comrades

[redarmyfaction38]

ok then comrades, here we all are discussing this and that, arguing our corner etc.
yet, at this moment in time, the need for a "new workers party" is apparent to all, regardless of what political definitions we weigh ourselves down with, the need for a class based alternative to the shite offered by the parliamentary parties and fascist scum is obvious.
so i propose, that, us, class conscious and politically aware workers, shouldstart the ball rolling, come up with a constitution for "the workers federation" ( i choose the name, cos it was my idea :D , i did think of "workers freedom fedreation" at first, but any title with freedom in it ends to turn out to be right wing and authoritarian in my experience!)
the title workers federation will satisfy both trotskyists and anarchists.
the trotskyists demand that worker is in the party name and the anarchists demand federalism.
all member parties should be free to organise according tom thyeir beliefs, adopt "minority positions" etc.
all "executive" positions shoud be elected by the membership of all affiliated organisations, no representative should accept more than the average workers wage etc. etc.
most importantly, us rev lefts, should debate the constitution and finance of this party, and when, finally, we come up with a constitution etc. acceptable to all, we should go back to our respective parties, federations or whatever and say, "this is what we have decided, through democratic debate, are you up to the chalenge of turning our common desire into a political reality?"

[Red October]

Not to be a dick, but

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i237/DarkMaverik/YouFail.jpg
:lol:

Seriously though, trying to form revleft into a cohesive political party/federation/front/whatever you want to call it is not going to happen. I've met and taken part in actions with some revleft members, but most active people here already have their own parties or groups they're set with and we don't need another internet party.

[Dr Mindbender]

theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<

[Red October]

Meh, it&#39;s a discussion board, not a party. The range of leftist tendencies represented on this board is so wide that no party could possibly have a platform that could be agreed on by the majority here. Basically he only unifying idea we all have here is "Capitalism is bad, let&#39;s overthrow it". After that, it all splits out into a myriad of different ideas. Trying to pull revleft together into any coherent political organization would be horribly frustrating and fruitless. Most people here realize sectarianism is bad and there&#39;s a need for unity, but good luck getting a Maoist and an Anarchist to form a party they both agree on.

[Colonello Buendia]

The major problem facing R.A.F.38 is that there is so much division among us, I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve yet spoken with someone I completely agree with. and imagine trying to actually do anything. It would simply collapse and get us all mocked on Stormfront. Though good idea in theory :P

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Dr [email protected] 28, 2007 04:48 pm
The major problem facing R.A.F.38 is that there is so much division among us, I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve yet spoken with someone I completely agree with. and imagine trying to actually do anything. It would simply collapse and get us all mocked on Stormfront. Though good idea in theory :P
cheers&#33; :D

but aint that the obstacle we have to overcome?

it seems to me, and i include myself in this, that we spend too much time entrenched in our own "political positions" rather than concentrating on what unites us.

now, you, me and the rest of the rev left can continue squabbling over this and that theory for eternity and will serve "the cause" in no way imaginable.

there is a need for a new workers party, we are the class conscious workers, we should get off our high horses and start working to create it.

somebody mentioned "another internet party"; read what i said, we should debate and decide a constitution etc. and take it back to our political groupings and say "we managed this", despite our differences, lets turn internet talk into political action.

it is possible, you just have to make it happen. really.

and no, i&#39;m not naive, i&#39;ve just been about a bit and seen the total transformation that can happen when "backward" elements of the working class move into dispute with the employer or govt.

in my eyes, what i see, is, us, rev lefts, acting like "backward" elements in the politically conscious working class, concentrating our efforts on dialectical differences, rather than drawing the best elements of our class, the best tacticians etc. together to drive the cause forward.

but, fuck it, i&#39;m just a dumb worker, what the fuck would i know.

[Red October]

I really don&#39;t mean to sound like a douche, but you cannot have a party that unites everyone from anarchists to stalinists. The differences are far too great. It just doesn&#39;t work. How do you propose for this party to work? How are you going to come up with a platform that is agreeable to all sections of the left? Like it or not, there are huge difference between us and you can&#39;t just add "worker&#39;s" into the name to pleas trotskyists and "federation" to please anarchists. I&#39;m totally fine with working with members with different ideologies, which I have in the past, but I wouldn&#39;t want to join a party just for the sake of unity if i don&#39;t like it&#39;s platform. Most of the people I work with regularly have deep ideological differences with me, but I still like working together with them. Though that certainly doesn&#39;t mean I would ever want to be a part of their party, which I disagree greatly with. We&#39;re all better off doing our own shit with a certain degree of unity with others, but joining a party just for unity across the leftist spectrum is unworkable.

[bugsy]

Same old, same old. Everybody seems intent on putting forward reasons why it won&#39;t work, when just as much thought could be applied to finding solutions that would make it work.

How about a "Real Democracy Party" roughly styled on the system in place in Switzerland? That could perhaps be a starting point.

MsG

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:55 pm
Same old, same old. Everybody seems intent on putting forward reasons why it won&#39;t work, when just as much thought could be applied to finding solutions that would make it work.

How about a "Real Democracy Party" roughly styled on the system in place in Switzerland? That could perhaps be a starting point.

MsG
Then go ahead and find a way to form a party which anarchists, trotskyists, and stalinists will agree on

[bugsy]

Good idea indeed, Red October.

Perhaps it would be advantageous for folks to work their way through the eight parts of an "Economist" article on democracy, the first part of which is here:

http://vote.org/part1

The whole article&#39;s a bit disorganised actually, so the easiest thing to do is just change the numbers in the URL to bring up the successive parts. It&#39;s well worth a read, though.

MsG

[AGITprop]

i do believe there needs to be more olidarity amongst the members. know this is a discussion board and non-agreement is inevitable BUT we need to start treating each other more as comrades then acting like petty children. When it comes to forming a party out of revleft, this would be entirely impractical. Most people have no personal relations with anyone lse and i would feel very uneasy about sharing critcal information with anyone here (no offence) unles i knew them on a personal basis. I am involved with my own rop here in montreal and i suggest that nay other people here who are from montreal contact me and we could arrange to meet but other than that, revleft should remain discussion board and means to communicate information about curent events and ideas.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 11:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
Yeah lol&#33; Anarchists are such whingers&#33;

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29, 2007 12:50 am
I really don&#39;t mean to sound like a douche, but you cannot have a party that unites everyone from anarchists to stalinists. The differences are far too great. It just doesn&#39;t work. How do you propose for this party to work? How are you going to come up with a platform that is agreeable to all sections of the left? Like it or not, there are huge difference between us and you can&#39;t just add "worker&#39;s" into the name to pleas trotskyists and "federation" to please anarchists. I&#39;m totally fine with working with members with different ideologies, which I have in the past, but I wouldn&#39;t want to join a party just for the sake of unity if i don&#39;t like it&#39;s platform. Most of the people I work with regularly have deep ideological differences with me, but I still like working together with them. Though that certainly doesn&#39;t mean I would ever want to be a part of their party, which I disagree greatly with. We&#39;re all better off doing our own shit with a certain degree of unity with others, but joining a party just for unity across the leftist spectrum is unworkable.
i disagree, a party or better still a federation can unite the left political spectrum, it&#39;s been done before, remember old labour?
the advantage we have oer the creators of the old labour party is that we know safeguards need to be put in place to keep the careerists out and the members in charge.
i don&#39;t actually see much political differences between the trots and the anarchists, historically, we&#39;ve always ended up working together without too much rancour, the main argument between us has been about whether central co ordination of the battle/struggle is a good or bad thing.
the spanish civil war suggests central co ordination would have helped the revolution, the rise of stalin after the russian civil war suggests it aided the imposition of the totalitarian state.
but i would argue that material circumstances were different in each case.
which wanders off the subject a bit.
nobody is asking anybody to abandon their party&#33; a workers federation is what i&#39;m suggesting we create, a federation allows each member "party" and each individual to contribute to the common cause without abandoning their political conscousness.
it would, i believe, allow some of the good ideas and some of the bad ideas, put forward by "sectarian"? organisations to be debated widely amongst the class conscious activists.
it could create a situation where we are not viewedf as a bunch of middle class intellectuals and soppy students, but a real force for change.
my references to the name of the party/federation were mostly humorous, if you&#39;ve been around as long as i have, you have a "tendancy" to laugh at your own and your comrades compulsive action disorder :lol:

[Red October]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+November 29, 2007 07:36 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ November 29, 2007 07:36 pm)
Red [email protected] 29, 2007 12:50 am
I really don&#39;t mean to sound like a douche, but you cannot have a party that unites everyone from anarchists to stalinists. The differences are far too great. It just doesn&#39;t work. How do you propose for this party to work? How are you going to come up with a platform that is agreeable to all sections of the left? Like it or not, there are huge difference between us and you can&#39;t just add "worker&#39;s" into the name to pleas trotskyists and "federation" to please anarchists. I&#39;m totally fine with working with members with different ideologies, which I have in the past, but I wouldn&#39;t want to join a party just for the sake of unity if i don&#39;t like it&#39;s platform. Most of the people I work with regularly have deep ideological differences with me, but I still like working together with them. Though that certainly doesn&#39;t mean I would ever want to be a part of their party, which I disagree greatly with. We&#39;re all better off doing our own shit with a certain degree of unity with others, but joining a party just for unity across the leftist spectrum is unworkable.
i disagree, a party or better still a federation can unite the left political spectrum, it&#39;s been done before, remember old labour?
the advantage we have oer the creators of the old labour party is that we know safeguards need to be put in place to keep the careerists out and the members in charge.
i don&#39;t actually see much political differences between the trots and the anarchists, historically, we&#39;ve always ended up working together without too much rancour, the main argument between us has been about whether central co ordination of the battle/struggle is a good or bad thing.
the spanish civil war suggests central co ordination would have helped the revolution, the rise of stalin after the russian civil war suggests it aided the imposition of the totalitarian state.
but i would argue that material circumstances were different in each case.
which wanders off the subject a bit.
nobody is asking anybody to abandon their party&#33; a workers federation is what i&#39;m suggesting we create, a federation allows each member "party" and each individual to contribute to the common cause without abandoning their political conscousness.
it would, i believe, allow some of the good ideas and some of the bad ideas, put forward by "sectarian"? organisations to be debated widely amongst the class conscious activists.
it could create a situation where we are not viewedf as a bunch of middle class intellectuals and soppy students, but a real force for change.
my references to the name of the party/federation were mostly humorous, if you&#39;ve been around as long as i have, you have a "tendancy" to laugh at your own and your comrades compulsive action disorder :lol: [/b]
The Bolsheviks and Anarchists fought bitterly during the Russian Civil War and after, Makhno and Kronstadt come to mind. Of course both sides disagree on who was right in those conflicts, and the cycle of disagreement continues. Leninists and Anarchists have very different views on the tactics, composition, theory, and leadership of the revolution. I want to see how you propose to solve these deep ideological and practical differences with your new party.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:35 pm
i do believe there needs to be more olidarity amongst the members. know this is a discussion board and non-agreement is inevitable BUT we need to start treating each other more as comrades then acting like petty children. When it comes to forming a party out of revleft, this would be entirely impractical. Most people have no personal relations with anyone lse and i would feel very uneasy about sharing critcal information with anyone here (no offence) unles i knew them on a personal basis. I am involved with my own rop here in montreal and i suggest that nay other people here who are from montreal contact me and we could arrange to meet but other than that, revleft should remain discussion board and means to communicate information about curent events and ideas.
again, it&#39;s not about forming a party out of rev left, it&#39;s about us rev lefters getting together debating a constitution, deciding a policy or whatever, and going back to our respective organisations and teling them,that we have managed this, we are disparate groups committed to the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.
we have debated and discussed, we have argued and slandered each other, but we are workers, politically conscious workers and yet, despite our disparate views, we, the ordinary working class activists, have managed an agreemnt in order to form the fedration we so desperately need.
each and everyone of the parties/ groups we tie ourselves to preaches workers liberation, the role of the politicaly aware worker in the "coming struggle". so, lets do it, lets give them a federation that we have slandered each other to create, lets give each other a good kicking and come up with a federation/party that encompasses our needs and present it to our respective organisations.
ffs, that&#39;s what they&#39;ve been preaching, so lets give em what they want.
its worth doing, really, even if it only exposes some of the "freedom fighters" as self intersted egotistical wankers. imho of course.
aside from that, i drift around numerous anti capitalist websites, i&#39;ve bought books from the old wrp, been tempted by luscious young ladies to attend wrp and swp meetings.
it&#39;s back to same old same old, we need a party/federation that represents the needs ofthe working class, some of our high ideological standpoints will need to be subdued in order to create the kind of material policies that will win the not class conscious worjker to our cause, inmho.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+November 29, 2007 08:00 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ November 29, 2007 08:00 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 03:35 pm
i do believe there needs to be more olidarity amongst the members. know this is a discussion board and non-agreement is inevitable BUT we need to start treating each other more as comrades then acting like petty children. When it comes to forming a party out of revleft, this would be entirely impractical. Most people have no personal relations with anyone lse and i would feel very uneasy about sharing critcal information with anyone here (no offence) unles i knew them on a personal basis. I am involved with my own rop here in montreal and i suggest that nay other people here who are from montreal contact me and we could arrange to meet but other than that, revleft should remain discussion board and means to communicate information about curent events and ideas.
again, it&#39;s not about forming a party out of rev left, it&#39;s about us rev lefters getting together debating a constitution, deciding a policy or whatever, and going back to our respective organisations and teling them,that we have managed this, we are disparate groups committed to the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.
we have debated and discussed, we have argued and slandered each other, but we are workers, politically conscious workers and yet, despite our disparate views, we, the ordinary working class activists, have managed an agreemnt in order to form the fedration we so desperately need.
each and everyone of the parties/ groups we tie ourselves to preaches workers liberation, the role of the politicaly aware worker in the "coming struggle". so, lets do it, lets give them a federation that we have slandered each other to create, lets give each other a good kicking and come up with a federation/party that encompasses our needs and present it to our respective organisations.
ffs, that&#39;s what they&#39;ve been preaching, so lets give em what they want.
its worth doing, really, even if it only exposes some of the "freedom fighters" as self intersted egotistical wankers. imho of course.
aside from that, i drift around numerous anti capitalist websites, i&#39;ve bought books from the old wrp, been tempted by luscious young ladies to attend wrp and swp meetings.
it&#39;s back to same old same old, we need a party/federation that represents the needs ofthe working class, some of our high ideological standpoints will need to be subdued in order to create the kind of material policies that will win the not class conscious worjker to our cause, inmho. [/b]
How can we start a party when we can&#39;t use CAPITAL letters...hmm?

It&#39;s a noble idea RAF38, but I don&#39;t think it will work.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
Well, it is well-intentioned, even though it will never happen

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by Phoebos+November 30, 2007 02:42 am--> (Phoebos @ November 30, 2007 02:42 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 07:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
Well, it is well-intentioned, even though it will never happen [/b]
That&#39;s weird, All the cappies I talk to say EXACTLY the same thing about communism.

[Ultra-Violence]

I like it your idea but as you can see we got a bunch of negative nancy&#39;s i dont see any harm for all us revlefters to TRY and at LEAST one shot at a constitution or something Think about it People regardless of Ideology we are the VANGUARD For we are class concious and with the use of technology we can spread our ideas well im at least optimistic and i think we Do enoguh blabbering we got to put the pedla to the metal

[Ismail]

Originally posted by TheDifferenceEngine+November 30, 2007 08:47 am--> (TheDifferenceEngine @ November 30, 2007 08:47 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 29, 2007 07:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
Well, it is well-intentioned, even though it will never happen
That&#39;s weird, All the cappies I talk to say EXACTLY the same thing about communism. [/b]
Communism has a roughly 159-year old history. It has helped lead to the end of monarchies and colonial rule, and has hundreds of concepts centered around the actual ideology or the transitional ideologies (Socialism) such as historical materialism, dialectical materialism, Leninism, Council Communism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Christian Socialism, etc. It has a firm basis in history, science, and politics.

A 3 days old thread cannot compare.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 30, 2007 10:52 am
I like it your idea but as you can see we got a bunch of negative nancy&#39;s i dont see any harm for all us revlefters to TRY and at LEAST one shot at a constitution or something Think about it People regardless of Ideology we are the VANGUARD For we are class concious and with the use of technology we can spread our ideas well im at least optimistic and i think we Do enoguh blabbering we got to put the pedla to the metal
Hm, maybe some of us here (I think a very large group) don&#39;t like vanguard parties?

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by Mrdie+November 30, 2007 04:20 pm--> (Mrdie @ November 30, 2007 04:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:47 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 29, 2007 07:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
Well, it is well-intentioned, even though it will never happen
That&#39;s weird, All the cappies I talk to say EXACTLY the same thing about communism.
Communism has a roughly 159-year old history. It has helped lead to the end of monarchies and colonial rule, and has hundreds of concepts centered around the actual ideology or the transitional ideologies (Socialism) such as historical materialism, dialectical materialism, Leninism, Council Communism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Christian Socialism, etc. It has a firm basis in history, science, and politics.

A 3 days old thread cannot compare. [/b]
Everything has to start somewhere.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red October+November 30, 2007 12:46 am--> (Red October @ November 30, 2007 12:46 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:36 pm

Red [email protected] 29, 2007 12:50 am
I really don&#39;t mean to sound like a douche, but you cannot have a party that unites everyone from anarchists to stalinists. The differences are far too great. It just doesn&#39;t work. How do you propose for this party to work? How are you going to come up with a platform that is agreeable to all sections of the left? Like it or not, there are huge difference between us and you can&#39;t just add "worker&#39;s" into the name to pleas trotskyists and "federation" to please anarchists. I&#39;m totally fine with working with members with different ideologies, which I have in the past, but I wouldn&#39;t want to join a party just for the sake of unity if i don&#39;t like it&#39;s platform. Most of the people I work with regularly have deep ideological differences with me, but I still like working together with them. Though that certainly doesn&#39;t mean I would ever want to be a part of their party, which I disagree greatly with. We&#39;re all better off doing our own shit with a certain degree of unity with others, but joining a party just for unity across the leftist spectrum is unworkable.
i disagree, a party or better still a federation can unite the left political spectrum, it&#39;s been done before, remember old labour?
the advantage we have oer the creators of the old labour party is that we know safeguards need to be put in place to keep the careerists out and the members in charge.
i don&#39;t actually see much political differences between the trots and the anarchists, historically, we&#39;ve always ended up working together without too much rancour, the main argument between us has been about whether central co ordination of the battle/struggle is a good or bad thing.
the spanish civil war suggests central co ordination would have helped the revolution, the rise of stalin after the russian civil war suggests it aided the imposition of the totalitarian state.
but i would argue that material circumstances were different in each case.
which wanders off the subject a bit.
nobody is asking anybody to abandon their party&#33; a workers federation is what i&#39;m suggesting we create, a federation allows each member "party" and each individual to contribute to the common cause without abandoning their political conscousness.
it would, i believe, allow some of the good ideas and some of the bad ideas, put forward by "sectarian"? organisations to be debated widely amongst the class conscious activists.
it could create a situation where we are not viewedf as a bunch of middle class intellectuals and soppy students, but a real force for change.
my references to the name of the party/federation were mostly humorous, if you&#39;ve been around as long as i have, you have a "tendancy" to laugh at your own and your comrades compulsive action disorder :lol:
The Bolsheviks and Anarchists fought bitterly during the Russian Civil War and after, Makhno and Kronstadt come to mind. Of course both sides disagree on who was right in those conflicts, and the cycle of disagreement continues. Leninists and Anarchists have very different views on the tactics, composition, theory, and leadership of the revolution. I want to see how you propose to solve these deep ideological and practical differences with your new party. [/b]
yes they did, but, that was then, and a whole load of history has passed including the spansh civil war, that saw nominally trotskyist workers and parties siding with the anarchists against the stalinistsd communist party and being deprived of weapons and persecuted by the communists resulting in the seizure of power by franco and the capitalist republicans.
this is now, you can go to the socialist party website and see them supporting a federalist approach to a new workers party, you can visit workers power and see them looking for a federalist approach, the anarchists already demand a federalisrt approach.
so what is the obstacle? a disagreement about what was necessary given the circumstances of the russian civil war?
ffs&#33; those circumstances are not applicable now.
we can get into a "theoretical argument" about the rights or wrongs of krondstat etc. but it really doesn&#39;t matter jack shit today, the world has moved on, no free thinking or radical individual or group is gonna accept "socialism from above", the politically aware working class and radical students are no longer willing to chant mindless slogans in support of supposedly radical leaders, "ho ho ho chi min" aint gonna happen today.
the life and times of che guevara, a dissenting socialist are the topic of discussion, all eyes are upon south america, the working class in france, not just the fight of the french trade unions but the yet disaffected and politically unorganised resistance in the metropolitan suburbs.
we have a moment in history, whereby we can push our ideas forward, to engage with our fellow workers, to put forward a revolutionary alternative, is it realy worth wasting this opportunity because of sectional differences?
and, anyway, if we go with it, work out a constitutipon for a workjers federation, encompassing all revolutrionaries of the political left, deciding a political programme etc and present it to our respective parties/ federations, only to get kiked back, what have we lost? tired key boards, that&#39;s all.
but if we don&#39;t try and the workers movement is thrown back to the 18th century, then, what are guilty of?
i repeat, we are the class conscious and politically aware, we have a duty to try and create a new party of the working class, we cannot leave it to the "leaders" of our respective parties, they are unwilling, quite rightly, to do so.

[Red October]

I don&#39;t see how you&#39;re missing this. The ideological differences between the average anarchist and an average stalinist/maoist/hoxhaist/whateverist are simply far too great for them to unite in a single party. I want to know how you think you&#39;ll be able to overcome those immense differences. Like I&#39;ve said, I have no problem uniting with different tendencies on the left at times, but it&#39;s unworkable to combine them all into a single party that all agree on. The simple fact is that revleft just too diverse to be a single political entity, and that&#39;s what makes revleft so good.

[RevSkeptic]

Then go ahead and find a way to form a party which anarchists, trotskyists, and stalinists will agree on

Hope you&#39;re not forgetting Guild Socialists aka modern Technocrats.

The guilds been destroyed and the only thing to choose is Corporations or Nationalization (Lenin inc. or Mao inc.) hmmm... what to choose? <_<

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 02, 2007 12:56 am
I don&#39;t see how you&#39;re missing this. The ideological differences between the average anarchist and an average stalinist/maoist/hoxhaist/whateverist are simply far too great for them to unite in a single party. I want to know how you think you&#39;ll be able to overcome those immense differences. Like I&#39;ve said, I have no problem uniting with different tendencies on the left at times, but it&#39;s unworkable to combine them all into a single party that all agree on. The simple fact is that revleft just too diverse to be a single political entity, and that&#39;s what makes revleft so good.
a single party is not what i&#39;m proposing&#33;
a federation of different revolutionary parties forced upon the "leadership" by the activists of those parties is easily acheivable, but only if we&#39;ve got the balls to do it.
here we are in rev left land, we&#39;re all activists and politically aware, we might ***** about the way the "others" organise themselves, we, quite rightly question the tactics of "other" parties or tendancies.
but, that does NOT mean that a federation of those parties is impossible.
lets get the horse before the cart.
the horse is the overthrow of capitalism by the working class, the cart is all the political differences displayed by the radical parties.
the cart holds the horse back, saps ts strength and leads it to the knackers yard.
we should be the carrot, the dream of a better future, the taste of paradise, rather than a bunch of "it cant happen ideologues".
so, lets start the debate, lets give it a go, lets talk comrades, rather than division, cos the truth is the capitalists love us when we argue semantics and are scared shitless when we act solidarity.
so, whose fucking side are you on?

[Ultra-Violence]

Hm, maybe some of us here (I think a very large group) don&#39;t like vanguard parties?

your missing the poitn of my post wich is that Regardless of our Ideological diffs. Wich are centerd around the idea of the vangaurd party what im saying is no matter what the fuck any one beleives over here we as Enlightend individuals have a duty to spread our word and Like it or not becuase of our status as the people who can seee what the fuck is going on WE ARE THE VANGAURD and as redarmyfaction38 was proposing we get our shit together and with the use of technology and the internet to get our fat asses of the dang computer :D

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 pm

Hm, maybe some of us here (I think a very large group) don&#39;t like vanguard parties?

your missing the poitn of my post wich is that Regardless of our Ideological diffs. Wich are centerd around the idea of the vangaurd party what im saying is no matter what the fuck any one beleives over here we as Enlightend individuals have a duty to spread our word and Like it or not becuase of our status as the people who can seee what the fuck is going on WE ARE THE VANGAURD and as redarmyfaction38 was proposing we get our shit together and with the use of technology and the internet to get our fat asses of the dang computer :D
seriously, you are right. i know not everyone has the means to organize and act but those of you who can, GET INVOLVED. the experience is priceless. ive ben invlved for a few months now and it really teaches me how to get peoples atention, how to aproach them and how to organize and budget resources, all vital things when mobilizing he community.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 pm

Hm, maybe some of us here (I think a very large group) don&#39;t like vanguard parties?

your missing the poitn of my post wich is that Regardless of our Ideological diffs. Wich are centerd around the idea of the vangaurd party what im saying is no matter what the fuck any one beleives over here we as Enlightend individuals have a duty to spread our word and Like it or not becuase of our status as the people who can seee what the fuck is going on WE ARE THE VANGAURD and as redarmyfaction38 was proposing we get our shit together and with the use of technology and the internet to get our fat asses of the dang computer :D
wow&#33; you quoted me, and in such esteemed company :blush: .

seriously though, that is the truth of it, we need to put our arses on the line, do what our "leaders" seem incapable of doing and work out a way of uniting the 20+ socialists and anarchists groups into a federation that can allow the campaign for a new workers party to become a new workers party.
it is possible.
so give us some proposals, do we adopt workers reps on workers wages? do we accept that each grouping within the federation can act autonomously and retain its right to its own organisational procedures?
lets start the ball rolling, i don&#39;t have all the answers, but i have loads of questions and ideas, as do most rev lefts when they stop hiding behind the "party line" and going for it for themselves.
i&#39;ve been a marxist since i was 11 years old, guess what year that was, 1968.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Ender+December 03, 2007 05:45 pm--> (Ender @ December 03, 2007 05:45 pm)
Ultra&#045;[email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 pm

Hm, maybe some of us here (I think a very large group) don&#39;t like vanguard parties?

your missing the poitn of my post wich is that Regardless of our Ideological diffs. Wich are centerd around the idea of the vangaurd party what im saying is no matter what the fuck any one beleives over here we as Enlightend individuals have a duty to spread our word and Like it or not becuase of our status as the people who can seee what the fuck is going on WE ARE THE VANGAURD and as redarmyfaction38 was proposing we get our shit together and with the use of technology and the internet to get our fat asses of the dang computer :D
seriously, you are right. i know not everyone has the means to organize and act but those of you who can, GET INVOLVED. the experience is priceless. ive ben invlved for a few months now and it really teaches me how to get peoples atention, how to aproach them and how to organize and budget resources, all vital things when mobilizing he community. [/b]
i am so glad to hear the opinions of someone fresh to the struggle, i couldn&#39;t agree with you more, in truth, the likes of myself, are just a "bank of experience" to be drawn from by new comrades like yourself.
present your ideas mate, help the old dogs like me, make it happen, once the ball starts rolling, the cynics and sctarians will fall over themselves to get involved, they can&#39;t help it, any more than i can, it&#39;s in the blood :D

[Red October]

I&#39;ve been active and involved for around a year now with a wide variety of groups, so don&#39;t try to accuse me of being an armchair revolutionary or a sectarian. But you should be a little realistic and look at history to see why those sorts of parties/federations/whatevers don&#39;t work, least of all when you try to establish them over and internet forum. People come to revleft occasionally to pitch their awesome new party and sweeping plan for revolution they just thought up, but it doesn&#39;t ever amount to much. Give it a rest and get down from your "we are the enlightened vanguard" pedestal. That&#39;s one reason why your idea isn&#39;t very workable, because a significant portion of the left wants nothing to do with vanguard stuff.

[Ultra-Violence]

I&#39;ve been active and involved for around a year now with a wide variety of groups, so don&#39;t try to accuse me of being an armchair revolutionary or a sectarian. But you should be a little realistic and look at history to see why those sorts of parties/federations/whatevers don&#39;t work, least of all when you try to establish them over and internet forum.

1. were not accusing you of anything
2.Whats the harm in trying? We have to use the technology available to us look at the Zapatistas they use the internet satilite etc.. We who live in a country of whealth(not all of us but a good 90%of us) Have it so dang easy and have so many resources at our desposal shit lets fucking get some international going or something dont be so negative all the time :D






People come to revleft occasionally to pitch their awesome new party and sweeping plan for revolution they just thought up, but it doesn&#39;t ever amount to much. Give it a rest and get down from your "we are the enlightened vanguard" pedestal. That&#39;s one reason why your idea isn&#39;t very workable, because a significant portion of the left wants nothing to do with vanguard stuff.

^^^
Again i think your missing the piont of my post




I say fuck it lets give it a shot why not try to organise the 21th century International a calling to all Leftist from around the world shit the only thing i see stoping us is our selves

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 11:50 am
I&#39;ve been active and involved for around a year now with a wide variety of groups, so don&#39;t try to accuse me of being an armchair revolutionary or a sectarian. But you should be a little realistic and look at history to see why those sorts of parties/federations/whatevers don&#39;t work, least of all when you try to establish them over and internet forum. People come to revleft occasionally to pitch their awesome new party and sweeping plan for revolution they just thought up, but it doesn&#39;t ever amount to much. Give it a rest and get down from your "we are the enlightened vanguard" pedestal. That&#39;s one reason why your idea isn&#39;t very workable, because a significant portion of the left wants nothing to do with vanguard stuff.
its not a "vanguard" i&#39;m talking about, i have no pedestal, i recognise that each and every member of each and every political grouping on the revolutionary left has something to contribute&#33; are you reading my posts ffs.?
in my opinion and that of a fair few workers; what is needed is a new workers party, the old labour party is dead and buried, it might not have been perfect or revolutionary but allowed/encouraged the ordinary worker to think on a class basis.
today, new labour is one of 3 "major" capitalist parties, the ordinary worker, either doesn&#39;t vote or take part in any kind of political activity, cos he/she doesn&#39;t see the point cos he/she is gonna get screwed either way, or votes new labour as the lesser of three evils.
so, given the circumstances, what role do you think; us politically aware rev lefts should play? sit on our arses waiting for that crisis in history and suddenly the "masses" will come running to us, worshipping us like gods and hanging on our every word, demanding to see the tablets brought down from the mountain?
aint gonna happen mate.
we have to give "the workers" what we crave, unity. a belief in our own power.
that cannot be acheived without a party or federation that puts forward an alternative based on class politics, that is open to all and free from stupid "sectarian" arguments, that have no relevance to the ordinary worker.
now, mate, i&#39;ve been around a long time, or so it seems to me now, i&#39;ve witnessed the uprisings against stalinism in the former czechoslavakia, the prague spring, i&#39;ve witnessed the failed french revolution of 1968, i&#39;ve sen how peoples attitudes have changed and developed just as sightseeers in these circumstances.
i&#39;ve been part of the fight against privatisation, i have been there when miners have asked when will they get their wives back during the last great strike.
people leap forward politically when they are forced into confrontation with the capitalist state.
in the past, there was always old labour to turn to, it might have been full of treacherous careerist prats, but occassionally the will of the workers won.
so, i got it into my head, that, all the revolutionary parties, believed that the working class were the only class capable of smashing capitalism and building a new world, not just a new england or france or scotland or whatever.
but, it really is obvious that in order to acheive that goal, we need to build a new party/federation.
now it seems to me, old duff head that i am, that the only thing stopping that happening is sectional differences.
now, old duff head that i am, that seems to me, the worstexcuse for doing nothing, i&#39;ve ever come across.
so, given the fact, that seemingly, a large proportion of "our leaders" rather argue semantics than form the new workers party that is desperately needed, its up to us politically aware members to come up with a constitution that we find agreeable.
having done that, we can turn to our leaders and say, we the membership, have come up with a solution, we are presenting it to you as the basis of a federation that can unite the left, draw in the worker and put our class in charge.
it is socialism from below.
vanguard parties and clever arse theoriticians don&#39;t come into it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is rather amusing; RAF has been among the very worst sectarian point-scorers here in the last six months or so:


i recognise that each and every member of each and every political grouping on the revolutionary left has something to contribute&#33; are you reading my posts ffs.?

That is, except the ones you do not like, such as the SWP, the biggest revolutionary party in the UK.


we have to give "the workers" what we crave, unity. a belief in our own power.

And selling them a ruling-class theory (the dreaded &#39;D&#39; word springs to mind here, for some reason) is what they want, is it?


that is open to all and free from stupid "sectarian" arguments, that have no relevance to the ordinary worker.

Off the toip of my head -- oh, such as: whether or not &#39;Being&#39; is identical with and at the same time different from &#39;Nothing&#39;, the &#39;contradiction&#39; resolved in &#39;Becoming?&#39; -- an idea both Lenin and Trotsky thought the work of &#39;genius&#39;?

Or, perhaps: whether every object and process in the entire universe is a unity of opposites -- or is that an &#39;identity&#39; of polar opposites? --, all of which are locked in &#39;struggle&#39; with one another, and which turn into one another?

[Which means, of course, that male cats turn into female cats, and vice versa, and that the North and South pole of a magnet are slugging it out as we type.]

On second thoughts, I rather think workers can do without such advanced &#39;thought&#39;...

Now, what do you think? Would a movement that had such a whacko set of ideas as its core theory be a long-term success or failure?

Answers on a post card to:

&#39;The Application to be Admitted Department

Happy Valley Home For Ostrich Impersonators

Gobi Desert...&#39;

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2007 08:50 pm
This is rather amusing; RAF has been among the very worst sectarian point-scorers here in the last six months or so:


i recognise that each and every member of each and every political grouping on the revolutionary left has something to contribute&#33; are you reading my posts ffs.?

That is, except the ones you do not like, such as the SWP, the biggest revolutionary party in the UK.


we have to give "the workers" what we crave, unity. a belief in our own power.

And selling them a ruling-class theory (the dreaded &#39;D&#39; word springs to mind here, for some reason) is what they want, is it?


that is open to all and free from stupid "sectarian" arguments, that have no relevance to the ordinary worker.

Off the toip of my head -- oh, such as: whether or not &#39;Being&#39; is identical with and at the same time different from &#39;Nothing&#39;, the &#39;contradiction&#39; resolved in &#39;Becoming?&#39; -- an idea both Lenin and Trotsky thought the work of &#39;genius&#39;?

Or, perhaps: whether every object and process in the entire universe is a unity of opposites -- or is that an &#39;identity&#39; of polar opposites? --, all of which are locked in &#39;struggle&#39; with one another, and which turn into one another?

[Which means, of course, that male cats turn into female cats, and vice versa, and that the North and South pole of a magnet are slugging it out as we type.]

On second thoughts, I rather think workers can do without such advanced &#39;thought&#39;...

Now, what do you think? Would a movement that had such a whacko set of ideas as its core theory be a long-term success or failure?

Answers on a post card to:

&#39;The Application to be Admitted Department

Happy Valley Home For Ostrich Impersonators

Gobi Desert...&#39;
for a start, pointing out the conflicting policies of the swp is not sectarian, pointing out their obvious failure to build an "electoral alternative" to new labour by a) taking a "religious minorities are good regardless of their class" stance in order to win bourgeouis elections, despite the well intentioned comradely advice of the "sectarians". b) when it all went pear shaped, expelling all those that followed the party line and condemning those individuals as "sectarians" and class traitors.
every rev left i&#39;ve ever spoke to accepts the need for a "broad front" against capitalism, not one of them has ever suggested alliances with capitalists as part of that broad front.
not one of them has ever been willing to accept "socialism"? from above.
bt the way, i talk to a lot of very disgruntled swp members.
following the split between the swp and respect, i&#39;m led to understand that the rev lefts "largest party" has seen its membership halved.
maybe you and john rees should have a little chat about that and try sking him how his opportunism has led to the decimation of a party that used to be held in grudging respect by us "sectarians".
now you might have missed it, but, i was arguing that us ordinary rev lefters, should, debate openly on these message boards about trying to form a workers federation, decide a constitution that allowed all SECTIONS of the rev left to operate autonomously within that federation and try and come up with a worker based transitional/electoral platform that would attract the ordinary worker, like me, into the political fold, would force our leaders to stop arguing the rights and wrongs of 90 years ago, accept shit happens, learn the lessons of history and start building for the future.
this progamme? constitution? or whatever should be presented to all the leaders of the SECTIONAL parties we support.
now i&#39;m quite happy for members of the swp to join in, give us their ideas, criticise the ideas that they don&#39;t agree with.
you, miss lichtenstein, might as well join the bnp, you toe the party line, you reject any notion that other socialist/ anarchist parties/members might have any ideas worthy of consideration, in fact, you behave like the stalinists and nazis, you condemn anyone that challenges your assumptions as a "sectarian", in swp leadership and craven follower speak a low life, an inferior being, unworthy of consideration, cos you have all the answers and the perfect plan.
shame that perfect plaN makes you all turn cartwheels when it all goes wrong.
get a life rosa, think for yourself occassionaly, go out, get pissed, get layed, have some fun.talk with and try living the life us workers "enjoy", then having taken your head out of your arsehole, you might, just, understand what the workers bit in socialist workers party is about.
i bet you&#39;re a right disappointment when it comes to bedtime too&#33;

[Red October]

You still haven&#39;t answered my question. Would this front include all revolutionary leftists? What about Stalinists and Maoists? You seem to have a fair bit of opposition to Stalinism, which is great, but would you want to form a federation with them? And how the hell are you going to get everyone else to? I think if you read some history, you&#39;ll see that these groups have not exactly got along well, let alone peacefully. No offense to the Stalinists here, I&#39;m just saying it seems impractical to expect people of such radically different persuasions to form together like this.

[Ultra-Violence]

You still haven&#39;t answered my question. Would this front include all revolutionary leftists? What about Stalinists and Maoists? You seem to have a fair bit of opposition to Stalinism, which is great, but would you want to form a federation with them? And how the hell are you going to get everyone else to? I think if you read some history, you&#39;ll see that these groups have not exactly got along well, let alone peacefully. No offense to the Stalinists here, I&#39;m just saying it seems impractical to expect people of such radically different persuasions to form together like this.


I dunno if it would include all really but Dont we have more in common with eachother than Diff.?&#092;i mean ya historicaly commies and anarchist havent got along great. leninist and stalinist etc..BUT why not try to break down those walls wich tear us apart? at least get together and talk and vote and debate etc..... about what us in general belive in as a movement. For example i know for a fact that all of here want to get rid of capitalism. i know for a fact we all want t be free and have a just society? then lets put our diff. and egos aside for like a fucking moment and get together? cant we all just get along :wub:

I mean im serouis i go to protest i talk with moaist,leninist stalinst and we want the same shit sure we may not agree on how to get thier BUT we can take a little bit from every one and come together and as a consenus vote on what we want to be and were are we going.

for example i may not be a ver big fan moa BUT i take some qoutes here and thier from his writing&#39;s like Power flows threw the barrel of a gun" or stalin even The capitalist will sell us the rope well use to hang em" I mean we have to get this fucking toilet bowl of ideas and work at combining the best elements of each and make a knew ideology or someting? well that what i belive and thats why i liked RS2k he saw past all of this bickering bull shit and saw the bigger picture i dunno this is just MO

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
And the Leninists would always be making dumbass generalisations about anarchists

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Goatse+December 06, 2007 09:20 pm--> (Goatse @ December 06, 2007 09:20 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
And the Leninists would always be making dumbass generalisations about anarchists [/b]
and that mate is the dumbass attitude we have to overcome.
at ground level, the anarchists and the trots tend to get along quite well, yeh, we ***** at each other a bit, but, in general we tend to listen to each other, we don&#39;t always agree but there is grudging respect.
the whole point of this thread was to find a way, us trots and anarchists could form a federation in order to promote the interests of the working class and provide a real alternative to new labour and the rest of the capitalist parties and their apologists.
we&#39;re the only people capable of doing it, we want unity, our experiences tend to lead us in the direction of a federation of revolutuionary groups in order to enable the creation of said alternative.
it has to be created by ordinary working class activists, the experience of the top down approach, adopted by the swp, vis a vis, respect, demonstrates that the compromises with religious sects and small businessmen can only lead to division and disaster for the revolutionary party involved.
as marxists and anarchists, we believe in a bottom upoward approach, so lets put into action.
we will debate and discuss, we will come up with a constitution etc. and we will present it to our parties.
afer that, who knows.

[Red October]

I&#39;ll repeat this again for you, RAF:



You still haven&#39;t answered my question. Would this front include all revolutionary leftists? What about Stalinists and Maoists? You seem to have a fair bit of opposition to Stalinism, which is great, but would you want to form a federation with them? And how the hell are you going to get everyone else to? I think if you read some history, you&#39;ll see that these groups have not exactly got along well, let alone peacefully. No offense to the Stalinists here, I&#39;m just saying it seems impractical to expect people of such radically different persuasions to form together like this.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Goatse+December 06, 2007 09:20 pm--> (Goatse @ December 06, 2007 09:20 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
And the Leninists would always be making dumbass generalisations about anarchists [/b]
We&#39;d obviosuly need guidlines of ettiquette when speaking with inter ideological comrades, but I can see how we could actually unite on issues so long as we all agree on them. If RAF gets the ball rolling, I&#39;d be more than happy to support.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 10:59 pm
I&#39;ll repeat this again for you, RAF:



You still haven&#39;t answered my question. Would this front include all revolutionary leftists? What about Stalinists and Maoists? You seem to have a fair bit of opposition to Stalinism, which is great, but would you want to form a federation with them? And how the hell are you going to get everyone else to? I think if you read some history, you&#39;ll see that these groups have not exactly got along well, let alone peacefully. No offense to the Stalinists here, I&#39;m just saying it seems impractical to expect people of such radically different persuasions to form together like this.
We would only be able to act upon issues we all agree on lest the party fail, so we&#39;d probably only be able to act against worker exploitation, but as for different ideologies in the party, we would most likely have to adopt a "live and let live so long as its leftist" policy. I can see this working, but we&#39;d just have to make sure party comrades respected one another.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 10:59 pm
I&#39;ll repeat this again for you, RAF:



You still haven&#39;t answered my question. Would this front include all revolutionary leftists? What about Stalinists and Maoists? You seem to have a fair bit of opposition to Stalinism, which is great, but would you want to form a federation with them? And how the hell are you going to get everyone else to? I think if you read some history, you&#39;ll see that these groups have not exactly got along well, let alone peacefully. No offense to the Stalinists here, I&#39;m just saying it seems impractical to expect people of such radically different persuasions to form together like this.
soz&#33; i was so busy reading everybody elses contribution to the debate that i missed your question.
i have no problem at all with contributions from stalinists or maoists.
as i see it, everything is up for discussion and debate, as a trot, i have political differences with both "ideologies"?
but, at ground level, we find ourselves working together.

it is the formation of a federation of revolutionary left activists and ordinary workers that is the important here.
what revolutionary group they belong to, is, in the end, not really that important.
what we are seeking to establish is a democratic framework within which we can all operate.
having established that framework, we the activists/worker go back back to our respective parties and say "this is what we have managed to acheive, a framework for co operation and the overthrow of capital, agrred by the ordinary member. now put your money where your mouth is, and overcome the sectional differences, recognise the actions of workers to form a party from below and throw your weight fully behind it".
it&#39;s socialism mate, it&#39;s the real world demanding attention from the theoreticians and sectionalist.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+December 06, 2007 11:03 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ December 06, 2007 11:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:20 pm

Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
And the Leninists would always be making dumbass generalisations about anarchists
We&#39;d obviosuly need guidlines of ettiquette when speaking with inter ideological comrades, but I can see how we could actually unite on issues so long as we all agree on them. If RAF gets the ball rolling, I&#39;d be more than happy to support. [/b]
ok mate, right at the beginning, i suggested a name for the fedration, i think its the right choice, i also think that autonomy for all groups within the federation is essential, workers reps on workers wages should deter the careerists from looking to us to gain prosperity :D .
after that, i&#39;m looking to you and the other posters that suport the idea to contribute, i&#39;m not the "glorious leader" and, i don&#39;t want to be.
c&#39;mon socialism from below&#33;

[Comrade Rage]

What exactly would the politics be? Does this party have a manifesto? Also where would it operate?

[Comrade MWC]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+December 06, 2007 10:45 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ December 06, 2007 10:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:20 pm

Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:16 am
theres too much sectarianism on this forum to start a coalition let alone a credible party. The anarchists would always be *****ing about &#39;leninist vanguards&#39;. <_<
And the Leninists would always be making dumbass generalisations about anarchists
and that mate is the dumbass attitude we have to overcome.
at ground level, the anarchists and the trots tend to get along quite well, yeh, we ***** at each other a bit, but, in general we tend to listen to each other, we don&#39;t always agree but there is grudging respect.
the whole point of this thread was to find a way, us trots and anarchists could form a federation in order to promote the interests of the working class and provide a real alternative to new labour and the rest of the capitalist parties and their apologists.
we&#39;re the only people capable of doing it, we want unity, our experiences tend to lead us in the direction of a federation of revolutuionary groups in order to enable the creation of said alternative.
it has to be created by ordinary working class activists, the experience of the top down approach, adopted by the swp, vis a vis, respect, demonstrates that the compromises with religious sects and small businessmen can only lead to division and disaster for the revolutionary party involved.
as marxists and anarchists, we believe in a bottom upoward approach, so lets put into action.
we will debate and discuss, we will come up with a constitution etc. and we will present it to our parties.
afer that, who knows. [/b]
Well, it&#39;s not really as simple as dumbass stereotype. leninism and anarchism are, in basic ideology and theory, almost totally different

I don&#39;t think any federation can be ideologically agreeable (as a revolutionary vehicle, one that brings revolutionary social change rather than progressive social change) for both, say, a maoist and a trotskyist together. The Left is just too varying. I&#39;m not shooting down your idea for no reason; it&#39;s a great idea, we all probably wish for left unity, but we have to look at things realistically. I&#39;ll clarify on the sentence in parentheses as well:

I think that a federation for current, in-capitalist-society change for workers and the people as a whole can be acceptable for most leftists, for we all commonly believe in an economically equal or worker-oriented society. Again, only in progressive social change can such a federation with such a wide ideological range successfully exist.

[Ultra-Violence]

We&#39;d obviosuly need guidlines of ettiquette when speaking with inter ideological comrades, but I can see how we could actually unite on issues so long as we all agree on them. If RAF gets the ball rolling, I&#39;d be more than happy to support.




soz&#33; i was so busy reading everybody elses contribution to the debate that i missed your question.
i have no problem at all with contributions from stalinists or maoists.
as i see it, everything is up for discussion and debate, as a trot, i have political differences with both "ideologies"?
but, at ground level, we find ourselves working together.

it is the formation of a federation of revolutionary left activists and ordinary workers that is the important here.
what revolutionary group they belong to, is, in the end, not really that important.
what we are seeking to establish is a democratic framework within which we can all operate.
having established that framework, we the activists/worker go back back to our respective parties and say "this is what we have managed to acheive, a framework for co operation and the overthrow of capital, agrred by the ordinary member. now put your money where your mouth is, and overcome the sectional differences, recognise the actions of workers to form a party from below and throw your weight fully behind it".
it&#39;s socialism mate, it&#39;s the real world demanding attention from the theoreticians and sectionalis


What exactly would the politics be? Does this party have a manifesto? Also where would it operate?




Well, it&#39;s not really as simple as dumbass stereotype. leninism and anarchism are, in basic ideology and theory, almost totally different

I don&#39;t think any federation can be ideologically agreeable (as a revolutionary vehicle, one that brings revolutionary social change rather than progressive social change) for both, say, a maoist and a trotskyist together. The Left is just too varying. I&#39;m not shooting down your idea for no reason; it&#39;s a great idea, we all probably wish for left unity, but we have to look at things realistically. I&#39;ll clarify on the sentence in parentheses as well:

I think that a federation for current, in-capitalist-society change for workers and the people as a whole can be acceptable for most leftists, for we all commonly believe in an economically equal or worker-oriented society. Again, only in progressive social change can such a federation with such a wide ideological range successfully exist.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOOK WERE ALREADY DOING IT&#33;

SEE?



What exactly would the politics be? Does this party have a manifesto? Also where would it operate?

Well lets all draft one up and edit it as a community untill were satisfied by it

[Red October]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 12:03 pm
Well lets all draft one up and edit it as a community untill were satisfied by it
The point is that it would be nearly impossible to come up with a constitution or manifesto which all parts of the left would agree with. Of course we can all agree that capitalism is bad and we should get rid of it, but that&#39;s about where the similarities end.

[Ultra-Violence]

The point is that it would be nearly impossible to come up with a constitution or manifesto which all parts of the left would agree with. Of course we can all agree that capitalism is bad and we should get rid of it, but that&#39;s about where the similarities end.

and the comprimises and formation of new ideas begin&#33;

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
I think it is a bad idea because it wont work.

The idea itself is flawed, it is based on the naive position we get when new comers first introduce their idealist positon. That is, that we haven&#39;t had a revolution in the first world nations, so it must be an organisational problem. There is no problem, it is the material conditions are not ripe for revolution. People are not being pushed into revolutionary parties yet.

The better alternative is independent parties that work in a united front. These parties should be well disciplined, based around dedicated activist and cadre. As party membership is down in all cases around the first world, this is better method. It doesn&#39;t aim to always recruit people, but rather focus community and world events and take action which the local community can be active in. Then there is nothing wrong if one group plans an event to invite another group.

There is no need to have "federation". That is just bureaucracy, the parties would also have to put forward their ideas, rather then go out and acting on them.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 05:03 pm


We&#39;d obviosuly need guidlines of ettiquette when speaking with inter ideological comrades, but I can see how we could actually unite on issues so long as we all agree on them. If RAF gets the ball rolling, I&#39;d be more than happy to support.




soz&#33; i was so busy reading everybody elses contribution to the debate that i missed your question.
i have no problem at all with contributions from stalinists or maoists.
as i see it, everything is up for discussion and debate, as a trot, i have political differences with both "ideologies"?
but, at ground level, we find ourselves working together.

it is the formation of a federation of revolutionary left activists and ordinary workers that is the important here.
what revolutionary group they belong to, is, in the end, not really that important.
what we are seeking to establish is a democratic framework within which we can all operate.
having established that framework, we the activists/worker go back back to our respective parties and say "this is what we have managed to acheive, a framework for co operation and the overthrow of capital, agrred by the ordinary member. now put your money where your mouth is, and overcome the sectional differences, recognise the actions of workers to form a party from below and throw your weight fully behind it".
it&#39;s socialism mate, it&#39;s the real world demanding attention from the theoreticians and sectionalis


What exactly would the politics be? Does this party have a manifesto? Also where would it operate?




Well, it&#39;s not really as simple as dumbass stereotype. leninism and anarchism are, in basic ideology and theory, almost totally different

I don&#39;t think any federation can be ideologically agreeable (as a revolutionary vehicle, one that brings revolutionary social change rather than progressive social change) for both, say, a maoist and a trotskyist together. The Left is just too varying. I&#39;m not shooting down your idea for no reason; it&#39;s a great idea, we all probably wish for left unity, but we have to look at things realistically. I&#39;ll clarify on the sentence in parentheses as well:

I think that a federation for current, in-capitalist-society change for workers and the people as a whole can be acceptable for most leftists, for we all commonly believe in an economically equal or worker-oriented society. Again, only in progressive social change can such a federation with such a wide ideological range successfully exist.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOOK WERE ALREADY DOING IT&#33;

SEE?



What exactly would the politics be? Does this party have a manifesto? Also where would it operate?

Well lets all draft one up and edit it as a community untill were satisfied by it
EXACTLY&#33;&#33; that is entirely the point&#33;
lets have a go, each and everyone of us, i posted some limited ideas to start with, i didn&#39;t want to discourage or inflame.

do we need to start a new thread to do this?

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Hiero+December 07, 2007 10:44 pm--> (Hiero @ December 07, 2007 10:44 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 12:43 pm
I find it amusing that everyone is using the "It&#39;s a good idea but it won&#39;t work." line.
I think it is a bad idea because it wont work.

The idea itself is flawed, it is based on the naive position we get when new comers first introduce their idealist positon. That is, that we haven&#39;t had a revolution in the first world nations, so it must be an organisational problem. There is no problem, it is the material conditions are not ripe for revolution. People are not being pushed into revolutionary parties yet.

The better alternative is independent parties that work in a united front. These parties should be well disciplined, based around dedicated activist and cadre. As party membership is down in all cases around the first world, this is better method. It doesn&#39;t aim to always recruit people, but rather focus community and world events and take action which the local community can be active in. Then there is nothing wrong if one group plans an event to invite another group.

There is no need to have "federation". That is just bureaucracy, the parties would also have to put forward their ideas, rather then go out and acting on them. [/b]
hmmmm, a federation of revolutionary parties is in effect a united front, it excludes, however, careerists and "capitalist reformers". it is based upon each individual party having its cadres, in fact it goes further than that by allowing each party to operate freely in the areas it has majority support under a common banner.
the idea is not flawed, activists on this board alone are starting to question the doubters and want to put forward their ideas for a constitution for such a federation, this is a reflection of their experience in the real world.
best of all, the people supporting the idea are not idealogues? tied to their party by self interest or party "loyalty" or sectionalism.
they want their section of the revolutionary left/working class to actively participate inthe creation of a "workers federation".
they are tired of sectional disputes, they have no time for a top down approach, they have realised that they are the people that will drive our class forward and recognise the need for common cause to acheive it.
it&#39;s called socialism.
as for the material conditions, well, they have occurred time and time again, what has been lacking in each and every case, is a revolutionary party/federation based in the working class, disaplaying the knowledge and unity necessary to carry through a "workers revolution".
that, comrade, is our fault.