In Defence of "Sectarianism."

[Dros]

I know this isn't going to make me any friends and probably make me more enemies here then I already have but here it goes...

I'm about to attempt to do the unthinkable. I'm going to defend a version of "sectarianism"!

But first, I will put forward what I mean by sectarianism and how the word is to be understood in the context of this thread. I use "sectarianism" to refer to orginization around different political lines and ideas. I do not mean "sectarianism" to be synonymous with "dogmatism" which I totally reject.

I think that it is important for different groups of different political ideology or line to organize together. It seems that Anarchists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Hoxhaists, and Sizpao Communists should orginize independent orginizations. This allows for greater unity in terms of action and more political cohesivity and a generally stronger movement. The existance of sects reflect the existance of different approaches to issues of line and method and those differences mean that orginization is most effective when it is constructed around a set of common beliefs. But just as importantly, it allows for a more effective way of coming to a correct line.

This is not to say that I am opposed to cooperation. I think that the left today does come together over mutual issues. If you go to an anti-imperialism rally, you will find Trots, Maoists, and Anarchists united in their action against imperialist wars. And this kind of cooperation should be fostered and further developed.

What I'm opposing here is the tendency to wave the "anti-sectarian flag" at all groups that rally and orginize around a specific political line. Even within "isms" there is a need for more than one group to exist in order to generate the best possible line and to orginize most effectively around any given line. A lot of people here have claimed to be anti-sectarian. What does that mean? It usually means anti-DOGMATIC!

What I'm proposing is opposed to dogmatism. Sects exist to organize around the correct line and develop the best analysis, not to beat the masses over the head with dead analysis. And the existance of multiple sects can highlight and counter act dogmatism when it exists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who the hell is a "Sizpao communist"? :confused:



Anyhow:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/build-mass-party-t71400/index.html

How to Build the Party of the Working Class (http://struggle.net/Ben/2008/222-HowTo.htm) (by Ben Seattle)

Excerpts, but comrades should read the web site itself for the graphics...




The most important task for revolutionaries in the present period is the creation of a genuinely revolutionary organization (or system of organizations) capable of uniting everything healthy in the progressive and workers' movements and laying the foundations for a mass workers' party that can overcome both the reformist and sectarian diseases and unite the majority of the working class around a program centered on the overthrow of bourgeois rule...

This mass party will most likely emerge from a self-organizing network of cooperating (and competing) individuals and organizations.

This network may initially take the form of an informal and open community that is likely to emerge out of common work to build a revolutionary news service that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and discussion (from the perspective of the class interests of the working class) to many millions of people.

As this network (or informal community) develops and matures, it will likely witness the emergence of two primary poles of attraction corresponding to and reflecting the material interests and ideology of the two main contending classes in society.

One of these poles will represent the material class interest of the proletariat (ie: the working class) and be organized around the central mission of overthrowing the system of bourgeois rule and creating a society where everything is run by the working class. I will refer to this pole as the revolutionary pole.

...

As the many struggles of the working class develop--and as the struggle between the revolutionary and reformist poles develops--the nature of this struggle will become more clear to many millions of workers. This process may take a number of years--or it may take decades.

Eventually this process will mature to the point where the center of gravity within the workers’ network (or organization or party) will shift to the revolutionary pole. As this struggle continues to develop--a mass organization or party will emerge without a reformist pole and in which reformists are not welcome.

Many activists with experience in the antiwar and/or revolutionary movements may ask why the network (or organization or party) of the working class should contain within itself political trends which stand in direct opposition to the interests of the working class.

The answer to this question is that the process by which millions of workers learn about the nature of reformist and revolutionary politics—will take years (or decades). During this lengthy period many organizations will be created which are hostile to reformism and reformists—-but these will not tend to be mass organizations. The emergence of mass organizations without reformists--will require a period of struggle in which many millions of workers acquire bitter experience with the treachery of reformism.

...

Efforts to create parties similar to the Bolsheviks in the Western imperialist countries have generally fallen victim to the reformist or sectarian diseases--or remained small, relatively isolated groups.

The problem may be that a party like the Bolsheviks cannot be created except by a process similar to that which created the Bolsheviks (ie: a lengthy period during which the two principal poles in the workers' movement were in open competition with one another and large numbers of workers had the opportunity to learn how each pole acted as the class struggle developed).

...

The view that a mass revolutionary party can grow from a small group while keeping itself oriented along the correct line (as determined from applying so-called "democratic centralism" to the summation of experience) most likely originates in the practice of the Communist International which encouraged methods and beliefs similar to these--as well as what I call "cargo-cult Leninism" (ie: a political religion which repeats various phrases or actions Lenin used without understanding what Lenin actually meant by these phrases or what the aims were of his actions).

...

Efforts to simply "grow" a small group into a mass party with the correct line--tend to leave the small group isolated and leave the mass of activists out of the process of struggle between reformist and revolutionary politics. Under these circumstances (with the mass of activists uninvolved in this struggle and largely unaware of it) the reformists will win because the revolutionary group will remain small and isolated.

The distinction here is between what I call the methods of "building a brick wall" and "casting a wide net".

...

Many "cargo-cult-Leninists" believe they can build a mass revolutionary party by starting with a small group that has the correct line and recruiting activists to it until it becomes a large, mass party. This has never happened and it is not how Lenin built his party.

...

The mass [pre-party] organization of the working class that I describe above would need to be a fairly loose organization in order to accommodate sections that have agendas in total opposition -- and would never agree to be completely controlled by their political opponents. These groups would need to agree to certain basic forms of cooperation (as for example the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks agreed to between 1903 and 1911) but, other than these basic forms of cooperation--these groups would insist on their freedom of action and their ability to do what they want.

...

Let's look at how this all might work (in the context of groups existing today) if the Revolutionary News Service took off and created a network or organization similar to what is shown in my diagram above.

Most of the hard-left groups that joined would only do so under duress: they would probably only join because the Revolutionary News Service was taking off and becoming popular and they (and their supporters) were concerned about being left out or left behind.

Groups such as the ISO, RCP and PSL / WWP would end up, on the basis of their practice (in my opinion) as part of the reformist pole. These groups do not see themselves in that way, of course. But that is how they would be regarded by militant activists when the movement develops and political consciousness and transparency increased.

Groups like the CVO and LRP and various individuals that have decisively broken with reformism and recognize the need to oppose the reformist influence would find themselves at or near the revolutionary pole. In such close proximity, they would tend to discover one another and, to the extent that they overcame the sectarian disease--might find renewed appreciation of their common interests.

[Dros]

Who the hell is a "Sizpao communist"? :confused:

That was a joke. A member here started talking about this ideology he called "sizpao communism". It was basically some form of reactionary pol potism/primitivism.

Total garbage.


====

With regards to Ben Seattle, I think my post is about why a "mass party" is a bad idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

:laugh: [To the Pol Potism/primitivism]



Now that the laughs are over, here are three strikes against your pro-sectarianism garbage (sorry if I have to up the polemic and call your stance "garbage" right after the laughs, but organizational sectarianism is no hallmark of a revolutionary Marxist):

Connolly ("one big union")
Luxemburg (sectarian politics tend to leave the small groups isolated and leave the mass of activists out of the process of struggle between reformist and revolutionary politics)

Lenin:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rescuing-lenin-leninists-t70028/index.html

(And since the above is from a comrade of Mike Ely himself, the words of that Maoist couldn't be more relevant to you)


What I think many comrades are grasping at is that Leninism as we understand it is fundamentally flawed and what a few are discovering is that Leninism as Lenin practiced it is something entirely different than we understand.

Did we all get it wrong? We must have. Lenin’s party had no where near the sectarian splitting, maneuvering, and expulsions that all the parties that bear his name have had. Lenin never practiced Leninism as we know it. He frequently attacked the Bolsheviks in the party press when he thought they’d made a mistake or got things wrong, or even in other papers if the party press wouldn’t publish his articles (imagine Revolution refusing to publish a piece by Avakian!).



And just for good measure, consider Lenin's theoretical "mentor," the pre-renegade Kautsky and his merger formula. :p

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seems to me, Drosera, that you are offering us what is known as a 'persuasive definition', that is, you have built into your re-definiton of this word the very results you wanted, and which you wish to persuade us to adopt.

In that case, why bother if you have re-defined the word to suit yourself?

You might just as well have used 'banana'.

[chegitz guevara]

She's absolutely right.

[Dros]

Seems to me, Drosera, that you are offering us what is known as a 'persuasive definition', that is, you have built into your re-definiton of this word the very results you wanted, and which you wish to persuade us to adopt.

In that case, why bother if you have re-defined the word to suit yourself?

You might just as well have used 'banana'.

I do admit to slightly changing the meaning of the word but I wouldn't say I redefined it. That is also why I put "quotes" around the word.

The argument is that leftists are more effective not less effective when they orginize around particular "sects" which would be "sectarianism" of some sort.

However, if you like, we can call it "bandana".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:



However, if you like, we can call it "bandana".


I suggested 'banana'; don't tell me you have set up the centrist 'Let's call it a "bandana" sect'...! :scared:

[Bright Banana Beard]

A left banana, yummy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To paraphrase Marx:

Let us consider the actual, worldly sectarian – not the childish sectarian (left-communist or Spartacist "Trotskyist"), as Trotskyists and Maoists do, but the everyday sectarian.

Let us not look for the secret of the sectarian in his ideology, but let us look for the secret of his ideology in the real sectarian.

What is the secular basis of sectarianism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the sectarian? Reductionism. What is his worldly God? Opportunism.

Very well then! Emancipation from reductionism and opportunism, consequently from practical, real sectarianism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.