Was Marx wrong on sectarianism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

"So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere was repeated within the International. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain itself within the newly achieved form."

--Karl Marx, "Letter to Friedrich Bolte in New York," 1871.



A couple of months ago I read this quote again and again, and it really bothered me that outright circle-ists were using this quote to justify their modern circle-ism (which for some reason reminds me so much of the non-process spontaneist arguments, in that somehow the sects will magically disappear, with remaining sects being treated with contempt by a confident workers' movement). Therefore, I will posit this hard question: was Marx wrong in being too binary (yet (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html) again (http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html) :glare: )?

Isn't it possible for all "sects" (read: circles) to already be reactionary before the working class is "ripe for an independent historic movement" (ie, the notion of ripeness isn't necessarily tied to "sectarianism")?

Anything But Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anything-but-marxism-t78094/index.html)

[mikelepore]

I think this is related to: "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." [Communist Manifesto] Marx seems to have believed that the only need is to get the working class to overcome its inertia and begin moving, and everything will fit together automatically -- the workers of the world will spontaneously have a big convention at which we will determine the right goal and the right strategy. Looking back at the past 100+ years, we now know that there are many things that can go wrong. Some goals aren't usable, and some strategies aren't usable. People can get stuck thinking that liberal reforms are radical, or thinking that the installation of a lifetime-appointed all-powerful leader is their liberation, or their anger about economic crises can lead to fascism instead of socialism. But Marx couldn't foresee anything going wrong. His teleology had its basis in Hegel: human history glides in a track toward the one necessary resolution of everything. Today the "sects" represent the fact that we know better, that it's not enough just to be "against the existing social and political order of things". People sense intuitively that everything has to be "done right", and yet they disagree about how to do it. People realize that most strategies won't work, but there has to be a strategy somewhere that will work. Forming sects reflects the common search for it.

[More Fire for the People]

I think it is very questionable to take a single quote from Marx and try and develop a worldview from it. Instead, we can look at Marx's practice. While Marx was uber-sectarian towards anarchists and distrustful of most circles within the IWA but in practice he stood up for a unity of sects as a developing force of the working class. Each sect posits it's own code & it's own interpretations and the real reactionary position is to think that only one sect is correct qua being a sect.

[gilhyle]

I think Marx was correct,I see nothing wrong with his observation. Sects are a product of the inactivity of the mass of the class; they disappear, are marginalised or attempt to find a place within the mass party once it exists.....I dont see the problem.

That there are periods of reaction, that the level of organisation of the mass party can rise and fall....all that is a given, but doesnt contradict the point.

[Module]

I think I agree with you, Jacob.
However I don't see any sort of solution to this problem ... and it's possibly a pointless disagreement to make in that sense. As Hopscotch Anthill said, there are naturally going to be 'sects', and different interpretations, so in that sense I think the most 'reactionary' they can be is in failing to have serious theoretical discussion with those that they don't necessarily agree with, but should be working together with, or refusing to work with those altogether.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=10073)

[Marsella]

We aren't sectarian enough.

Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and all over scum fucks should be actively fought against by the working class. I expect many of them will have to be hanged because they represent a direct threat to worker's power. I won't be crying.

They represent nothing but the most severe reaction and worshipping of past failures and leaders.

[Module]

We aren't sectarian enough.

Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and all over scum fucks should be actively fought against by the working class. I expect many of them will have to be hanged because they represent a direct threat to worker's power. I won't be crying.

They represent nothing but the most severe reaction and worshipping of past failures and leaders.
So all you'll have to do now is hope that the workers agree with you (anarchist?) specifically, and not them, right?

Because that opinion could be held by either side - 'those who I disagree with should be hanged'.
You'll just have to hope that, 'even though we may have similar ideas in some respects, considering our differences in other respects which make us both want nothing to do with eachother, us Anarchists will specifically and individually be able to convince the working class of our politics and positions, which includes a complete rejection of fellow leftist 'sects''.

[Marsella]

its not a process of agreeing of this or [email protected] leader to follow, but specifically their actions as a class.

if they liberate themselves under the banner of Stalinism so be it, as long as that they emancipate themselves as a class and set up a system which gives them power.

of course, i find it v.unlikeyl that they would do so, considering that stalinism is despised by most workers in the west, and that the above mentioned ideologies have historically resulted in workers gaining anything but liberation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As if workers without socialist theory (no "combination of socialism and the working-class movement") can fully liberate themselves :rolleyes:

[Module]

its not a process of agreeing of this or [email protected] leader to follow, but specifically their actions as a class.

if they liberate themselves under the banner of Stalinism so be it, as long as that they emancipate themselves as a class and set up a system which gives them power.

of course, i find it v.unlikeyl that they would do so, considering that stalinism is despised by most workers in the west, and that the above mentioned ideologies have historically resulted in workers gaining anything but liberation.
So who will be doing the 'hanging', then, and of whom, if that is the case?
Why is it that you think, then, that Anarchists shouldn't work with Leninists, or Trotskyists and so on, despite the fact that, at the moment, they're essentially trying to do the same thing - to bring the working class to this 'maturity', after which proletarian revolution can occour?

Edit: Don't forget about me, Jacob Richter!! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html)

[Bilan]

^^^ As if workers without socialist theory (no "combination of socialism and the working-class movement") can fully liberate themselves :rolleyes:


That's not what she's suggesting...more that, Stalinists, Trots, etc. have historically been betrayers of the working class; that they have not achieved, or led, the working class to liberation, but done the opposite.

It's not being suggested that 'lack of theory' will achieve emancipation, or anything like that.

Stay on topic, Richter. ;)

[Bilan]

So who will be doing the 'hanging', then, and of whom, if that is the case?
Why is it that you think, then, that Anarchists shouldn't work with Leninists, or Trotskyists and so on, despite the fact that, at the moment, they're essentially trying to do the same thing - to bring the working class to this 'maturity', after which proletarian revolution can occour?

Edit: Don't forget about me, Jacob Richter!! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html)

It would be simply be that their methods clash.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Des, I responded. :)

[chimx]

Isn't it possible for all "sects" (read: circles) to already be reactionary before the working class is "ripe for an independent historic movement" (ie, the notion of ripeness isn't necessarily tied to "sectarianism")?

So you are arguing that sects were not historically justifiable? Perhaps in certain circumstances, but I can't imagine how this could be universally true.

[Marsella]

^^^ As if workers without socialist theory (no "combination of socialism and the working-class movement") can fully liberate themselves :rolleyes:

What do you mean by 'socialist theory?'

If you mean endless mental masturbation over Ben Seattle then no - that is quite immaterial to worker's emancipation.

The only 'socialist theory' workers need is a general understanding that private property and capitalist relations must be done away.

Sorry for making useless theoreticians like yourself irrelevant.

But you always have been.


So who will be doing the 'hanging', then, and of whom, if that is the case?

Workers, and to anyone whom is a material threat to working class power.

[Module]

It would be simply be that their methods clash.
But that's not exactly a satisfying reason.
As I said, the isolation of different 'sects' due to differing methods isn't at all a productive thing to do. If somebody works towards 'bringing the working class to maturity', then why are their theoretical differences reason not to try and work together with them?
It's counterproductive sectarianism - if we were to work together we would be a lot more effective in 'bringing the working class to maturity' than if we were to do it as isolated theoretical 'sects'.
So again, as I said, I think the only reactionary sectarianism is that which is not willing to discuss, and resolve differences within the revolutionary left, at least as best as possible.


Workers, and to anyone whom is a material threat to working class power.And you, as an anarchist, can preemptively decide who that includes, can you?

[Bilan]

But that's not exactly a satisfying reason.
As I said, the isolation of different 'sects' due to differing methods isn't at all a productive thing to do. If somebody works towards 'bringing the working class to maturity', then why are their theoretical differences reason not to try and work together with them?

I don't think isolation is the right word. The purpose of the both groups is to organize the working class, but the ways in which organizing manifests differs between the two - one into a 'political party' the other through either revolutionary unions (a-s) or organizations/federations (a-c). Thus, neither is isolated from the struggle, but stands within it in different places.

Working together when the theoretical differences are based on practicalities, rather than analysis (so far as - both agree that capitalism must be 'destroyed' [as such] and that we must struggle towards a stateless classless society) - essentially that, the way they organize against, or for, different things, differs in a way that working together will often clash, because the means and ends are different (albeit, often similar).

The biggest example is between anarchists and Leninists. The reasons why this would clash when struggling for something (like communism) is evident, because the methods are different.
When struggling against something, like capitalism, we're still struggling for something, so its again going to be difficult - particularly when you have the two extremes of each (i.e. insurrectionary anarchists and reformist socialists demonstrating against X, the ways in which the demonstration [or resistance] should be carried out on will, unlikely, reach a consensus, and will probably clash - e.g. G20)




So again, as I said, I think the only reactionary sectarianism is that which is not willing to discuss, and resolve differences within the revolutionary left, at least as best as possible.

Agreed. But 'discussion' does not mean 'working with'. The theoretical, practical, and even historical clashes (of which, Leninist-types seem to masturbate over) will likely clash - and not without reason.

[Dystisis]

We aren't sectarian enough.

Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and all over scum fucks should be actively fought against by the working class. I expect many of them will have to be hanged because they represent a direct threat to worker's power. I won't be crying.

They represent nothing but the most severe reaction and worshipping of past failures and leaders.No.

"Leninists" does not worship anything. As opposed to most anarchists, they do read things written by people now dead, but I only wish the dope smoking type anarchist would realize sooner than later that this does not equal worshipping.

I am not a leninist nor am I really an anarchist, but I know people that the "anarchists" on this board would classify "leninist". All they want is a marxist revolution, they don't give a shit about who is the political leader after the revolution, etc. Because frankly that doesn't matter compared to the challenge of bringing down wage slavery and the thousand years of oppression the ruling class has offered normal people.

So to summarize: Either join the revolution or shut the fuck up with your holier than thou anarcho-bile.

[Marsella]

No.

"Leninists" does not worship anything. As opposed to most anarchists, they do read things written by people now dead, but I only wish the dope smoking type anarchist would realize sooner than later that this does not equal worshipping.

I am not a leninist nor am I really an anarchist, but I know people that the "anarchists" on this board would classify "leninist". All they want is a marxist revolution, they don't give a shit about who is the political leader after the revolution, etc. Because frankly that doesn't matter compared to the challenge of bringing down wage slavery and the thousand years of oppression the ruling class has offered normal people.

So to summarize: Either join the revolution or shut the fuck up with your holier than thou anarcho-bile.

not an anarchist.

and there is no such thing as a 'marxist revolution.'

and yeah, most will care about which leader is in power after the revolution - they are hoping that it will be the chairman of their party.

[Luís Henrique]

I think Marx was correct,I see nothing wrong with his observation. Sects are a product of the inactivity of the mass of the class; they disappear, are marginalised or attempt to find a place within the mass party once it exists.....I dont see the problem.

That there are periods of reaction, that the level of organisation of the mass party can rise and fall....all that is a given, but doesnt contradict the point.

It's a given to you and me, but not for those who believe the "readiness" of the proletariat is a direct function of the development of the productive forces. To them, the class must be always advancing in its readiness - which means they will either mistake obvious symptoms of apathy as signs of revolutionary advancement ("the workers do not vote for either party because they are fed up with bourgeois politics"), or re-edit their analysis of capitalist development to show how what we call "capitalism" isn't really truly capitalist capitalism strictly speaking...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

We aren't sectarian enough.

We aren't divided enough, we aren't stupid enough, we aren't weak enough.


Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and all over scum fucks should be actively fought against by the working class.This is a declaration of impotence.

The working class isn't minding your petty sectarian bickering. At all. It is fighting for its survival, while the "left" pretty much ignores its struggle.

What you mean is that you would like to "hang" those sectarians yourself, but you can't, so you dream about "the working class" fulfilling your desires for you.


I expect many of them will have to be hanged because they represent a direct threat to worker's power.I expect that the workers' power must be strong enough to not be threatened by Maoist/Trotskyist/anarchist sects at all. I also expect the workers' power to get rid of political executions as soon as possible, and to perform the inevitable ones by less barbarical methods than the gallows.


They represent nothing but the most severe reaction and worshipping of past failures and leaders.They represent the miserable state of our class struggle.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

So you are arguing that sects were not historically justifiable? Perhaps in certain circumstances, but I can't imagine how this could be universally true.

I'm not saying that (that would be reductionist ;) ). I am saying, however, that there are times wherein workers are NOT "ripe for an independent historic movement," and yet the existing sects have already been rendered reactionary.

The sectarianism in the early 90s was justifiable; the circle-ism now is NOT. For the circle-ists to quote Marx to justify their immaturity (and their ignorance of the SPD's history) leaves me no choice but to attack binary elements of Marx's thinking... again.

[gilhyle]

For the circle-ists to quote Marx to justify their immaturity (and their ignorance of the SPD's history) leaves me no choice but to attack binary elements of Marx's thinking... again.

You know this doesnt follow, unless their quotations are an accurate reflection of his thinking - which they clearly arent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Even so, gilhyle, I do think there is a transitory period that I mentioned above, wherein the circles have been rendered reactionary long before the maturity of the working class. :(