-ism's

[Trystan]

I am a Communist. As a Communist I support the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are commonly owned. I am not a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, Maoist, etc. I would not even call myself a Marxist (though Marx is a man who a greatly admire)

Now Marx teaches us that before communism can be achieved, we must pass though a stage of socialism. Lenin believed that a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should oversee this period of transition and make major socialist overhauls in preparation for communism. There are other approaches to this - the anarchists would have us destroy the state immediately after a sufficient workers movement has sprung up and the syndicates are able to resume production etc.

I see people on here saying that 'we must do this' or 'we must do that'. 'Anarchy is the best ', 'Stalinism is the best', 'Marxist-Leninism is the best'.

I will take the example of Britain and British Left Parties -there is no major, revolutionary workers movement, no left party of any considerable size. So doesn't all this talk about how we're going to do it (i.e. achieve communism, which is pretty much what we all want anarchists and all) seem a little bit premature?

Would it not be better to cross that bridge when we came to it, going through a process of trial and error and by looking at what would be best at the time (when it comes) ?

Discuss?

[Yehuda Stern]

I will take the example of Britain and British Left Parties -there is no major, revolutionary workers movement, no left party of any considerable size. So doesn't all this talk about how we're going to do it (i.e. achieve communism, which is pretty much what we all want anarchists and all) seem a little bit premature?

The small size of the revolutionary left is unfortunate, but one can argue that exactly because the left had for decades a 'spontaneous' attitude towards the revolution that it remains in this state. We must prepare our theories and organization in advance for the revolution, otherwise we risk getting caught with our pants down. Of course, we must be able to change our course according to how the revolution develops, but this can only be done effectively if we have a base theory to work with.

[OI OI OI]

going through a process of trial and error and by looking at what would be best at the time (when it comes) ?
The trial and error theory can be proved catastrophic in a revolutionary situation.
During the revolution the layers of the proletariat that have studied revolutionary history will have learnt from the revolutions that failed or succeeded and will lead the more backwards layers of the proletariat. Theres no time for trial and error in a revolution. There is no time for that. One error means alot of deaths. A few errors means failure of the revolution.


As about the other part of your post I do not agree. We cannot work together and there is no use of working together as there will be constant disagreements on every little thing which will make work very counter productive. All the sects or parties of the left are basically nuclei around which the workers will concentrate in a revolutionary situation. Which nuclei will it be that depends on each organization's theory, tactics and traditions while the subjective factor of gifted individuals can play a role. Now if any of these nuclei become the vanguard in a revolutionary situation will attract many of the other leftists so there will be an almost pan-left organization. The sects that will remain will simply be reactionary and probably no-one will care about them. They will slowly die on their own.


Before you can describe yourself as a Maoist, Anarchist, Trotskyist or Stalinist you have to read extensively and have a lot of conversations with comrades . You will have to realize on your own which -ism has the best tactics, theory, ideas and tradition and which -ism will be the most influential in the workers movement.

Personaly after a lot of research I ve decided which -ism I agree with and which organization of that -ism has the best analysis. It took a lot of work!

[Decolonize The Left]

I see people on here saying that 'we must do this' or 'we must do that'. 'Anarchy is the best ', 'Stalinism is the best', 'Marxist-Leninism is the best'.

I will take the example of Britain and British Left Parties -there is no major, revolutionary workers movement, no left party of any considerable size. So doesn't all this talk about how we're going to do it (i.e. achieve communism, which is pretty much what we all want anarchists and all) seem a little bit premature?

Would it not be better to cross that bridge when we came to it, going through a process of trial and error and by looking at what would be best at the time (when it comes) ?

Discuss?

There are different types of revolutionaries. There are lifestylists, who wish to live according to the values of whatever -ism they support. There are organizers, who go out to the working class and attempt to spread information and organize the proletariat. There are intellectuals, who theorize as to the best way to do X, how Y may come about, and debate the intricacies of various theories. All of these are necessary for the revolution, and each contributes in their own way: Lifestylists influence those they come into contact with; organizers influence all to whom they speak; theorists shape the guiding principles and philosophies which form the ideological aspect of the revolution.

In terms of solidarity, all anarchist and communist (and all the little differences in between) are working towards the same goal: a classless, stateless, egalitarian society based around the maxim "to each according to need, from each according to ability." That is what unities all revolutionaries, no matter how much we bicker at any given time. It is the fundamental base which cannot be broken.

There is no reason to fear factions breaking the revolution. If it is indeed the revolution we speak about, the working class will speak for themselves and the different branches of radical theory will be forced to compromise in order to achieve the goal they all agree upon.

- August

[Wanted Man]

Before you can describe yourself as a Maoist, Anarchist, Trotskyist or Stalinist you have to read extensively and have a lot of conversations with comrades . You will have to realize on your own which -ism has the best tactics, theory, ideas and tradition and which -ism will be the most influential in the workers movement.

Personaly after a lot of research I ve decided which -ism I agree with and which organization of that -ism has the best analysis. It took a lot of work!
It doesn't work like that. As if everyone needs to devote themselves to long ascetic study before making up their minds about where they stand. As if knowledge is like the dialectical "law of transformation": you build it up for a long time, and then, suddenly, 'poof!', you have enough knowledge to call yourself X or Y. If you hold to this, it's your problem.

But it's ridiculous to suggest that no cooperation should be made in any case until a revolutionary situation. It is unfortunate that the standard case is still dozens of grouplets all focusing on their own little pet subjects, almost systematically avoiding contact. This is being improved by those who are willing, but the rest will probably just be isolated. No matter how strongly its members believe that they will magically turn into the vanguard one day, and that all the other groups will just join them or die.

On the other hand, you also have people who say: "Oh, the left is not united at this point. I don't want to affiliate myself with any particular group" and simply don't join the anti-capitalist movement altogether for this reason. If there is a movement near you which fights capitalism and whose basic principles you agree with, then why not join, or at least sympathise? It's not as if it's some sort of irrevertible life choice, as if you have to swear eternal loyalty to one dead man or another.

[OI OI OI]

It doesn't work like that. As if everyone needs to devote themselves to long ascetic study before making up their minds about where they stand. As if knowledge is like the dialectical "law of transformation": you build it up for a long time, and then, suddenly, 'poof!', you have enough knowledge to call yourself X or Y. If you hold to this, it's your problem.

I never said that. But you have to do a certain amount of research on your own. Personally I don't want to be "guided" by "experts" which in most organizations they fill you with lies about many things. Through studying before I know now which group is better for me. I don't want to dedicate my time and effort for a group that will go nowhere , such as the RCP in my area for example.


But it's ridiculous to suggest that no cooperation should be made in any case until a revolutionary situation. It is unfortunate that the standard case is still dozens of grouplets all focusing on their own little pet subjects, almost systematically avoiding contact. This is being improved by those who are willing, but the rest will probably just be isolated. No matter how strongly its members believe that they will magically turn into the vanguard one day, and that all the other groups will just join them or die.
Hegel once remarked that " When we want to see an oak tree with all its vigour of trunk, its spreading branches, and mass of foliage, we are not satisfied to be shown an acorn instead" Yet within the emryo of a healthy plant is contained all the genetic information necessary for its future development. It is no different with the development of a revolutionary tendency.

There should be cooperation. Of course. But not having the doors and windows open in the organization for anyone to join on a vague platform. I am a Leninist and I believe that in a non-revolutionary situation we are doing party building and shouldn't accept just anyone on a vague platform but recruit people which agree or have prospects to agree with the party line which is not vague but precise. (Tactics, methods, ideas, theory, perspectives). That is what Lenin did with the Bolsheviks . Of course the relationship between openness of the organization and objective conditions are dialecticaly related and not at all static. In a revolutionary situation the organization has to open doors and windows wide open for anyone to join.
This is the Leninist methods. For now we need cadres and a correct theory, perspectives, methods, tactics, ideas not numbers.
Comrade, this is my opinion as a Leninist. I can't accept yours as you can't accept mine so there is no point arguing.


On the other hand, you also have people who say: "Oh, the left is not united at this point. I don't want to affiliate myself with any particular group" and simply don't join the anti-capitalist movement altogether for this reason. If there is a movement near you which fights capitalism and whose basic principles you agree with, then why not join, or at least sympathise? It's not as if it's some sort of irrevertible life choice, as if you have to swear eternal loyalty to one dead man or another.


In most cases there is an organization that has a vague anti capitalist platform and a mass basis or a workers party(reformist) that those people can join. Either way if someone cares about numbers he/she has a low theoretical level and will find no problems with all that exists now (workers organizations whichever they are).
But a revolutionary party should be strict in membership and the left should be divided in my opinion.
A leftist organization with a vague platform should exist however uniting those parties in order to attract people as you correctly stated but this "alliance" should only be loose while each organization keeps their independence and freely criticizes the other..

In cases where the proletariat has an organization of its own I believe that an organization should work inside that party while retaining its independence and not changing its views(opportunism)