Could a unified Fifth International ever work?

[KurtFF8]

I'm not talking about the restructuring of the Trotskyist Fourth International but a unified International in vain of the first International, which would include Marxists of all stripes and Anarchists.

We now have had quite a long history of Marxism vs. Anarchism (as many would say, starting with the first international). But with that history of conflict and disagreement also comes an opportunity to understand that history and figure out how to become a unified left (only an opportunity that is). All of the existing internationals today are quite sectarian and following only a specific line of leftist thought, there aren't really even many that hold to broader Marxism (although I'm not too up on my knowledge of Anarchist internationals). And perhaps the Socialist International is consistant in its support for capitalist reforms, but that's not what I'm talking about.

This brings me to my question: do you think that the progression of leftist thought has brought the left to a "point of no return" where the history of disagreement and the current stance of Anarchist theory vs. Marxist theory are too great to ever even consider a new unified International (or even cooperation in a revolutionary situation) or is such a concept something that could become a reality in the future?

[Patchd]

In the state that British leftist politics is at the moment, I very much doubt it, mainly because of all the different Trotskyist groups not being able to agree on much, or calling each other reformists. Never mind the Anarchists, the Trotskyist groups will probably try and spearhead the International and leave the anarchists out to be honest.

[Bilan]

And for that matter, fuck it up, like the other ones. :)

No, it seems, in the Trotskyist desire for the perfect political line, all they do is split up and crumble like wet cake - at which point, they retain about as much influence as one.

[AnthArmo]

Maybe, an extreme maybe. what if we basically got together all political groups who want a revolution. Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists. If you want a revolution, join! I still say we can come up with a international manifesto that takes a middle ground between all groups.

[Tower of Bebel]

If we are able to give a practical answer to the organizational question, then yes: a new (workers') International is possible. Even the split between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" communism is not inevitable. Then the only thing we need is basic principles such as class struggle, genuine democratic centralism, internationalism and "revolutionism".

[Robespierre2.0]

It could be done. I wouldn't mind joining such a group- it would be something to do. Other Stalinists are rare in Amerika, so I might as well get together and discuss politics with people I at least agree on some things with.

[Random Precision]

Effective international organization can only be born out of an upswing in the international struggle, which lifts up the groups in each country able to lead a revolution and thus collaborate with groups focused on the same goal in other countries. Internationals formed without an upswing in the global struggle have done nothing but founder and even hurt the groups that founded them.

[The Feral Underclass]

genuine democratic centralism

There's no anarchist who's ever going to sign up to democratic centralism, especially if it's genuine.

[Tower of Bebel]

There's no anarchist who's ever going to sign up to democratic centralism, especially if it's genuine.
you got a problem with democracy and organization?

[The Feral Underclass]

you got a problem with democracy and organization?

Nice leap. No, I have a problem with "genuine democratic centralism".

[Tower of Bebel]

Nice leap. No, I have a problem with "genuine democratic centralism". Genuine emphasizes democracy and unity (discipline); not bureaucracy and subjection (suppression)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Effective international organization can only be born out of an upswing in the international struggle, which lifts up the groups in each country able to lead a revolution and thus collaborate with groups focused on the same goal in other countries. Internationals formed without an upswing in the global struggle have done nothing but founder and even hurt the groups that founded them.

Translation: Let's leave transnational organization to the last minute. :(

The "foundering" depends on how overly "principled" the organization is (certain things which shouldn't be "principles" are made into such).

[The Feral Underclass]

Genuine emphasizes democracy and unity (discipline); not bureaucracy and subjection (suppression)

Yeah, my objection to democratic centralism is rather more sophisticated than "it equates to Stalin".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's because you aren't willing to be in a minority within a broader organization. :(

[The Feral Underclass]

^^^ That's because you aren't willing to be in a minority within a broader organization. :(

It has nothing to do with being a minority but with being a minority in an organisation of Leninists. Not that I speak on behalf of the entire anarchist movement, but I'm sure my view won't that controversial.

[Liberte ou la Mort]

Kinda sounds like you guys are all tied up with concepts from a bunch of dead guys. Ever have any ideas of your own?

[Led Zeppelin]

Kinda sounds like you guys are all tied up with concepts from a bunch of dead guys. Ever have any ideas of your own?

Please stop trolling, and also stop being a hypocrite while you're at it:


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire

I'm with this guy. By saying that fascists can't indulge themselves in some kind of (not immediately) non-violent action you then become a fascist yourself.
Link (http://www.fightdemback.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36637&highlight=#36637)

Thread moved by the way.

[Herman]

Isn't there already a fifth international?


genuine democratic centralism

I doubt libertarians will accept that. Just scrap it.

[Tower of Bebel]

doubt libertarians will accept that. Just scrap it.

It has nothing to do with being a minority but with being a minority in an organisation of Leninists.What is the problem with debate in one and the same organization if democratic unity is based on "proletarian democracy" (full freedom of: press, speech, association, etc.)? Why the sectarianism if it is not based on fear to become a minority?

And is there someone who knows why anarchists were expelled from the 2nd Internationale?

[politics student]

Isn't there already a fifth international?



I doubt libertarians will accept that. Just scrap it.

Well we have to remember democracy has its issues. Yet alone work out which voting system to use and how the system is broken down.

Then you have to work out the party system (Hopefully a one party state with an independent judiciary to stop the communist party backing any candidates as they have to be selected by the people)...

I rather like the Cuban system of government.

Perhaps we need to get together as a large group with all our differences and try to find a common ground. Perhaps after the revolution we can slowly create the perfect system as it would never come around over night. (Perhaps even have Anarchist areas)

[The Douche]

What is the problem with debate in one and the same organization if democratic unity is based on "proletarian democracy" (full freedom of: press, speech, association, etc.)? Why the sectarianism if it is not based on fear to become a minority?

And is there someone who knows why anarchists were expelled from the 2nd Internationale?

Weren't the "anarchists" (I use quotes because they were actually Bakuninists) kicked out because they were organizing with Bakunin to sieze control of the international? It really has little to do with anarchism and more to do with Bakunin being an organizational moron.

[Tower of Bebel]

Weren't the "anarchists" (I use quotes because they were actually Bakuninists) kicked out because they were organizing with Bakunin to sieze control of the international? It really has little to do with anarchism and more to do with Bakunin being an organizational moron.
Wasn't that the first International (I'm asking about the second)?


THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL

The anarchist fight against the use of parliament by socialists continued when the Second international (labour party) was set up in 1889. Anarchists attempted to argue against reformism at the first three international congresses in 1889, 1891 and 1893. The 1893 congress passed a motion excluded all non-trade union bodies which did not recognise the need for parliamentary action. The next congress in 1896 however included anarchists who had been made delegates by trade unions. They were physically assaulted when they attempted to speak and a motion from the German social-democrats ???????? Liebknecht and August Bebel and Eleanore Aveling (Marx's daughter) banned all those who were 'anti-parliamentarians' from future congresses. The anarchists then went on to form their own international, which still exists in the form of the IWA-AIT, an international organisation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions and groups.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/groups/wsm/sp000009.txt

[The Douche]

Wasn't that the first International (I'm asking about the second)?


Yeah, sorry, my bad.


If there were to be another international, and I don't think there ever will, nor do I really think there should be, I'm pretty sure it would end up like the other ones did. There will be irreconciliable differences mainly on parliamentary participation (this will always be a splitting issue on the left) and trade union participation (this will also always be devisive) and also on national liberation struggles.

Honestly, I think the precedent for internationals has been set, I don't think it is coincedence that all of them have failed.

[RedScare]

There's already a Fifth International. And it's already split.

[Tower of Bebel]

Yeah, sorry, my bad.


If there were to be another international, and I don't think there ever will, nor do I really think there should be, I'm pretty sure it would end up like the other ones did. There will be irreconciliable differences mainly on parliamentary participation (this will always be a splitting issue on the left) and trade union participation (this will also always be devisive) and also on national liberation struggles.

Honestly, I think the precedent for internationals has been set, I don't think it is coincedence that all of them have failed.
There is no reason to split over different opinions. You should only split when it is impossible to express your opinion publicly.

[The Douche]

There is no reason to split over different opinions. You should only split when it is impossible to express your opinion publicly.

No you should split when you don't have the same goal in mind. Sorry, but I don't have the same goal as a Stalinist. And some issues really do matter, like National Liberation, which, if we're talking about a real international ceases to be an "opinion". How are we going to have left-communists and anarchists in a group with the PFLP or the FARC? Its not just a difference in opinion its a difference in practice, and the pro-natlib groups (if we're talking about a real international) are going to be engaging in wars of nationa liberation, how are the anarchists and left communists then supposed to maintain a relationship within that organization when the organization is practicing something which is against the core of the individual's revolutionary theory?

Also the fact that a true international would be illegal by the laws of almost all western countries, and to openly belong to one would invite charges of supportting terrorism.

[Tower of Bebel]

Sometimes I get the feeling that is rather strange that most on the left think that Trotskyists are the most sectarian :(. But on occasions most of the left isn't much of a difference either. Even when you have the chance to fight, some tend to leave the battle:

No you should split when you don't have the same goal in mind. Sorry, but I don't have the same goal as a Stalinist. And some issues really do matter, like National Liberation, which, if we're talking about a real international ceases to be an "opinion". How are we going to have left-communists and anarchists in a group with the PFLP or the FARC? Its not just a difference in opinion its a difference in practice, and the pro-natlib groups (if we're talking about a real international) are going to be engaging in wars of nationa liberation, how are the anarchists and left communists then supposed to maintain a relationship within that organization when the organization is practicing something which is against the core of the individual's revolutionary theory?

Also the fact that a true international would be illegal by the laws of almost all western countries, and to openly belong to one would invite charges of supportting terrorism.
It is perfectly understandable if you don't fight for the same goal. But stalinists don't fight for stalinism. They fight for socialism (democracy), but they also think that the Soviet Union was really socialist (or building socialism). They don't fight for a one-man dictatorship, for labour camps and other oppressive stuff. Those who fight for camps, dictators and genocide are marginalized elements.

It is also perfectly understandable when you imagine that you're in an organization which does not allow a critical voice. But I'm talking about democratic centralism as in: proletarian democracy. Not freedom for a few, but freedom for the class as a whole guarded by the class as a whole. This means an organization with feed-back mechanisms, public criticism, participation, etc. An organization that eliminates bureaucracy (through the implementation of the so called programmatic minimum) and guarantees democracy. In such a case it would be wrong to leave the battle, especially when it has become an independent, revolutionary mass party of the proletariat.

For example: Luxemburg and Kautsky were in the same party (SPD), while she also joined "Lenin's" party (RSDLP (B)). Luxemburg was not pro-national self-determination while Kautsky and Lenin were. She did not split over this issue; no, she fought for her opinion. By leaving the fight sectarians allow the ideas that are considered false to spread without opposition.

And communists should never be afraid to publicly voice their opinions, even if they are considered terrorists. This counts for opinions in and out of the movement. If communists are not allowed to organize themselves internationally than we should fight for the right to organize. If communists cannot have no free speech on the ground that the bourgeoisie wants to isolate them, then the communists will have to fight for the right to speak in public. Of course this fight can only be carried on by the proletariat. So we need to organize the proletariat. Freedom does not come from above.

[KurtFF8]

There's already a Fifth International. And it's already split.

Was it a real fifth international or a small group of Trotskyists claiming to have formed the fifth international?

Anyway, back to my point: the real question here is the question of strategy to achieve a socialist (or anarchist) society and how the left can be unified in doing so. For example, Marxists believe a transitional stage to communism is necessary while anarchists for the most part don't. This on the face of it seems like a problem with no solution, when in fact I think compromise here would be possible. For example: anarchist communes should most certainly be allowed to exist under a Marxian socialist state.

[RedScare]

Was it a real fifth international or a small group of Trotskyists claiming to have formed the fifth international?

Anyway, back to my point: the real question here is the question of strategy to achieve a socialist (or anarchist) society and how the left can be unified in doing so. For example, Marxists believe a transitional stage to communism is necessary while anarchists for the most part don't. This on the face of it seems like a problem with no solution, when in fact I think compromise here would be possible. For example: anarchist communes should most certainly be allowed to exist under a Marxian socialist state.
I'm pretty sure it was just a small group of Trotskyists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, sorry, my bad.

If there were to be another international, and I don't think there ever will, nor do I really think there should be, I'm pretty sure it would end up like the other ones did. There will be irreconciliable differences mainly on parliamentary participation (this will always be a splitting issue on the left) and trade union participation (this will also always be devisive) and also on national liberation struggles.

Honestly, I think the precedent for internationals has been set, I don't think it is coincedence that all of them have failed.

In addition to what Comrade Rakunin said, you should consider my Theory thread on democratic centralism and parliamentarism, as I have suggested a "creative" way to solve the question of "unity of a definite action" in this specific regard.