Dawn of a New Organization

[TheFern]

I have been discussing an idea of mine with several politically radical friends of mine lately, and would like to share it with you. I doubt it's original, but I don't know anybody who's discussed this.

I often step back and look at the left and what we've become.... Marxist-Leninists hating Trotskyists, Anarchists pitted against Communists, Stalinists and Maoists going at it like cats and dogs, and in general, group A trying to destroy group A- . What if someone where to create a group that would have no function other than to foster positive communication and coordinate effort between the various sects of the left? No one would have to conform to any specific ideology, dogma, or venerate any specific leader - they would just be required to have the desire to change the world in a radical way. An example would be to make Trotskyists and Leninists "friends" instead of enemies by showing them that they both want to bring about Communism. Another example would be getting an Anarchist group to teach a Socialist community about "dumpster diving," and in turn the Socialists would teach the Anarchists how to put on an effective clothes drive in their community.

Personally, I think that the left wouldn't even have to unite to win victories - they would just have to stop fighting other leftists and that would be enough. They could go on being foolishly sectarian, as long as there was an end to Left-on-Left crime.

Any comments? I've been playing around with the name "Radicals for Change," and the symbol of the Ram's horn (a symbol for calling the masses awake).

[mykittyhasaboner]

Another example would be getting an Anarchist group to teach a Socialist community about "dumpster diving," and in turn the Socialists would teach the Anarchists how to put on an effective clothes drive in their community.
so anarchists specialize in "dumpster diving"? great job trying to sound anti-sectarian with that pun.

[The Douche]

I feel that there are chasms in our movement that do not need to be bridged. And many ideologies that fall under the term "radical left" that we should abandon.

[Lynx]

Excerpt from http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm


Solidarity means giving support to a stranger on their own terms; so solidarity differs from community because it is extended to strangers, and differs from philanthropy because it is given on the stranger’s own terms, not that of the giver.

Solidarity is the fundamental ethic of the workers’ movement, obliging workers to support the struggles of all other oppressed people.
Comrades should understand the implications of solidarity and then put theory into practice. If the stranger is a comrade, then you are setting sectarianism aside in favor of solidarity, and in hopes of learning from the experience.

[trivas7]

I feel that there are chasms in our movement that do not need to be bridged. And many ideologies that fall under the term "radical left" that we should abandon.
Can you say more? I agree that sectarianism is a good thing. What ideologies specifically would you hope to see abandoned? Gun-banning? Nuclear energy?

[The Douche]

Can you say more? I agree that sectarianism is a good thing. What ideologies specifically would you hope to see abandoned? Gun-banning? Nuclear energy?

Yes I think a number of issues that represent a liberal influence on the movement should be abandoned. Ideas like gun regulation, animal rights, feminism, anti-racism, anti-globalization. While some of these things do have a place in our movement (anti-racism, anti-globalization, the liberation of women) they, as single issue causes, are only a waste of time. Other ideas, like gun bans are just plain anti-communist.

I also am unashamedly secterian in opposition to the less than libertarian sections of "our" movement. (I honestly don't consider 99% of Leninists, and no Maoists or Stalinists of other forms a part of my movement)

And I vehemently disagree with the platformist tradition within anarchism, but am willing to work with them if no other options exist, but not in a platformist organization.

As an anarchist it would be a waste of my time and energy to work with Leninists. So why should I?

[trivas7]

Yes I think a number of issues that represent a liberal influence on the movement should be abandoned. Ideas like gun regulation, animal rights, feminism, anti-racism, anti-globalization. While some of these things do have a place in our movement (anti-racism, anti-globalization, the liberation of women) they, as single issue causes, are only a waste of time. Other ideas, like gun bans are just plain anti-communist.

I also am unashamedly secterian in opposition to the less than libertarian sections of "our" movement. (I honestly don't consider 99% of Leninists, and no Maoists or Stalinists of other forms a part of my movement)

Although I'm a (closet) Leninist of sorts, Bob Avakian of the RCP is one of the few Marxists I admire for being staunchly against single-issue politics and FOR the importance of a Marxism morality and a scientific attitude unencumbered by class ideology. My heart is really anarchist(i.e. Stirnerian, Oscar-Wildean, individualist), but my head is Marxist. And like Thomas Jefferson (and Lenin), if push comes to shove I lead with my head...

[Red Anarchist of Love]

ALL are welcome in the movment of ALL.

[The Douche]

Although I'm a (closet) Leninist of sorts, Bob Avakian of the RCP is one of the few Marxists I admire for being staunchly against single-issue politics and FOR the importance of a Marxism morality and a scientific attitude unencumbered by class ideology. My heart is really anarchist(i.e. Stirnerian, Oscar-Wildean, individualist), but my head is Marxist. And like Thomas Jefferson, I lead with my head...

I don't see how we can call the RCP opposed to single issue politics. The anti-police brutality thing? And them forming the WCW? And thier Mumia group?

These are front groups, granted and I understand the concept of opposing those things in mass organizations, which (in theory) expose people to and eventually (in theory) lead people to communism. But 1) those are single issue organizations and 2) they are ineffective.

I support those causes, but I do so as an anarchist, not as "an anti-war activist" or anti-whatever activist.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

ALL is the movment in which one's takes it apon him or her self and recognizes that ALL mankind is created equal and acts acordingly. this dose away with injustice and inequality and well as gets people of all view to work togeter for the benifit of humanity.

[The Douche]

ALL is the movment in which one's takes it apon him or her self and recognizes that ALL mankind is created equal and acts acordingly. this dose away with injustice and inequality and well as gets people of all view to work togeter for the benifit of humanity.

I'm sorry, what are you talking about?

[Red Anarchist of Love]

demonstrate don't protest that's what i always say

[Big Red]

[quote=cmoney;1236058]These are front groups, granted and I understand the concept of opposing those things in mass organizations, which (in theory) expose people to and eventually (in theory) lead people to communism. But 1) those are single issue organizations and 2) they are ineffective.
quote]

but what if all those single issue organizations all bonded together to form a united front if you will against all those injustices, all specializing in their certain social fields if you will to finnally affectively change said injustices and then some. it seems to me that the biggest clashes within our movement comes from dissagreements on how to achieve our goals (limited government if any at all with communal economics,give or take alot) whether it be reformist and working from within the capitalist government/system to achieve change peacefully or whether it be by more revolutionary direct action policies these too differences seem to be a major dividing line in "the movement" as a whole. why not both? many revolutionary movements also had/have "legitimate" political parties and pacifists alike who work for the same goals just in different ways leading to a broader appeal/ membership base. many differences would have to be dealt with but in the end we have to cut the shit and join forces otherwise there might not be any forces to join up with anymore.

[The Douche]

but what if all those single issue organizations all bonded together to form a united front if you will against all those injustices

Ah, but such a movement does exist! In fact there are two such movements, commonly referred to as the Anarchist movement and the Communist movement. Both ideologies stand for the total liberation of mankind, therefore, in my opinion, neither communists, nor anarchists have the need to create single issue organizations/front groups. Sometimes it may be in our best interests to temporarily work with (but never within) those groups though. For instance, if the nazis are going to stage a rally in your town, I would say its fine for you local anarchist collective/party branch to work alongside of whatever anti-fascist organization, but only on your own (anarchist or communist, revolutionary) terms. And only on the condition that you be totally recognized as a seperate, but supporting entity.


it seems to me that the biggest clashes within our movement comes from dissagreements on how to achieve our goals (limited government if any at all with communal economics,give or take alot) whether it be reformist and working from within the capitalist government/system to achieve change peacefully or whether it be by more revolutionary direct action policies these too differences seem to be a major dividing line in "the movement" as a whole. why not both?

I do not feel that that is the the major division in the movement. While yes, reform/revolution debates do create some division the vast majority of the radical left advocates revolution. The major difference is between libertarians and authoritarians in our movement. And while some people think that should be patched up as much as possible I think the rift between the two sections should only grow larger, until hopefully they are not even considered to be related to one another.


pacifists alike who work for the same goals just in different ways leading to a broader appeal/ membership base. many differences would have to be dealt with but in the end we have to cut the shit and join forces otherwise there might not be any forces to join up with anymore.

No revolutionary movement with a violent element has had pacifists in it, if somebody works with a violent organization they are not a pacifist, they are supporting violence. Simply not engageing in violence doesn't make you a pacifist. Dealt with in the end? Join forces? Sorry, historical precedent has taught me otherwise. I simply refuse to help build a movement whose ideas directly oppose my own.

[Lamanov]

Another example would be getting an Anarchist group to teach a Socialist community about "dumpster diving," and in turn the Socialists would teach the Anarchists how to put on an effective clothes drive in their community.

What!?

[nuisance]

What!?
Yeah, didn't you know we all gets our clothes from bins?

[Led Zeppelin]

No offense but the whole "we don't have an official ideology, anyone can join! Socialism from below!" thing was tried and failed in the 60's and 70's, read this for more on that: Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm)

[TheFern]

First of all, I would like to apologize for offending my Anarchist brothers and sisters with the dumpster diving statement. I used it for two reasons: A) because I'd say out of the roughly 15 or 20 Anarchists I know in my area, they are all very much into it and B) I thought it to be a cleaver metaphor for the ways in which my Anarchist friends excel at trying to live out their principals in this repressive society, and thought it would express my desire for their ideas to spread around. That said I'm not justifying my statement, just clearing up my ignorance and apologizing to you all. Won't happen again.

I still think sectarianism is one of our major downfalls though, because it keeps us focused away from defeating the forces behind the right (our true enemies).

to Led Zepplin: That movement doesn't sound like what I attempted to describe at all. This organization would not try to get all leftists to "join" for "Socialism from below." That is sectarian by nature. The organization I envision would encourage positive communication and cooperation between all (leftist) radical political factions, not a merger of all factions into one super-faction.

I kindly request patience from you all and appreciate all posts and views.... this is my 1st real thread I started :)

[Hit The North]

What would be the aims of your group?


....as long as there was an end to Left-on-Left crime. Is this a problem in Florida?

[trivas7]

What if someone where to create a group that would have no function other than to foster positive communication and coordinate effort between the various sects of the left? No one would have to conform to any specific ideology, dogma, or venerate any specific leader - they would just be required to have the desire to change the world in a radical way. An example would be to make Trotskyists and Leninists "friends" instead of enemies by showing them that they both want to bring about Communism. Another example would be getting an Anarchist group to teach a Socialist community about "dumpster diving," and in turn the Socialists would teach the Anarchists how to put on an effective clothes drive in their community.

I sorry but this sounds too touchy-feelie for me. Why the need for an organization for the various sects to foster positive communication and cooperation? What makes you think this would help the cause of Communism?

[Lamanov]

You know what, this is actually a good idea. Trots, lifestylists and Stalinists should make an organisation and "work together". These guys can teach you to play with garbage, while other guys can talk about Stalin and Trotsky; in the end, lifestylists acknowledge the "superiority of Marxist theory" - whatever dude, it's like, we ain't need no theory man - while bolsheviks appologise for Ukraine, Kronstadt and Spain - they can blame everything on "objective conditions". It will be great!

While that's going down, us class struggle anarchist can go on with our usual business.

:lol:

[TheFern]

What would be the aims of your group?


The main aims of the group would be to:

*promote positive communication between groups (sustaining a dialogue between different political sects, maybe bringing them together for a weekend so they can share ideas and become friends instead of opposing one another)

*promote cooperation between groups (if Leftist group A is planning a demonstration for which they need more bodies to hold up signs, they would contact this new organization, who would in turn ask for volunteers from groups B, C, and D who would be interested in helping group A.)

I think Left-on-Left crime is a historical problem still relevant today, in Florida and around the globe. If you need evidence of this, just think how much hate gets thrown around between different sects. Call me crazy, but I do believe that different groups on the left still want to kill other leftist groups, rather than work together with them.


Why the need for an organization for the various sects to foster positive communication and cooperation? What makes you think this would help the cause of Communism?

I think that if an organization could actively promote communication and cooperation between various sects, a lot more change could be brought about than in a situation where all leftist sects are out for their own parties and despise any leftist who doesn't subscribe to their exact ideology.

Even though I think this organization would help the cause of Communism by allowing communists to interact with and learn from other leftist political activists, that's not really the point. The point is to help ALL leftist political parties, not just the Marxists and the Anarchists. Trots need love too!

Again, I cannot stress enough that this organization would NOT ask anybody to join or pledge allegiance. This organization would function exclusively as a liaison between various leftist groups, not as a super-group. Hence, sectarian differences between the left have a chance of being set aside temporarily while we all pursue the dream we all share but see differently - creating a better way of life.

[Q]

An example would be to make Trotskyists and Leninists "friends" instead of enemies by showing them that they both want to bring about Communism.
What's the difference between the two?

Anyway, I really don't see this happening either. Let me know if there's something to do.

[bayano]

The main aims of the group would be to:

*promote positive communication between groups (sustaining a dialogue between different political sects, maybe bringing them together for a weekend so they can share ideas and become friends instead of opposing one another)...


I think that if an organization could actively promote communication and cooperation between various sects, a lot more change could be brought about than in a situation where all leftist sects are out for their own parties and despise any leftist who doesn't subscribe to their exact ideology.

...

Again, I cannot stress enough that this organization would NOT ask anybody to join or pledge allegiance. This organization would function exclusively as a liaison between various leftist groups, not as a super-group. Hence, sectarian differences between the left have a chance of being set aside temporarily while we all pursue the dream we all share but see differently - creating a better way of life.


I am a very dissenting voice from the crowd, and like your idea TheFern. Anti-sectarianism/Anti-factionalism is one of my lifetime concentrations. My main goal perhaps, besides organizing outside of the choir.

I agree with you completely. Folks need to learn how to communicate, without ulterior motives, deceptive language, disrespect, preconceptions. It may be near impossible, but it's incredibly important. And if we can organize ourselves, how can we organize anyone else?

Not all groups belong in the same room, of course. But that still leaves tons of groups with horrible histories of division and divisiveness to work on. The radical left is small and splintered, and this it cannot afford. But in many of these countries, we're all assholes (not just leftists, but everybody), and we will do anything to sabotage our internal unity. Ego plays a big part.

I know this isn't completely relevant, but some parties (formerly the brazilian Workers Party, or the US's Socialist Party) are multi-tendency, and those are among the good ones to start with. As are groups like Solidarity and FRSO, which actively think about leftist reconciliation of sorts.

On another note, i really regret that argument that mentioned issue politics (which are themselves somewhat hard to define), included antiracism, feminism and alternative globaziation movements, none of which are 'single issue movements'. typical class reductionist logic, though

[Red October]

This is a nice fantasy, but not much more than that. There are very good reasons anarchists don't usually get along well with marxist-leninists, and I think both sides would agree. It all comes down to the reality that while we all (supposedly) want communism (or something like it), we have wildly different ideas of what it should look like, how to get there, etc. I don't see how any group could survive if one major wing of it absolutely rejected the ideas of the other wing. Things like that don't work.

I'd also like to note that I hardly know anything about dumpstering shit and think those generalizations are ridiculous.

[VILemon]

The Republicans and Democrats should do this too. Enough fighting. Let us end these squabbles.

[Charles Xavier]

Dumpster diving has nothing to do with left wing politics as it does with being homeless and in any serious left organization. There should not be training on how to be homeless. Rather get everyone homes.