Dual membership as a weapon against left sectarianism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

After watching a YouTube discussion by John Throne on left sectarianism (which, in a thoroughly MATERIALIST opinion, is modern CIRCLE-ism), is the possibility of discussing dual membership, triple membership, etc. in the disparate revolutionary-leftist organizations the first step towards rebuilding, especially along the lines of the international proletariat's first vanguard party (no, NOT the Bolsheviks or even the RSDLP :p )?

[Dicktator]

...is the possibility of discussing dual membership, triple membership, etc. in the disparate revolutionary-leftist organizations the first step towards rebuilding, ...

Rebuilding what?

There are and may always be persons attracted to leftist orgs based on the personalities of the leading members or similarly flimsy reasons rather than the politics of the org. It is disturbing in one sense that so many can be manipulated by crackpot leaders who take advantage of this to swell their party ranks with zombie-like followers. On the other hand, crackpot orgs such as the CPUSA and the Spactacist League in the U.S., are like zombie magnets, and I am kind of happy that they are there to trap emotionally unstable people who I don't want anywhere near my org.

The best we can do at this time in history is to perfect our party program and to recruit cadre who view it as superior to the others. Dual membership, if you can even get that---most orgs won't allow it ---seems like a waste of time to me. Sectarianism stems from crackpot ideas, and weak leaders who want to isolate their zombie-like followers, like we see happen in cults.

Note: Entering another org, in the usual way that Troskyists use the term, is quite different than what I take you to mean when you say dual membership. I am not automatically against entry.

[Led Zeppelin]

After watching a YouTube discussion by John Throne on left sectarianism (which, in a thoroughly MATERIALIST opinion, is modern CIRCLE-ism), is the possibility of discussing dual membership, triple membership, etc. in the disparate revolutionary-leftist organizations the first step towards rebuilding, especially along the lines of the international proletariat's first vanguard party (no, NOT the Bolsheviks or even the RSDLP :p )?

There is nothing wrong with dual or triple etc. membership in my opinion, as long as the member in question is a conciliator and uses their double membership for the purposes of unity only (not to "spy" on other organizations for example).

Try convincing those sects to allow you to have a double membership though, paranoia is way too rampant for that.

[Holden Caulfield]

it is fine, the disunity amongst the left is a plague and always has been, and being a double member is a way of bridging these gaps and pulling us together,

it annoys me that antifa as an organisation are anarchist as a rule, is my hate of fascism any less than theirs because i believe in a state? (no!) so why put such politics into a single cause movement? there is no reason at all to do such things,

just a pet peeve of mine

[Dicktator]

it is fine, the disunity amongst the left is a plague and always has been, and being a double member is a way of bridging these gaps and pulling us together...

Most parties/orgs have different perspectives and opposing programs. How do you think that becoming a member in multiple leftist parties can bridge gaps and pull us all together?

[Holden Caulfield]

learn how similar we are, unity in action, etc

look at RWB everybody from all ends of the leftist spectrum will have people there, i the Trotskyist will work with Anarchists freely for the commom cause

[Dicktator]

learn how similar we are, unity in action, etc

look at RWB everybody from all ends of the leftist spectrum will have people there, i the Trotskyist will work with Anarchists freely for the commom cause

You are describing a united front. And, I can learn how we might be similar by reading the other group's program and documents. Why should I join the other group if I can accomplish these two goals without joining?

Various leftist groups exist because some people have different ideas than others, and they usually think of their own ideas as being superior. I cannot think of two groups in the world today who are so similar that they have no reason to maintain seperate orgs, can you?

[Rawthentic]

I don't think we should be attempting to copy parties that are nearly one hundred years old. That has been one of the problems with the ICM: dogmatism. In the 1930s, Communist Parties sprung up all over the world. The problem was that they were modeled almost identically after the Bolshevik Party, including the American one. This is wrong. Even their politics and ideology were the same, considering that they operated in such different conditions.

Take for example, the RCP. They say that because the Bolsheviks made revolution around a "central newspaper" that that is how we make revolution today. Incorrect. It is unappreciative of the vast technology that we have and the ability to use it. They have a website, but for their newspaper. Newspaper use is in decline (obviously) and we need to catch up and learn to use new methods, although I dont mean to imply that newspapers are utterly useless.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" -Mao

[MarxSchmarx]

I cannot think of two groups in the world today who are so similar that they have no reason to maintain seperate orgs, can you?The standard isn't "no reason" but should be "no compelling reason". I think there are plenty of groups that are essentially on the same page. For instance, I think this is true for the bulk of Trotskyites, as well as for most Maoist groups. Why would one join one group over the other? Why are some groups so insistent on this or that hair-splitting point? Sure, one can disagree about the wisdom of calling a country that no longer exists a "degenerate worker's state" versus "state capitalism", the merits and demerits of "platformism" versus "syndicalism", but are these really worth the huge duplication of effort that takes place across the left? This is especially true of the enormous time wasted trying to convince people that capitalism is shit. People aren't stupid. They get it. So why have the umpteenth news paper salesperson clamoring about the horrors of Iraq?

[Pogue]

Comrades must enter every leftist party and organisation there is and strive for unity. Only a united movement can begin the fight back against capitalism and fascism. Division means we are so weak that most don't know we exist - thats when people start voting for fascism, thinking its the alternative to capitalism, when in truth, its a rotten and evil ideology which needs to be destroyed.

Our complacency and divisions have been our bane from the beginning. When it comes down to it, the 'differences' between a Marx-Leninist and an Anarchist and a Trotskyist do not not matter - we are all opposed to capitalism and fascism, sexism and homophobia, all of those evils which oppress people in the here and now.

If we don't wake up and unite, things will continue to get worse. Us Socialists have the answer, but we need to be united and strong in our party's and organisations so people can see this.

Socialists of the world - unite!

[professorchaos]

I agree with the need to strive for broad leftist unity. Across the leftist spectrum, from anarchists to "anti-revisionists", we all have generally the same goals and a broad left movement would make our presence known.

[Module]

JR, I think so. I don't necessarily think that this dual/triple membership would/should be specifically about 'unity' so much as being a part of organisations that you feel being comfortable being a part of on each of their own merits. I think this sort of thing has the capacity to improve constructive criticism within the movement, and, as mentioned, quell sectarianism to a greater degree.

I do think it's important that organisations don't see themselves as specific exclusive political groups with certain specific sets of aims and certain specific membership, but part of the entire socialist movement.
As such, I think that dual membership can act as a weapon against left sectarianism, by breaking down this feeling of exclusivity within organisations, and improving more casual political communication between organisations.