Those tiny ones

[Pogue]

You know those absoultely tiny little leftist political groups, the ones which have absoultely no influence at all but exist...like, the result of about 5 splits, so small they're not on the election sheet, never have any presence at all on demonstrations, but possibly, once in a while, publish a small pamphlet or newspaper. I'm sure everyones experienced them. What do there members think, why do they exist! They must have about 5 members! What do they do!

[Led Zeppelin]

They all think that they're like the Emancipation of Labour group and are waiting for the time that they will become the vanguard party of the revolution in their nation.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well at least some organization is better than none. A small group could grow you know...

[thejambo1]

Well at least some organization is better than none. A small group could grow you know...
i agree with this, they may well be tiny and seem to have no use, but who knows. it can get a bit monty pythonesque but definately better than no group.

[redSHARP]

hey you all remember that really small party that was started after WWI in Munich that no one cared about and was deemed worthless by the majority of people at that time?:(

[Killfacer]

hey you all remember that really small party that was started after WWI in Munich that no one cared about and was deemed worthless by the majority of people at that time?:(

Yeah i remember them, rubbish weren't they. The German communist party right?:p

[Pawn Power]

They think they are "right." They cling to the hope that they will eventually be reliant.

However, there are also very small anarchist organization which don't necessarily desire to be large but are more concentrated on continuing the work they are actually doing, be it with prisoner support, local media, etc.

[Led Zeppelin]

hey you all remember that really small party that was started after WWI in Munich that no one cared about and was deemed worthless by the majority of people at that time?:(

Historical examples like these keep the hopes of the people in the sects alive.

[ChocolateToothpaste]

Communism isn't about scoring big numbers in the elections. Small groups can use local direct action to make a point. If every town had a group of 5 to 10 really devoted activists and each one took revolutionary action, the impact would be felt nationwide.

[redSHARP]

ultimately, i feel these sects are made because some people dont have the resources or means to contact any one. so an affinity group would form a new party, when a group with the same values and goals could be meeting down the street with out anyone knowing. Revleft is great, because it can bring leftists from everywhere so "Group A" could maybe merge with "Group B" and this new group is bigger and stronger.


however, sometimes these groups are sooooo out there no one can support them.

[Mister X]

You know those absoultely tiny little leftist political groups, the ones which have absoultely no influence at all but exist...like, the result of about 5 splits, so small they're not on the election sheet, never have any presence at all on demonstrations, but possibly, once in a while, publish a small pamphlet or newspaper. I'm sure everyones experienced them. What do there members think, why do they exist! They must have about 5 members! What do they do!



I think that ideas matter more than numbers. With the correct ideas, tactics and traditions the smallest and most insignificant group can end up being the most numerous and most influencial. It has been proved many times in history.
Now the problem is that most groups like that are "retarded" , in the sense that they believe in bullshit and are super-sectarian. Amidst this chaos of insignificant sects though there are probably many such sects that will end up playing an important role in the future.

That is why it is so important to study history and theory , in order to have some knowledge and join the "sect" that will make your involvement worthwhile.


ultimately, i feel these sects are made because some people dont have the resources or means to contact any one. so an affinity group would form a new party, when a group with the same values and goals could be meeting down the street with out anyone knowing

No it is because although groups talk about democratic centralism, they split over trivial stuff. Oh I didn't like this I'll make a new "party", where I am going to be the leader.
Also because the left is tiny most of the times and there are a thousand and one variations on theory.



Revleft is great, because it can bring leftists from everywhere so "Group A" could maybe merge with "Group B" and this new group is bigger and stronger.

I don't think that this can happen through revleft.
This site probably has motivated some individuals to join an already existing organizations. I don't think that the IST and the CWI for example would merge through a revleft discussion.

[Q]

I don't think that this can happen through revleft.
This site probably has motivated some individuals to join an already existing organizations. I don't think that the IST and the CWI for example would merge through a revleft discussion.

Alas, you pointed out the biggest obstacle of revleft (and webforums in general). These communities are basically consisting of members already entrenched in their own ideas, the rest is wrong, period. What follows is petty fighting over new members. I don't resist it anymore, so I joined it, be it that I still try to convince over ideas and discussion :cool:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well at least some organization is better than none. A small group could grow you know...

Very true. That's why they need to recruit, recruit, recruit! The Bolsheviks started out tiny if I remember correctly. Well at least tiny according to Russia's massive population...

[Mister X]

Alas, you pointed out the biggest obstacle of revleft (and webforums in general). These communities are basically consisting of members already entrenched in their own ideas, the rest is wrong, period. What follows is petty fighting over new members. I don't resist it anymore, so I joined it, be it that I still try to convince over ideas and discussion http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

That's it. I have seen quite a few threads where someone just threw some word out with no justification like "State Capitalist" , "Lenin was authoritarian" , " Its not the fault of the SWP" ,or "Trotsky was wrong about his idea on political revolution". People lose arguments but stick to their own belief system . Conversation seems "pointless" when both sides have so much faith in their own system of beliefs that are blind to the other peoples arguments , even though they are superior than theirs.

Of course according to the examples I am one of those people too.
Oh, look what i did i just repeated what you said .

[LOLseph Stalin]

That's it. I have seen quite a few threads where someone just threw some word out with no justification like "State Capitalist" , "Lenin was authoritarian" , " Its not the fault of the SWP" ,or "Trotsky was wrong about his idea on political revolution". People lose arguments but stick to their own belief system . Conversation seems "pointless" when both sides have so much faith in their own system of beliefs that are blind to the other peoples arguments , even though they are superior than theirs.

Of course according to the examples I am one of those people too.
Oh, look what i did i just repeated what you said .

Consider me lucky as i'm not quite stuck in one belief system yet. I'm still learning so I look at different alternatives even though I'm beginning to like Trotskyism.

[Mister X]

Consider me lucky as i'm not quite stuck in one belief system yet. I'm still learning so I look at different alternatives even though I'm beginning to like Trotskyism.

Haha, you are not begining to like Trotskyism. Don't lie you are already a Trot:)
Now the most difficult choice arises. Which group to choose between 5-10 sects/groups ?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Haha, you are not begining to like Trotskyism. Don't lie you are already a Trothttp://www.revleft.com/vb/those-tiny-ones-p1322284/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif
Now the most difficult choice arises. Which group to choose between 5-10 sects/groups ?

Hmm...probably. That man had it right.

Yes, so difficult. There's too many!

[ellipsis]

I am a member of my own tiny sect of one. I have non-revolutionary left comrade with whom I work with but have significant trouble organizing with other leftists. Sure I have provided firearms training and gone to the range with other comrades but in my small town in my small state, I have yet to find any other leftists interested in military training and building a stockpile. Thus I have taken to the internets with my blog to distribute info and resources.

While a large number of people live in cities and densely populated area, many, such as my self do not. This makes organizing and networking more difficult.

[LOLseph Stalin]

My town is just small and the majority of the population is wealthy, Conservative, and ultra-religious. That's difficult too.

[Mister X]

I am a member of my own tiny sect of one. I have non-revolutionary left comrade with whom I work with but have significant trouble organizing with other leftists. Sure I have provided firearms training and gone to the range with other comrades but in my small town in my small state, I have yet to find any other leftists interested in military training and building a stockpile. Thus I have taken to the internets with my blog to distribute info and resources.

While a large number of people live in cities and densely populated area, many, such as my self do not. This makes organizing and networking more difficult.

Comrade, what do you expect to achieve with firearm training?
The revolution comes from the working class itself and not a group of self-proclaimed representatives of it.
You should know that guerillaism is a wrong tactic and has lead to deaths of thousands of prominent activists while they could spend the same energy on doing agitation within the working class in the cities.

Also from all these failures we had only two successes in overthrowing capitalism.
That is Cuba and China. But there was no success in building socialism in these countries due to the militarization of its vanguard , so they ended up being authoritarian bureaucratic states. No workers democracy was achieved(in contrary to the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). That is mostly because of the way the revolution came about.

You see the FARC wasting lives of thousands of prominent activists in Colombia and we have the same shit going on for 40 years. Imagine what would happen in a country like the US.

Please stop wasting your time on false tactics and study the classics , they can lead you to a better way to overthrow the capitalist system. For your own good.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Wouldn't some firearm training be useful? It could help in self defense if Capitalists strike at us during the revolution.

Theory is good too, but it'll be useless if we all die from lack of defense training.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To put things in perspective: Lenin once got exited that a watch maker came to a public meeting.

[Mister X]

Wouldn't some firearm training be useful? It could help in self defense if Capitalists strike at us during the revolution.

Theory is good too, but it'll be useless if we all die from lack of defense training

For a revolution to happen the army should be controlled by the workers. And it will be controlled as the majority of the rank-and-file is proletarian.
That will be our defence in case of imperialist attack. If additional forces are needed they will be created then . It is simply unrealistic to expect that we will be saved if the 2 000 or whatever revolutionaries that exist now, go and do gun training. It is simply absurd.

[LOLseph Stalin]

For a revolution to happen the army should be controlled by the workers. And it will be controlled as the majority of the rank-and-file is proletarian.
That will be our defence in case of imperialist attack. If additional forces are needed they will be created then . It is simply unrealistic to expect that we will be saved if the 2 000 or whatever revolutionaries that exist now, go and do gun training. It is simply absurd.

I guess that makes sense, but I would definitely feel safer in a revolution if I knew how to properly use firearms.

[Q]

I guess that makes sense, but I would definitely feel safer in a revolution if I knew how to properly use firearms.

In a revolutionary situation, that is a situation of Dual Power (in which workers form their own governmental structures in opposition to the capitalist states - i.e. Soviets or workers councils), workers should be armed and form democratic committees of militia's that secure the defense against an aggressive capitalist state and other reactionary groups.

[Sam_b]

For a revolution to happen the army should be controlled by the workers. And it will be controlled as the majority of the rank-and-file is proletarian.
That will be our defence in case of imperialist attack

Not an army at all. A self-organised worker's militia.

[LOLseph Stalin]

In a revolutionary situation, that is a situation of Dual Power (in which workers form their own governmental structures in opposition to the capitalist states - i.e. Soviets or workers councils), workers should be armed and form democratic committees of militia's that secure the defense against an aggressive capitalist state and other reactionary groups.

So you mean the workers form their own councils and then those councils defend against Capitalists trying to shut them down? I hope i'm making sense. Somehow I always get images of a guerilla style revolution in my head and i'm not even Maoist or anything. Haha!

[Q]

So you mean the workers form their own councils and then those councils defend against Capitalists trying to shut them down? I hope i'm making sense.
Yes, you are making perfect sense. The only ones that can liberate the working class are the workers themselves.

[scarletghoul]

These small parties are stupid. I want to join a socialist/communist party but it is so sectarian that I can't see any party where I would feel comfortable or welcome, except for maybe one tiny party that has no potential at all so I havnt joined any. It is annoying.

Communists should be united, not divided, however bitter their differances are. I mean, Lenin and Trotsky were in the same party, despite their disagreements! The Chinese Communist Party had great internal power disputes during the civil war, but they never split, because they all shared the same interest of communism and this unity was crucial for their victory!
Occasionally small parties do seize power, but in a first world parliamentary system like this, a violent revolution will be very difficult and I dont see any organisation capable of it.
In other words, in the UK for a socialist organization to gain power by violent or peaceful means it would have to be large and therefore most likely a united communist party.

However much theorising you do, it is obvious in reality that these small communist groups are not having any effect on anything at all and are pointless. it just seems silly and self-indulgent.
RESPECT is the nearest thing we have to a united communist party. The tragedy of this fact along with the success of this party makes it obvious that a united Communist Party needs to happen!

[KC]

The important work doesn't even go on in these parties. Many are student based and have no real connection with where the actual work has to be done. Unless you are really passionate about joining one, don't. Put your energy into something meaningful and helpful like your union or some community groups.

[scarletghoul]

Or general leftist propaganda! I think if there is enough of that, the movement will exist

[bellyscratch]

These small parties are stupid. I want to join a socialist/communist party but it is so sectarian that I can't see any party where I would feel comfortable or welcome, except for maybe one tiny party that has no potential at all so I havnt joined any. It is annoying.

Communists should be united, not divided, however bitter their differances are.

My thoughts exactly

[Sam_b]

RESPECT is the nearest thing we have to a united communist party

Unfortunately the sectarian forces in that caused it to split and now is totally ineffective.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, you are making perfect sense. The only ones that can liberate the working class are the workers themselves.

I think I understand now. Wow i'm an idiot. O_O

[ellipsis]

Wouldn't some firearm training be useful? It could help in self defense if Capitalists strike at us during the revolution.

Theory is good too, but it'll be useless if we all die from lack of defense training.

I would rather die in a hail of bullets defending me and mine and hopefully take out a few agents of oppression with me than be take to the labor/death camps.

I enjoy shooting for recreation but also see firearms/military training as useful in those what if scenarios; what if class warfare comes to the U.S, what if Vermont secession becomes a reality and I have to defend Vermont from foreign subversion or aggression, that if Zombies come knocking?

I do not suffer from grandeur and do not entertain fantasies of future wars. And I do not go easy on the theory.

[Rascolnikova]

For a revolution to happen the army should be controlled by the workers. And it will be controlled as the majority of the rank-and-file is proletarian.
That will be our defence in case of imperialist attack. If additional forces are needed they will be created then . It is simply unrealistic to expect that we will be saved if the 2 000 or whatever revolutionaries that exist now, go and do gun training. It is simply absurd.

Wait.. . help me out. So only the people who are in the army, who will at some point be won over, should bother with arms training? You know that on this site there are plenty of people who think being in the army means you're definitely on the other side?

Don't get me wrong. I must agree that civil war, in the US, at least, in the near future isn't so far from the zombie scenarios.* However, there are some less direct advantages to arms training that bear consideration. . . Specifically, if we wish to recruit the army, we have to fraternize with the army. The same goes for the rednecks. Yes, to have a revolution, they must join us--but in some respects, for them to join us we must join them. . . which I, at least, hope will render the distinction between professional and non-professional soldier less relevant on a variety of levels. Shooting provides a great social background for this, as it's something people do recreationally anyway.

Personally I'm of the feeling that arms training is useful for anyone who wishes to have an understanding of violence in the modern world, which certainly seems a fitting project for any revolutionary. It's also not terribly time consuming or expensive to learn the basics, and it's just a good thing generally to know how to be safe around guns; this is something I'd like to see as a part of the social culture of a revolutionary mass movements. The world is a safer place when everyone or no one has guns, and some people have them already.


*come to think of it, its exactly like a zombie scenario. . .