questions:
1) What is our attitude to trade union work?
2) What is our attitude to parliamentarianism?
3) What is our attitude to national liberation?

Without an answer to these three basic questions, it is impossible to have any organisational activity, or strategy. You are just a collection of leftists running around like headless chickens all doing your own thing.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Devrim, thats obviously wrong as well. When it comes into practicality, we will discuss them and the majority vote will go through, period. I mean, I can say that the EKS are just a bunch of automatons pandering around a uniform party line.


Okay. What do you consider communism and marxism? Do you think Maoist China was on road to communism? Do you think socialism can be established in one country? Do you think communism means nationalization or something else? What makes one a communist?
I don&#39;t think Maoist China was on the road to communism, I dont think socialism can be established in one country, and makes one a communist is understanding historical materialism and the class struggle as it leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Great, but what would make you consider someone a working class communist?
See above.


So what do you do if 55% thinks there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and 45% thinks that Chavez is a capitalist?
Majority wins, and becomes the organizations position until the minority can, if ever, become the majority. Sort of how the Bolsheviks became the majority.


Okay, so someone who thinks that trade-unions are not proletarian organization anymore and that revolutionary work within them is not possible will not be able to join you. See, this is what I&#39;m talking about - this is a political position.
Yes, one we decided on after discussion, I explained this.


If I think that national liberation is against the interests of the working class, then there is no way I will be in an organization which thinks that national liberation is a good thing for the working class. It is natural.
For example, if you joined the CL with this idea, yo have the ability and right to agitate for it, to the point where that position can gain a majority and thus become the official position. Get it?

[Rawthentic]

Principles should be solid and, barring any major qualitative change to material reality (e.g., a revolutionary transformation), unchanging. However, the tactics that a communist uses should be both flexible and concrete. That is, our tactics should be able to move and adapt based on the ebb and flow of the class struggle, and they should also be firmly rooted in the material conditions in which that class struggle takes place. Our slogans and demands, which flow from our tactics, should also have this character.


Everyone having the same lines and positions on everything is a recipe for a sterile confessional sect. It is, in fact, a petty-bourgeois method of organization, not a proletarian one. It is demanding one single doctrine rule the organization, and those who might disagree are either gagged and prevented from expressing their views or they are thrown out of the organization altogether. This is the "management team" method of organization -- where the "leaders" have to all present the same face, mouth the same words, etc., or else the proles will not fall into line.

Thats what the League is about.

[Barcanetti]

Hey,
I&#39;m Communist and just happen to be a member of the CL as well. Hi.

Look if 55% think there&#39;s a revolution in Venezuela and 45% think Chavez is capitalist, then there are obviously some internal issues that need to be worked out between both sides. If you favour a small majority over what is basically half the country being pissed off, then you only succeed in pissing off the whole country a year down the line.

Democracy is satisfying everyone. Majority or minority voting only harbours disconent and disillusionment in politics itself no?

;)
Barkan

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 26, 2007 01:55 pm

If I think that national liberation is against the interests of the working class, then there is no way I will be in an organization which thinks that national liberation is a good thing for the working class. It is natural.
For example, if you joined the CL with this idea, yo have the ability and right to agitate for it, to the point where that position can gain a majority and thus become the official position. Get it?
We think that there are class lines, and that a rejection of national liberation struggles is one of them. I wouldn&#39;t join an organisation that supported the PKK for example, and then argue for it to change its politics. I think that organisations that support the PKK are anti-working class organisations.

There are priciples that spring from the hard won lessons of the communist minorities historical experience. This is what we consider our organisation to be founded upon. Your conceptions seem to be very different.

Devrim

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Members of the League...
Be more active at meetings as well as outside of them.

[Leo]

Devrim, thats obviously wrong as well. When it comes into practicality, we will discuss them and the majority vote will go through, period.

So on questions which a militant considers vital in order to be a communist, vital for defending the interests of the proletariat, that militant would have to defend a different position, contrary to what s/he considers vital. If I have a line against national liberation, if I see this as a vital point, then I won&#39;t join an organization in which I will have to "go through" with a different position. You can dodge having political positions in order to get as much people as possible, but you can&#39;t prevent ending up with political positions eventually.


I can say that the EKS are just a bunch of automatons pandering around a uniform party line.

You can say anything you want of course, but I don&#39;t think this comment has any material basis. We aren&#39;t saying that there will be no disagreements in the organization, we aren&#39;t saying that everyone will have the exact same monolithic line on every question, we are simply saying that in order to be an organization, we have to be united on the basis of political positions. This is common sense.


I don&#39;t think Maoist China was on the road to communism, I dont think socialism can be established in one country

We aren&#39;t talking about what you think though, we are talking about whether someone who thinks that socialism can be established in one country and someone who thinks revolution should spread to the whole world and that only then socialism can be established could and should be in the same organization.


and makes one a communist is understanding historical materialism and the class struggle as it leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This strikes me as a very vague comment, historical materialism is not a dogma, there are lots of different understandings which are claiming to be truly historical materialist and they have different political positions. Saying this is fundamentally not much different from saying that anyone who is interested and calls himself/herself a communist can join.


Majority wins, and becomes the organizations position until the minority can, if ever, become the majority.

Okay, if I think that Chavez is a capitalist, why should I be in an organization which is supporting a regime that I regard as capitalist? This is something that will and should create a split, it is linked to fundamental political positions. In this case, all that is done seems to be either postponing splits and avoiding discussions. As I said, a discussion group mentality would be much more useful here. You can&#39;t cross a desert without a camel.


Everyone having the same lines and positions on everything is a recipe for a sterile confessional sect.

We are talking about basic political positions which create an organization, not having the same line on everything.


For example, if you joined the CL with this idea, yo have the ability and right to agitate for it, to the point where that position can gain a majority and thus become the official position. Get it?

Why should someone join an organization in which all s/he would do would be struggling with other militants to make her/his position a majority position?

I mean the CPUSA has several thousand members, they surely have proletarian members as well, what stops you from entering the CPUSA, forming some sort of a faction and trying to win the workers they have if political positions are not important?

[cenv]

I don&#39;t have time to respond to everything right now, but once again, I&#39;ll begin my post by pointing out that for all the theoretical criticisms on our policy of not adhering to a particular "ism," it really doesn&#39;t cause any problems in practice.

What you don&#39;t seem to be able to understand is that we are an organization centered around practical activity. As such, we simply see no reason to develop "official" positions on issues that don&#39;t effect our practical work. It&#39;s that simply, and if all of your criticisms were valid, we probably would have collapsed or changed our policy a long time ago.


Why should someone join an organization in which all s/he would do would be struggling with other militants to make her/his position a majority position?

I mean the CPUSA has several thousand members, they surely have proletarian members as well, what stops you from entering the CPUSA, forming some sort of a faction and trying to win the workers they have if political positions are not important?
Straw man.

[Leo]

I don&#39;t have time to respond to everything right now, but once again, I&#39;ll begin my post by pointing out that for all the theoretical criticisms on our policy of not adhering to a particular "ism," it really doesn&#39;t cause any problems in practice.

This is not about "ism"s, this is about political positions. If it isn&#39;t creating now, I see a very high possibility that it will in the future and either everyone will settle with something they don&#39;t agree with for the sake of keeping the group together, or the group will have splits. We will see - and don&#39;t take any offense, this is simply an observation.


What you don&#39;t seem to be able to understand is that we are an organization centered around practical activity.

And what is your practical activity centered around? You know that practical activity can only be centered around political positions, right?


It&#39;s that simply, and if all of your criticisms were valid, we probably would have collapsed or changed our policy a long time ago.

I don&#39;t think the CL is old enough for you to put forward as an argument. However I think that an experience the CL went through, the IWPA "collapsing", means that uniting militants on vague terms with the absence of a militant unity around political positions, doesn&#39;t work.


Straw man.

I have no motive to put forward straw man arguements. I am not fighting an enemy here, I don&#39;t see this discussion as a "battle to win". I asked simple questions I ask you to answer them.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:59 pm
What you don&#39;t seem to be able to understand is that we are an organization centered around practical activity. As such, we simply see no reason to develop "official" positions on issues that don&#39;t effect our practical work. It&#39;s that simply, and if all of your criticisms were valid, we probably would have collapsed or changed our policy a long time ago.


Yes, there is something that I am not able to understand here. I just skimmed through your aims, and principles, and I noticed nothing about electorialism (I might be wrong, I read it very quickly).

So what is your attitude to elections? Do you stand candidates? Do you &#39;vote Democrat without illusions&#39;. Do you campaign like some anarchists for abstensionism?

Or do you change from election to election depending on the majority in the organisation at the time?

To me this seems like a basic, but direct example of how this lack of politics would effect your practical work.

Devrim

[luxemburg89]

I am still not finished looking through the website but I looked on the links section. Would it be worth trying to get RevLeft added to their links?

[Rawthentic]

We think that there are class lines, and that a rejection of national liberation struggles is one of them
I believe our Basic Principles deals with this.


We are talking about basic political positions which create an organization, not having the same line on everything.
Which happens to be the Basic Principles.


In this case, all that is done seems to be either postponing splits and avoiding discussions.
Thats why we have discussions, to avoid splits. Making everyone have the same line on everything (except the Principles) without discussion causes insecurity and mistrust between comrades.


We aren&#39;t talking about what you think though, we are talking about whether someone who thinks that socialism can be established in one country and someone who thinks revolution should spread to the whole world and that only then socialism can be established could and should be in the same organization.
If they somehow think that this can fit into the framework of the Basic Principles, they will have to prove it to themselves and us. And by the way, such positions dont.


You can say anything you want of course, but I don&#39;t think this comment has any material basis
And neither is saying that the League is a bunch of "headless chickens."


We aren&#39;t saying that there will be no disagreements in the organization, we aren&#39;t saying that everyone will have the exact same monolithic line on every question, we are simply saying that in order to be an organization, we have to be united on the basis of political positions. This is common sense.
We are united on the basis of our Basic Principles, thats what drives us. If you actually read them closely, you see what political positions we hold.


You can dodge having political positions in order to get as much people as possible, but you can&#39;t prevent ending up with political positions eventually.
We don&#39;t do this. In fact, alot of the comrades that have joined are and were new to communist theory. We talked it over with them in a concrete and real manner, to the point where the Basic Principles were something that they could agree with and work with. Its also what we call a "culture of liberation."


And what is your practical activity centered around? You know that practical activity can only be centered around political positions, right?
Outlined in the Basic Principles, yes, as well as League Bulletins.


I don&#39;t think the CL is old enough for you to put forward as an argument. However I think that an experience the CL went through, the IWPA "collapsing", means that uniting militants on vague terms with the absence of a militant unity around political positions, doesn&#39;t work.
This is not what happened, you clearly don&#39;t know what you are talking about. If you want to know, PM me.


So what is your attitude to elections?
Anti-reformist of course, all though there will be times when reforms will be desirable and necessary, like strong immigration reform benefiting the immigrant population.

Trends towards absolutism in political principles is dangerous, when a communist organization should analyze different positions and tactics in given material conditions. Like I said:

"Principles should be solid and, barring any major qualitative change to material reality (e.g., a revolutionary transformation), unchanging. However, the tactics that a communist uses should be both flexible and concrete. That is, our tactics should be able to move and adapt based on the ebb and flow of the class struggle, and they should also be firmly rooted in the material conditions in which that class struggle takes place. Our slogans and demands, which flow from our tactics, should also have this character."

[Rawthentic]

Sure, we can do that.

[Leo]

I wonder why the "proletarian-only" policy is the only specific political position every Communist League member collectively defends.

[Rawthentic]

Why does it matter to you? You seem to think that the CL is some internet thing, when in reality yes, we defend the correct proletarian-only policy from petty-bourgeois socialists who wrongly and idealistically use Marx and Engels&#39; backgrounds to justify allowing petty-bourgeois into their organization.

We also defend, most importantly, our position against the reactionary "resistance" in the Middle East as well as our work with the IFC. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora+June 26, 2007 09:08 pm--> (Voz de la Gente Trabajadora @ June 26, 2007 09:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
So what is your attitude to elections?
Anti-reformist of course, all though there will be times when reforms will be desirable and necessary, like strong immigration reform benefiting the immigrant population.
[/b]
This is meaningless. What does anti-reformist mean here?

Here is the question again:
Devrim
So what is your attitude to elections? Do you stand candidates? Do you &#39;vote Democrat without illusions&#39;. Do you campaign like some anarchists for abstensionism?

Could you answer it this time, please?

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

We don&#39;t run in elections, or anything you said. It would help reading our website and publications once in a while if you are going to engage in criticisms of the League.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora+June 26, 2007 09:23 pm--> (Voz de la Gente Trabajadora @ June 26, 2007 09:23 pm) We don&#39;t run in elections, or anything you said. It would help reading our website and publications once in a while if you are going to engage in criticisms of the League. [/b]
I said quite clearly that I hadn&#39;t read your aims, and principles even. I don&#39;t have the time to read up in detail on every foreign left group. This is a discusion forum, and I am discussing the points brought up here.

So you don&#39;t stand in elections. What is your attitude to them? Do you not stand now because of practicalities, or principal.

Please don&#39;t refer me to some document, just answer the question.


Devrim
So what is your attitude to elections?

Devrim

[Leo]

Which happens to be the Basic Principles.

Which is really vague and which doesn&#39;t say much about political positions such as voting, trade-unions, national liberation, whether the bourgeoisie can be progressive, whether the progressive bourgeoisie be supported and so forth.


Thats why we have discussions, to avoid splits.

Then I would suggest you to first finish the discussions on what to do and set sail only afterwards.


Making everyone have the same line on everything (except the Principles) without discussion causes insecurity and mistrust between comrades.


Okay - I am telling this for the last time: I am not saying that you should make everyone have the same line on everything, I am saying that you need basic political positions in major questions in order to be an organization.


If they somehow think that this can fit into the framework of the Basic Principles, they will have to prove it to themselves and us.

I&#39;m guessing that would be quite easy as I did see anti-revisionists in the CL forum calling for more anti-revisionists to join&#33;


And neither is saying that the League is a bunch of "headless chickens."

I simply means that you don&#39;t have political positions on key issues. It wasn&#39;t really the most polite expression I have ever seen but it does make a point: A) League members say that it is fine for an organization not to have a line on national liberation, parliamentarianism, state-capitalism etc. B) League members say that they are group based on practical activity. C) Practical activity is based on specific political positions. Without political positions, your activity would be running around without seeing where you are going.

[Janus]

I wonder why the "proletarian-only" policy is the only specific political position every Communist League member collectively defends.
That is simpy untrue, if you look at some of the other threads concerning the CL you&#39;ll see that we&#39;ve addressed plenty of other issues concerning the League as well. Organization policies are the primary issue that people address simply because they usually the first thing that people look at and for a group like the CL which is one of the few organizations out there that maintain such a rule, it&#39;s pretty much guaranteed that it&#39;s the topic of conversation in every discussion about the League. You of all people should know this as you&#39;re the one who consistently brings it up so I&#39;m not sure why you should be surprised when some CL members respond.

[Leo]

Voz de la Gente Trabajadora

Why are you turning this into something sinister? I am not asking those questions because I want to attack you, I want to discuss - why does it disturb you so much?


Why does it matter to you?

Why should it not matter to me?


You seem to think that the CL is some internet thing

:blink: No I don&#39;t, I never even implied that.


when in reality yes, we defend the correct proletarian-only policy from petty-bourgeois socialists who wrongly and idealistically use Marx and Engels&#39; backgrounds to justify allowing petty-bourgeois into their organization.

We already discussed about this, first you said you agreed with me, then you said you disagreed, then you said we were saying the same thing so I don&#39;t want to go all over it again.


We also defend, most importantly, our position against the reactionary "resistance" in the Middle East as well as our work with the IFC. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Why should it make me uncomfortable? I just don&#39;t think it is a good call because I don&#39;t think working with the WCPI is a good idea.

[Rawthentic]

Okay, I know both you, Leo, and Devrim, are not idiots, so I will just say this.

You both seem to think that the Basic Principles (http://comleague.org/cli/principles.php) or our Bulletins (http://comleague.org/cli/bulletins.php) don not amount to political positions. If you actually took the chance to read them, they outline our positions quite clearly and nicely. If a CL comrade comes and says that they are not positions, then they are talking for themselves and not the League.


Without political positions, your activity would be running around without seeing where you are going.
This is the core of the issue I see, and by taking a look at both documents I gave you, should answer it very well.

[Rawthentic]

We already discussed about this, first you said you agreed with me, then you said you disagreed, then you said we were saying the same thing so I don&#39;t want to go all over it again.
My mistake.


Why should it make me uncomfortable? I just don&#39;t think it is a good call because I don&#39;t think working with the WCPI is a good idea.
We have our politics, they have theirs, we just happen to agree what they are doing in the IFC, like Worker&#39;s Councils and neighborhood militias, etc.

[Leo]

That is simpy untrue, if you look at some of the other threads concerning the CL you&#39;ll see that we&#39;ve addressed plenty of other issues concerning the League as well. Organization policies are the primary issue that people address simply because they usually the first thing that people look at and for a group like the CL which is one of the few organizations out there that maintain such a rule, it&#39;s pretty much guaranteed that it&#39;s the topic of conversation in every discussion about the League. You of all people should know this as you&#39;re the one who consistently brings it up so I&#39;m not sure why you should be surprised when some CL members respond.

I only was referring to what I saw as the absence of clear positions on national liberation, parliamentarianism and elections, trade-unions and so forth.

[Rawthentic]

Leo, if I am correct, our 8 bulletins and the Basic Principles outline that. If not, I&#39;m sorry.

[Leo]

You both seem to think that the Basic Principles or our Bulletins don not amount to political positions.

No, we are simply asking questions about the Communist League&#39;s positions on questions such as national liberation, trade unions, parliamentarianism and electioneering, state capitalism, "progressive" bourgeois factions and so forth as we see those as the vital aspects of what determines an organizations&#39; practical activity. Obviously you take positions on specific events on bulletins and so forth but what I mean is the political positions of the organization on those vital questions around which I think you build up a specific organization around. So I am talking about the absence of vital and decisive positions, not the absence of politics in general.

[Rawthentic]

Leo, as far as I know, and through analyzing those 2 documents, we oppose national liberation (I think you already know this), we have decided to work within trade unions where we see necessary (we are flexible in our positions, somethings may change according to material conditions), we oppose parliamentarianism and electioneering because the destruction of the bourgeois state and the building of a working people&#39;s republic is revolutionary change, and what do you mean by "&#39;progressive&#39; bourgeois factions"? I mean, in order to answer accordingly.

[Leo]

Leo, as far as I know, and through analyzing those 2 documents, we oppose national liberation (I think you already know this)

I wasn&#39;t sure. Anyway, so this means that those who support national liberation can&#39;t join the organization, is that correct?


we oppose parliamentarianism and electioneering because the destruction of the bourgeois state and the building of a working people&#39;s republic is revolutionary change

Okay, so you don&#39;t do electioneering, you don&#39;t support certain candidates and those who think that the system can change through elections and that there can be gains if leftists are in the parliament can&#39;t join the organization, is that correct?


and what do you mean by "&#39;progressive&#39; bourgeois factions"? I mean, in order to answer accordingly.

Supporting a bourgeois faction over another because you consider it to be "progressive".

[Rawthentic]

I wasn&#39;t sure. Anyway, so this means that those who support national liberation can&#39;t join the organization, is that correct?
They can join, but their support for national liberation will have no bearing on anything. Thats why the must agree with the Basic Principles, if they think it is contrary to "national liberation", which it is, then they can not join.


Okay, so you don&#39;t do electioneering, you don&#39;t support certain candidates and those who think that the system can change through elections and that there can be gains if leftists are in the parliament can&#39;t join the organization, is that correct?
Look above. And let us be careful with absolutism, I mean, there may be rare cases here and there where a candidate in local office would not hurt. But we don&#39;t propose this, I&#39;m just saying.


Supporting a bourgeois faction over another because you consider it to be "progressive".
Of course not.