Organizing a new congress with the aims of creating a united left...

[EricTheRed]

As I've discussed in previous threads, I am a proponent of organizing a new meeting and/or organization with the aims of creating a united left in the United States.

My preliminary thoughts will be to invite anyone who has a revolutionary left ideology. I'm hesitant about allowing reformists, though they may have their place. One of the other goals would be to address past philosophical and historical issues with the aim of creating a positive mutual understanding that is conducive to creating a united leftist opposition in the US, where it is lacking severely.

Of course, I don't want to do this alone, so any support and help in organizing this I could get here or anywhere else would help. I don't have much experience in organizing, much less organizing a large event.

I'm supposing a separate forum (independent of this forum and others) could be set up to discuss the fine points, but if this is something that you'd be interested in, drop me a line or post in this thread or whatever...

[manic expression]

If this were to ever happen, it would have to come from party leaders. Of course, I can't envision it happening anyway, but I would think a willingness on the part of party heads would be necessary.

To be sure, American leftist groups need to work together far more. Cooperation is key before anyone can start to think about mergers or coalitions.

As a side question, what is it about the American left that makes it so fractured?

[Crest]

Personally, I'd advise (Non-Centralized) Soviet Democracy until Communism is fully established.

That way, you can get other countries involved, too.

[AGITprop]

Personally, I'd advise (Non-Centralized) Soviet Democracy until Communism is fully established.

That way, you can get other countries involved, too.
Non-centralized? If were building a party it must be centralized, otherwise we'll be working against our own people. That being said, once we won Socialism, the democratic process will be non-centralized, which will be fine, because the fascists will be dead.

[Keyser]

Personally, I'd advise (Non-Centralized) Soviet Democracy until Communism is fully established.

That way, you can get other countries involved, too.



Non-centralized? If were building a party it must be centralized, otherwise we'll be working against our own people. That being said, once we won Socialism, the democratic process will be non-centralized, which will be fine, because the fascists will be dead.


Democratic centralism, which is integral to the organisation of any Marxist-Leninist communist party, gives the maximum amount of party democracy to all party members and the working class whilst maintaining a unity of theory and action so that the party is effective in the task of organising workers in the class struggle and in the task of overthrowing the bourgeois state and the capitalist class.

[Crest]

Non-centralized? If were building a party it must be centralized, otherwise we'll be working against our own people. That being said, once we won Socialism, the democratic process will be non-centralized, which will be fine, because the fascists will be dead.Well, the thing is, democratic centralism emposes the will of the many upon the all, and forces them to promote this will.

You see, the problem is, Democratic Centralism is just about the worst non-Stalinist philosophy in all of Communism. DC is fascist, cruel, not very democratic, and overall a threat to free thought and free speech, two principles I believe very strongly on. (Another reason I hate organized religion) (And of course, to some exception in the case of the latter. This does not apply in the case of, say, actively promoting Fascism)


Democratic centralism, which is integral to the organisation of any Marxist-Leninist communist party, gives the maximum amount of party democracy to all party members and the working class whilst maintaining a unity of theory and action so that the party is effective in the task of organising workers in the class struggle and in the task of overthrowing the bourgeois state and the capitalist class.Not quite. You see, another huge problem I have DC is that it's exceedingly ineffective for the case of the revolution. You see, in this system, everybody everywhere (within the Revolutionaries) will be working to accomplish different things at different times, and trying to make everyone else do it. This not only creates conflict within the revolution, but makes it much easier for the capitalists to crush us.

[KC]

This is unrealistic at this point. First, one doesn't just organize something like this; you have to be active in the movement and have experience in working with other members of your organization and members of other organizations. Because of this, this kind of proposal must come from the more experienced members of these parties, who are generally the party leadership.

Second, one cannot go from isolation and fragmentation to merging. It is important first for us to start building ties and to work together and be friendly and cooperative with one another. That is our first hurdle. Once that is cleared then we can talk about uniting on some terms.

Even then, though, we will not be completely united. It is pointless for us to unite into one organization at this point, as our methods are drastically different from organization to organization. Some organizations might be able to merge, but not many; the best we could hope to accomplish is a coalition party.


You see, the problem is, Democratic Centralism is just about the worst non-Stalinist philosophy in all of Communism. DC is fascist, cruel, not very democratic, and overall a threat to free thought and free speech, two principles I believe very strongly on. (Another reason I hate organized religion) (And of course, to some exception in the case of the latter. This does not apply in the case of, say, actively promoting Fascism)

These don't follow. How is it not democratic, etc...? Do you not agree that things should be discussed thoroughly, voted on, and then adhered to?

[RNK]

There is currently a growing movement revolving around Mike Ely and several other former members of the RCP-USA who have recently split and are attempting to organize exactly what you described.

You can find more information at: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, the thing is, democratic centralism emposes the will of the many upon the all, and forces them to promote this will.

You see, the problem is, Democratic Centralism is just about the worst non-Stalinist philosophy in all of Communism. DC is fascist, cruel, not very democratic, and overall a threat to free thought and free speech, two principles I believe very strongly on. (Another reason I hate organized religion) (And of course, to some exception in the case of the latter. This does not apply in the case of, say, actively promoting Fascism)

Not quite. You see, another huge problem I have DC is that it's exceedingly ineffective for the case of the revolution. You see, in this system, everybody everywhere (within the Revolutionaries) will be working to accomplish different things at different times, and trying to make everyone else do it. This not only creates conflict within the revolution, but makes it much easier for the capitalists to crush us.

First of all, you need to read this thread for the historical context behind the need for DC (versus local circles that would be prone to reformism and localist fetishes) and possible modern alternatives (versus modern "circles"/sects):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html

Pay particular attention to my "mathematical" last post for the modern alternative.

[EricTheRed]

Fucking christ...

[Crest]

These don't follow. How is it not democratic, etc...? Do you not agree that things should be discussed thoroughly, voted on, and then adhered to?
Ok, perhaps what I said was a small exaggeration/a small bit inspecific. It's not what I consider democracy... To me, representative democracy is not democracy. Grassroots democracy (from little I know about it) is not democracy. Democratic Centralism is, as well, not democracy.

First of all, you need to read this thread for the historical context behind the need for DC (versus local circles that would be prone to reformism and localist fetishes) and possible modern alternatives (versus modern "circles"/sects):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html

Pay particular attention to my "mathematical" last post for the modern alternative.
K, I'm not intirely familiar with the politics that lead up to the Russian Civil War... I'll go ahead and read that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, the "circle" politics that I speak of go as far back as 1900. ;)

[AGITprop]

Ok, perhaps what I said was a small exaggeration/a small bit inspecific. It's not what I consider democracy... To me, representative democracy is not democracy. Grassroots democracy (from little I know about it) is not democracy. Democratic Centralism is, as well, not democracy.

So what in Christ's name is democracy? For a party to effectively function and accomplish goals, the democracy needs to be centralized. It is the will of the many imposed on the few, but guess what?! We'll never accomplish a revolution if everyone is off doing their own individualistic thing.

This brings me an anecdote. Tonight I was at a discussion grouped organized by my branch and we held this in a public office space funded by a local University. Anyway, we are the only Marxist group who work in there, whereas the rest of the groups are... individual leftists, most notably anarchist cells who plaster the entire room with 10,000 posters for 10, 000 different causes. As we were finishing up, a prominent anarchist figurehead in our city came up to us and mentioned that the annual anarchist book fair was coming up and that we should show up if we wanted ' a different perspective on revolutionary tradition'. One of my comrades then asked whether or not it would be possible for us to set up a small table to sell a variety of our literature. And the response was of course NO, because we are authoritarian Marxists who support Lenin's big bad authoritarian Democratic Centralism. Now there was no point to me telling this, only to share as I found it quite entertaining. Who was exercising their authority now eh? By refusing to let us sell our literature. Not very democratic if you ask me.

[Crest]

So what in Christ's name is democracy?
Utopian, at best. True democracy is unity of action, but it, unlike Democratic Centralism, is also unity of thought. It does no enforce it's will. The people all unanimously agree 100% of the time in real democracy. True rule by the people. It's a even more far-fetched and utopian... utopia than actual Communism... (Despite the fact that I'm a communist, I can't help but agree with some socialists and some anarchists, and even some capitalists that that's saying something.)

For a party to effectively function and accomplish goals, the democracy needs to be centralized. It is the will of the many imposed on the few, but guess what?! We'll never accomplish a revolution if everyone is off doing their own individualistic thing.
Again, perhaps I don't very well understand the system, but all the soviet councils doing their own thing won't accomplish much either. In fact, as opposed to how it would go with individualistic goals, Centralazation weakens the revolution in well developed countries, because the capitalists will take our disputes and turn them against us, very likely crushing the revolution... It will still be difficult if each person is supporting what they wish, but it's the lesser of two evils.


This brings me an anecdote. Tonight I was at a discussion grouped organized by my branch and we held this in a public office space funded by a local University. Anyway, we are the only Marxist group who work in there, whereas the rest of the groups are... individual leftists, most notably anarchist cells who plaster the entire room with 10,000 posters for 10, 000 different causes. As we were finishing up, a prominent anarchist figurehead in our city came up to us and mentioned that the annual anarchist book fair was coming up and that we should show up if we wanted ' a different perspective on revolutionary tradition'. One of my comrades then asked whether or not it would be possible for us to set up a small table to sell a variety of our literature. And the response was of course NO, because we are authoritarian Marxists who support Lenin's big bad authoritarian Democratic Centralism. Now there was no point to me telling this, only to share as I found it quite entertaining. Who was exercising their authority now eh? By refusing to let us sell our literature. Not very democratic if you ask me.
Not very democratic at all. Out of line, actually. They can't invite you and refuse to let you sell your books.

[KC]

Ok, perhaps what I said was a small exaggeration/a small bit inspecific. It's not what I consider democracy... To me, representative democracy is not democracy.

Democratic Centralism has nothing to do with "representative democracy". It merely means that there is a period of discussion on an issue, everyone votes, and everyone supports the outcome of that vote until such a time as the vote is changed.

As for it not being democracy, you're just wrong. It is democracy by its very definition.


Utopian, at best. True democracy is unity of action, but it, unlike Democratic Centralism, is also unity of thought.

If everyone agrees on something then there is no need to resort to democracy. That's consensus, not democracy, and if you want to wait for everyone to have consensus on every issue then you're never going to get anything accomplished.


The people all unanimously agree 100% of the time in real democracy.

In a situation where everyone agrees, there is no need for democracy to exist. Democracy is a means of dealing with situations in which there are disagreement; if there is no disagreement, there is no need to resort to voting, majority rule, etc... In fact, there's no reason to resort to anything at all.


Centralazation weakens the revolution in well developed countries, because the capitalists will take our disputes and turn them against us

The entire point of democratic centralism is to have unity on issues regardless of disagreements and therefore to avoid disputes.

[AGITprop]

Crest, perhaps you should read 'What is to be done' by Lenin. It gives a very good explanation of how to organize a party and what exactly democratic centralism is. Your idea of democracy is a fallacy. What you are thinking of is called consensus and it is a revolutionary concept. It's what a lot but not all anarchists use in decision making and is extremely ineffective.

[Crest]

Yes... of course...


Well, the only problem is, I hate reading online and I don't know where I can find that in real life...

Meh, maybe I'll read it one little bit at a time...

[AGITprop]

Well you can read it online at Marxists.org, I believe.
Also, Im sure if you went to a local bookstore they may have it or be willing to order it for you.

I want to encourage you and all other comrades to read as it is of utmost importance. It is the best way to absorb the ideas and get the whole picture.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i definetely agree with forming a large following of leftism within the US, so you got my support comrade, what ever i can do to help.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I propose Federation of United Revolutionary Left. (FURL) You need to gather at least 10 comrade in your areas and it is city,state counts as a vote.

[AGITprop]

As unrealistic as this is, I'd like to know. Will the party be run by democratic centralism? If yes, prepare for all the anarchists to win every vote :) They're just everywhere. Oh wait, they think its authoritarian. I guess no anarchists in centralized democracy. Lets hope that it is :)

[Partisano]

Maybe there will be no centralised democracy.

[Forward Union]

Unrealistic?

http://www.conventionoftheleft.org.uk/

[non-vio-resist]

As I've discussed in previous threads, I am a proponent of organizing a new meeting and/or organization with the aims of creating a united left in the United States.

My preliminary thoughts will be to invite anyone who has a revolutionary left ideology. I'm hesitant about allowing reformists, though they may have their place. One of the other goals would be to address past philosophical and historical issues with the aim of creating a positive mutual understanding that is conducive to creating a united leftist opposition in the US, where it is lacking severely.

Of course, I don't want to do this alone, so any support and help in organizing this I could get here or anywhere else would help. I don't have much experience in organizing, much less organizing a large event.

I'm supposing a separate forum (independent of this forum and others) could be set up to discuss the fine points, but if this is something that you'd be interested in, drop me a line or post in this thread or whatever...


i hope u want to include us anarchists! as others have said, it's important that communists, anarchists, socialists, etc. come together to oppose imperialism/capitalism (synonymous, really). i think we should all view each other as comrades. the fragmented left only leads to corruption by ultra-right propagandists like the alex jones crowd. this movement, unfortunately, is gaining momentum. i think many of them mean well but they are only a tool of the right wing, corporations, and nationalists. the left needs to be united not just to oppose capitalism and imperialism, but also to actually have a national and worldwide network. i would, absolutely, be interested in participating is something like this.

[non-vio-resist]

As unrealistic as this is, I'd like to know. Will the party be run by democratic centralism? If yes, prepare for all the anarchists to win every vote :) They're just everywhere. Oh wait, they think its authoritarian. I guess no anarchists in centralized democracy. Lets hope that it is :)

i don't know if ur joking, but if not, ur simply adding to the fragmentation of the left in the u.s. commies and anarchists should be united. our differences are tactical compared to the imperialists running the world. i consider commies comrades. i think it's time we stop bickering on the left.

[EricTheRed]

i hope u want to include us anarchists! as others have said, it's important that communists, anarchists, socialists, etc. come together to oppose imperialism/capitalism (synonymous, really). i think we should all view each other as comrades. the fragmented left only leads to corruption by ultra-right propagandists like the alex jones crowd. this movement, unfortunately, is gaining momentum. i think many of them mean well but they are only a tool of the right wing, corporations, and nationalists. the left needs to be united not just to oppose capitalism and imperialism, but also to actually have a national and worldwide network. i would, absolutely, be interested in participating is something like this.

I'd love to include anyone who is a revolutionary socialist. Non-sectarian anarchists are welcome if they think they can get along with Marxists or other socialists - and vice versa.

[EricTheRed]

Unrealistic?

http://www.conventionoftheleft.org.uk/

Great link. Thanks.

[non-vio-resist]

I'd love to include anyone who is a revolutionary socialist. Non-sectarian anarchists are welcome if they think they can get along with Marxists or other socialists - and vice versa.

anyone who is sectarian on the left is just enabling the fragmentation which ultimately makes the left weak. unfortunately, there are lots of sectarian anarchists, marxists, etc. i'm trying to look past that and form an alliance.

[chegitz guevara]

Fuck the leaders. If the comrades of the various groups push this from below, the leaders will follow. This is our movement every bit as much as it is theirs. If this is what we want, we should make it happen. That's how socialism works. That's how democracy works. And if our leaders won't go along, they were never leaders to begin with.

[Dros]

This will

a.) never happen

and

b.) never should happen.

I'm gonna get a lot of shit for this but see my "sectarian" thread in politics for details why.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I suggest you link up with an American Marxist comrade who is trying to create a "Social-Proletocratic" organization:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3208441&postcount=4
http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3209918&postcount=30

Alternatively, you could call the organization "United Social Labour":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html

[chegitz guevara]

Utopian, at best. True democracy is unity of action, but it, unlike Democratic Centralism, is also unity of thought. It does no enforce it's will. The people all unanimously agree 100% of the time in real democracy.

That sounds like a nightmare, and I want no part of it.