Wouldn't this solve a lot of left factionalism?

[JimmyJazz]

...if we simply maintained separate organizations for the two tasks of organizing the working class and opposing imperialism?

It seems that opinions on imperialism, and what exactly should be done about it if anything, account for the biggest difference between the major left groups in the USA, and probably also in other industrialized countries (Europe, Israel, etc.). But ideas about how to organize the working class are pretty much the same across many of these groups. So it seems logical to keep the two tasks separate: everyone working together in one big party/alliance to organize the working class, and whoever wants to join various anti-imperialist groups is free to do so or not.

In addition to uniting Marxists, it seems a lot more realistic to not expect members of the working class to become foreign policy experts. Why should they? Certainly it's not necessary for a worker to know about such things in order to become a militant class strugglist? The party/alliance I'm proposing would allow workers join anti-imperialist orgs if they saw a connection to their own struggle against the bosses, and would let them stay out of these orgs if they didn't see such a connection. No one would force their view either way.

This kind of group wouldn't include everyone of course. On the left of it would be certain anarchists and libertarian Marxists who deny the need for party organization. And on the right would probably be anti-revisionists whose idea about a highly centralized and bureaucratic Communist party simply does not appeal to most workers.

But implementing this idea could, I think, have the potential to create a large "middle majority" that would include everyone from the ICC (pretty ambivalent about imperialism) to the PSL (which puts a huge emphasis on opposing imperialism, to the point that it's right in their party name). It would include basically all Trotskyists and all those close to Trotskyism.

One limitation: this would only work in highly industrialized countries like the USA, Europe, et al. In underdeveloped places like Latin America, I don't think any simple programmatic compromise could end the debate over guerillaism vs. proletarian party-building; this debate exists because the material conditions of a semi-industralized economy make both strategies look like a potentially plausible path to power, and it will persist as long as this is the case.

But in the industrialized countries, couldn't this work? Am I missing some big difference in these groups regarding how to organize the working class in industrialized countries, and what to organize it towards? Or am I right to think that their stance toward imperialism, and their opinions about which foreign socialist regimes to uphold, is basically the big thing which divides them?

[JimmyJazz]

I expect the answers will come down to something like "all you're suggesting is rebuilding the Fourth International, and claiming it as your own original idea."

Which might be true. I did come to this on my own, but I'm sure that I'm not the first to think of it. If this is something that people are already trying to do by rebuilding the FI or whatever, do tell.

However, I would imagine that building an International simply means that those workers' parties which strongly oppose imperialism and those workers' parties which are ambivalent about it can work together. This is a bit different than what I'm suggesting here...which is that no workers' party in an industrial country should center its activities around imperialism, and perhaps that they should not even take an official stance on it. Anti-imperialism should simply be treated as a separate task from the class struggle, to be addressed by separate organizations.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Quite honestly, I think we're going to be a lot weaker with divided parties. Let's just stipulate upfront that each of us has our own different vision, but it's not about our individual ideas. I don't see imperialism as the actual line of division, however. A lot of the sectarian bullshit revolves around historical disagreements and not actual policy. Sure we can go back and forth about Trotsky's policies relative to Stalin, but how many workers are really going to give a flying fuck? Especially in the United States where Bolshevik ideology is basically looked down upon regardless of what variant of it exists. If people would just swallow their pride there is no reason why Leninists, Hoxhaists, Maoists, Trotskyists, council communists, technocrats, ParEcon socialists, mutualists, democratic socialists, and non-identified socialists can't form a united front in the developed world.

We'd become a lot stronger, I think, from having a party full of different ideas clashing. On the subject of imperialism, just have individual opinions and hold off on making a party statement. There doesn't need to be a party position on every little detail. Look at alternative parties. They usually unite a huge coalition with success. Even the Libertarian Party had some success with this, until they blew it becoming Republican appeasers.

[GPDP]

I fully agree, Gene.

Of course, as an anarchist, I do tend to question the efficacy of political parties, even the most thoroughly revolutionary ones, on the question of actually moving towards a meaningful socialist alternative. But when the left is as divided and estranged as it currently is, and the world is as desperate as it is for answers to its problems, I suppose I'd be willing to give a grand Socialist/Communist party a chance to get something, anything done, perhaps in solidarity with our own anarchist organizations.

It's like old Ben Franklin said. We must all hang together, or else we'll all hang separately.

[RHIZOMES]

Quite honestly, I think we're going to be a lot weaker with divided parties. Let's just stipulate upfront that each of us has our own different vision, but it's not about our individual ideas. I don't see imperialism as the actual line of division, however. A lot of the sectarian bullshit revolves around historical disagreements and not actual policy. Sure we can go back and forth about Trotsky's policies relative to Stalin, but how many workers are really going to give a flying fuck? Especially in the United States were Bolshevik ideology is basically looked down upon regardless of what variant of it exists. If people would just swallow their pride there is no reason why Leninists, Hoxhaists, Maoists, Trotskyists, council communists, technocrats, ParEcon socialists, mutualists, democratic socialists, and non-identified socialists can't form a united front in the developed world.

We'd become a lot stronger, I think, from having a party full of different ideas clashing. On the subject of imperialism, just have individual opinions and hold off on making a party statement. There doesn't need to be a party position on every little detail. Look at alternative parties. They usually unite a huge coalition with success. Even the Libertarian Party had some success with this, until they blew it becoming Republican appeasers.



I would agree. The Workers Party has different historical opinions, but the same present opinions.

[JimmyJazz]

I don't see imperialism as the actual line of division, however. A lot of the sectarian bullshit revolves around historical disagreements and not actual policy. Sure we can go back and forth about Trotsky's policies relative to Stalin, but how many workers are really going to give a flying fuck? Especially in the United States were Bolshevik ideology is basically looked down upon regardless of what variant of it exists.

This was my feeling on it as well, until I started moving towards Marxism and started seriously looking into socialist parties in the U.S. While there are lots of arguments on RevLeft about historical disagreements over the USSR and such, and these things might go on in the inner circle of parties (I don't really know), certainly there is nothing about it on their websites or their more public material.

Their stance on imperialism and on which foreign "socialist" governments to uphold, however, is always prominently displayed.

There's certainly no way you could imagine a Marmot/devrim/Leo working in the PSL, or a Yehuda Stern working with the ICC, without a serious compromising of personal beliefs. But within the context of industrialized countries, where the only plausible path to power is organizing the highly developed but ideologically weak working class, there's really no reason I can see for them not to be working in the same party toward the goal of organizing the WC. This indicates that the problem is not so much with them, as with the division of parties which they are forced to choose from.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Communist Club is a good example of a functional organization of different Leftists. We obviously take some rigid stances against racism, sexism, heterosexism, and capitalism, but on more bloated matters of imperialism we let people chime in as individuals. I've seen some really good discussions, compromises, and policies emerge from this.

[Junius]

No offense, but this isn't much more than a pipe-dream which is repeated by people with little or no experience in the communist movement.


...if we simply maintained separate organizations for the two tasks of organizing the working class and opposing imperialism?

I don't think they can be separated.

'Opposing imperialism' often involves the organizing of the working class...into regiments at the disposal of the ruling class.


It seems that opinions on imperialism, and what exactly should be done about it if anything, account for the biggest difference between the major left groups in the USA, and probably also in other industrialized countries (Europe, Israel, etc.).

The biggest difference? Maybe. The most important? Definitely.


But ideas about how to organize the working class are pretty much the same across many of these groups.

Are they? I think they are pretty divergent; one group supports voting for Democrats, another supports their own party, another abandons the vote altogether.

One group argues for attacking union bureaucracy, another for entryism, one group supports a union, another group sees it as a barrier.

One party aims its activities at college students, another focuses on the workplace. One wants to fight for social issues, another has a class struggle approach.

One party aims for as many members as possible, another party focuses on putting forth its ideas versus membership collecting.

These aren't small differences...


So it seems logical to keep the two tasks separate: everyone working together in one big party/alliance to organize the working class, and whoever wants to join various anti-imperialist groups is free to do so or not.


In addition to uniting Marxists, it seems a lot more realistic to not expect members of the working class to become foreign policy experts. Why should they? Certainly it's not necessary for a worker to know about such things in order to become a militant class strugglist? The party/alliance I'm proposing would allow workers join anti-imperialist orgs if they saw a connection to their own struggle against the bosses, and would let them stay out of these orgs if they didn't see such a connection. No one would force their view either way.

I really don't think its as simple as you put it.

The thing is, more often than not, anti-imperialist struggles involve class collaboration with former bosses. This isn't something one can simply 'put aside' in solidarity with other groups; its antithetical to what it means to be a communist - just like we saw the true colors of the SPD when they supported their nation in favor of the working class. To use an analogy; it would be like one communist group deciding that wage labor was suddenly okay.


Quite honestly, I think we're going to be a lot weaker with divided parties. Let's just stipulate upfront that each of us has our own different vision, but it's not about our individual ideas. I don't see imperialism as the actual line of division, however. A lot of the sectarian bullshit revolves around historical disagreements and not actual policy.

And what do you think historical disagreements are about if not for actual policy? Do you think we are arguing about facts, or about ideas which still have relevance today?


Sure we can go back and forth about Trotsky's policies relative to Stalin, but how many workers are really going to give a flying fuck?

Not many. But it is certainly in their interest to 'give a flying fuck' about socialism in one country versus internationalism, or the nature of the state in a post-revolutionary society, or the fact that a communist society really isn't a hell-hole like Stalin's Russia is perceived to be.

However, I do agree there is too much sectarianism amongst the left, particularly amongst groups of the same tendency, for example Left Communists or Trotskyists have plenty of groups which have similar politics yet are divided over trivial issues.

I don't think its possible, however, for different tendencies, like Maoists and Left-Communists, to unite at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

...if we simply maintained separate organizations for the two tasks of organizing the working class and opposing imperialism?

I honestly have not considered this in my analysis of circle-sectism. :(


It seems that opinions on imperialism, and what exactly should be done about it if anything, account for the biggest difference between the major left groups in the USA, and probably also in other industrialized countries (Europe, Israel, etc.). But ideas about how to organize the working class are pretty much the same across many of these groups. So it seems logical to keep the two tasks separate: everyone working together in one big party/alliance to organize the working class, and whoever wants to join various anti-imperialist groups is free to do so or not.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, since this is the only way "democratists" can work with "broad economists" (including "imperialist economists"). :)

However, should one big imperialist war come about (and I mean *big* in terms of major war between imperialist powers), all party members should be revolutionary defeatists. :)


This kind of group wouldn't include everyone of course. On the left of it would be certain anarchists and libertarian Marxists who deny the need for party organization. And on the right would probably be anti-revisionists whose idea about a highly centralized and bureaucratic Communist party simply does not appeal to most workers.

But implementing this idea could, I think, have the potential to create a large "middle majority" that would include everyone from the ICC (pretty ambivalent about imperialism) to the PSL (which puts a huge emphasis on opposing imperialism, to the point that it's right in their party name). It would include basically all Trotskyists and all those close to Trotskyism.

I really hope the platformists amongst the class-strugglist anarchists join the "centrist" organization.


One limitation: this would only work in highly industrialized countries like the USA, Europe, et al. In underdeveloped places like Latin America, I don't think any simple programmatic compromise could end the debate over guerillaism vs. proletarian party-building; this debate exists because the material conditions of a semi-industralized economy make both strategies look like a potentially plausible path to power, and it will persist as long as this is the case.

Interesting food for "Mao Zedong Thought." ;)

[JimmyJazz]

I was definitely off-base with this OP, the fundamental divide among radicals is not in how focused they are on a state's foreign policy versus how focused they are on its internal socialist organization, the fundamental divide is in how materialist versus idealist an interpretation you take of both these things.

A materialist interpretation is clearly more honest than an idealist one, but it also ruins your propaganda abilities, because most people are idealists and are totally ignorant of all the history that their ruling class wants them to be ignorant of.

I'm thinking now that perhaps socialists should consider it strictly a personal responsibility to educate themselves about the material conditions faced by existing socialist states, whereas any organization or party engaged in outreach should set historical interpretations aside entirely and focus purely on socialist ideas (without any reference to their practice in history). IOW, this should be true:


I would agree. The Workers Party has different historical opinions, but the same present opinions.

Yet, you can't argue that this is true in practice, since almost every socialist/communist party or org does explicitly defend certain socialist states/leaders (and criticize certain others).

I dunno. This is another stab in the dark. But it's obvious that we're doing something wrong, because we remain marginal, even though we're right.

[ashaman1324]

me and my friend are actually starting an organization similar to what jimmy is suggesting.
not a political party as much as it is a union of leftists.
no leaders.
direct democracy setting. (workplace democracy)
we're still working out alot of details but an anarchist and a leninist leaning communist are working together effectively so far.

[BobKKKindle$]

Junius is right. "Imperialism" and "organizing the working class" are not distinct components of revolutionary socialism which can be separated from each other - the positions we adopt on imperialism will inform the way we engage with and organize the working class. Marxists who argue that progressives should give unconditional support to movements fighting against imperialism in the periphery will not want to raise the same agitational slogans as Left-Communists who refuse to give even partial or critical support to any movement which does not seek to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism on a world scale.

[MarxSchmarx]

Defending a particular state or leader is a dead end for the left.

This applies towrads sentiments towards a country in which you do not live. The fact of the matter is, "stands" at the level of the organization are at best irrelevant and at worst devisive. It is incredibly easy to get agitated about the TRUE plight of, say, the Venezuelan working class, without living in the barrios around Caracas, watching your neighbors glued to the screen for "Alo Presidente" and praising the Cuban doctors. Both sides have decent arguments. Unless you expect funding from the Venezuelan state, taking a "strong" stand on an issue like whether our tiny leftist group should support or denounce Hugo Chavez is solely an intellectual exercise. Whether or not our interpretation of Chavez`s approach, for example, will be applicable or whether we can learn much from it depends on the circumstances on the ground, the nature of the local movement you deal with, etc... To expect groups from as far away as Pakistan and the Pacific Northeast to reach some kind of consensus on the "lessons of Chavez" is absurd. However, it is not absurd to expect these groups to demand laws that make it easier to form unions, to focus on social spending, to combat nationalism and promote worker`s internationalism, etc...

This is doubly true about the nature of the Soviet Union, or the outcome of the Spanish revolution. Of course we should learn from their failures. But then honest disagreements (like whether or not the communists collaborated too much with the republicans in Spain) then become a matter of historiography, not of political programs. The fact of the matter is, none of us really understand what it was like to be in the heat of the moment in many of these situations. Ditto with stuff like "whether Stalin was genocidal". We should reserve considerable judgment on these matters, and agree to disagree on points, and then work together as we have so much in common across our movement. Even those who want to point to history as learning opportunities will agree that history does not repeat itself, and therefore the key is not to follow some past approach carefully but to chart the course that appears most sensible given the current and immediate realities.

Let me bring this more "down to earth": in the Americas, even in the same city, some may embrace the DPRK as an example for other small countries, others may denounce it as a totalitarian hell. But more likely than not, these groups agree on the need for organizing workers, for building hospitals and roads, for making sure the children go to school, and for exposing the crimes of global capitalism. Whether a group in, for example, Tijuana or Montevideo or Edmonton makes a "statement on North Korea" is utterly irrelevant in the immediate struggle. Debating and refusing to work with each other over what was said or not said about Kim Jong Il won`t get that park built or that union organized. It will just lead to the self-righteous fools feeling like they`ve carried the day.

It is not clear what such efforts offer the movement. However, the damage that they cause is clear.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I also see some strengths in the weakness of the Kautskyan ambiguity regarding the state. Although these days there should be no doubt about its class character, leaving open for disagreement the post-revolutionary status of "the state" allows class-strugglist anarchists (as opposed to the four other anarchist tendencies) and class-strugglist Marxists (as opposed to "New Lefts" and intellectual philosopher-jackoffs) to work together.