A Possible Revolutionary Socialist Umbrella?

[Pogue]

Does anyone here think it'd be ever possible (or desirable) to have some sort of wide ranging international grouping, not bringing all the groups into one group, but merely uniting them and giving a common umbrella organisation for all to fit under?

Some form of revolutionary blanket organisation which stressed cooperation between revolutionary groups and something of a unite face, witohut having to sacrifice a groups autonomy or lead to ideological differences coming into play? Can anyone see this ever happening? A very loose organisation, but an organisation nonetheless? This may seem stupid, but it was borne out of my frustration at the fact that a movement incredibly sidelined and ignored sharing fundamental similarities has failed in getting a great degree of cooperation going.

Is it really that shocking a thought that a Trotskyist group like the SWP would be willing to cooperate in some respects with a group like the Anarchist Federation? Some would say yes, and give clear and oft-heard reasons why. But I thought, on the lines of groups generally expressing anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, revolutionary struggle, some form of cooperation, no matter how thin, could be created and built upon. We hear arguments frequently about the left being what is essentially a ghetto with petty squabbles between groups - and I know I've been criticised for calling for unity before - its been called stupid, utopian, pointless, etc. But if we had a group which didn't stifle or merge groups but merely created a link, say a link that could then lead to perhaps, on a demonstration, a banner being raised of just 'Socialist Revolutionaries', or during a revolution, or before it, the Socialist Revolutionaries being there as a linked set of organisations, I think this would be good.

I'll prepare for a shit storm and criticisms once more, but as I said this is just an idea, created from frustration at the fact that after years of struggle we're still on the fringe even though there would seem to be alot which unites us and alot to unite against.

[cenv]

If an organization like that could ever be created, it could go a long way. It could maybe even lay the foundation for a truly united left. The biggest problem I can see is that a lot of organizations would feel too high and mighty to participate.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It would be difficult to create an organization like that, but it would be nice. There's way too many different groups bickering over little differences. Even i'm guilty of that and I admit it. I do hope that the left can be united one day though.

[thejambo1]

i agree it would be really good,and a group of the size it could be would be a very viable alternative. i just cant see it ever happening tho,too many differences and egos involved!!

[Pogue]

I think as a starting point, making it as informal and light as possible would be good, so we could build upon that. The centrality of the working class in all our ideologies would mean that come a revolution, we would all have the same aims (as I doubt any revolution would happen following one distinct ideological line, i.e. Anarchist Communism or Marx-Leninism directly) and the working class would be class concious anyway and would pursue the end of capitalism in whatever way it sees best, so I think an umbrella group is highly neccesary and not unfesable despite ideological differences.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You might find this useful:

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=241

[Equis]

Its possible if the differnet groups stopped bickering as you said and in fact is what we should all strive to establish. That we establish a revolutionary government is waht is important first, all the other little details can be dealt with then.

[Pogue]

You might find this useful:

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=241

Looks promising, do you have it in a shorter versionn perhaps with less jargon?

[redguard2009]

Here in Montreal there has been an initiative in the past 1-2 years by several revolutionary organizations of various ideological and political affiliations to create just such a revolutionary "anti-imperialist" umbrella group. It now comprises many different organizations, from the Trotskyist-dominated Bolivarian Society of Quebec (and its allies Hands Off Venezuela and the IMT), Anarkhia Collective (Anarchist-syndicalists), Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoists) and several other groups, such as several Filipino organizations allied with the Communist Party Philippines, the Iranian Socialist Union, Revolutionary Red Cross, and others. If such varied groups can form an umbrella (Maoists, Trotskyists and Anarchists, oh my!) then surely anyone can.

[Sam_b]

not bringing all the groups into one group, but merely uniting them and giving a common umbrella organisation for all to fit under?

We already have something like this. Its a united front.

[Pogue]

We already have something like this. Its a united front.

But I mean a permanent organisation, so that, say, if we needed to put the message of genuine working class revolutionary socialism, something we all agree on, we could band together and publish something under a collective name, perhaps have banners on demos with a collective name, etc. Nothing binding but just creating a link, a blanket.

[BobKKKindle$]

A united front can take the form of a permanent organization, because a united front is simply a coalition of working-class organizations including trade unions as well as political parties which agree on a shared set of demands but allow each participating organization to maintain its own political independence. For example, StWC is effectively a permanent organization even though it was originally created as a response to the impending invasion of Iraq and now campaigns on a whole range of issues including the Israel presence in Gaza and even the arms trade, and publishes documents and books in its own name. You know this, of course - many of the people on the Saturday demo were marching under StWC banners and placards.

[Pogue]

A united front can take the form of a permanent organization, because a united front is simply a coalition of working-class organizations including trade unions as well as political parties which agree on a shared set of demands but allow each participating organization to maintain its own political independence. For example, StWC is effectively a permanent organization even though it was originally created as a response to the impending invasion of Iraq and now campaigns on a whole range of issues including the Israel presence in Gaza and even the arms trade, and publishes documents and books in its own name. You know this, of course - many of the people on the Saturday demo were marching under StWC banners and placards.

Well I'd like a united front of all revolutionary groups in the UK (and then onto the world) and I don't think thats impossible. Like the First International but with us learning from our mistakes.

STWC isn't the same because its not a group that all revolutionary socialist groups are in which deals with all of the reovlutionary socialist issues.

[mikelepore]

Does anyone here think it'd be ever possible (or desirable) to have some sort of wide ranging international grouping, not bringing all the groups into one group, but merely uniting them and giving a common umbrella organisation for all to fit under?

The fewer positions it takes, the easier it will be. Adopting too many views filters out more prospective participants. Everyone who disagrees with goal #1 can't join, everyone who disagrees with goal #2 can't join, etc. Adopt a really long position statement, and then you're guaranteed that your membership meets in a phone booth.

[Forward Union]

Does anyone here think it'd be ever possible (or desirable) to have some sort of wide ranging international grouping, not bringing all the groups into one group, but merely uniting them and giving a common umbrella organisation for all to fit under? .

No. To quote the platform:
We reject as theoretically and practically inept the idea of creating an organisation after the recipe of the 'synthesis', that is to say re-uniting the representatives of different tendencies of anarchism. Such an organisation, having incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals each having a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on encountering reality
I don't believing in organizing with people I disagree with on fundamental issues.

[BobKKKindle$]

STWC isn't the same because its not a group that all revolutionary socialist groups are in which deals with all of the reovlutionary socialist issues.

That's a good point - but it also means that if socialists did try and form a revolutionary coalition, there would be disagreements over what exactly constitutes "revolutionary", because there are some self-described socialists who reject every other tendency apart from their own insignificant sect as being reactionary and part of the bourgeois apparatus - most notably, left-communists.

[Forward Union]

Well I'd like a united front of all revolutionary groups in the UK (and then onto the world) and I don't think thats impossible. Like the First International but with us learning from our mistakes.

The first international split because of the issue of the state, do you have a proposal for how to bridge that disagreement. It is after all a little bit more than "a disagreement" it's a fundamental and fairly epic rift between two revolutionary left tenancies that places them not only on opposite sides of the fence, but in opposition to each other.

Would this clowntent work within unions?, build it's own? oppose them all? or do nothing on the issue at all?

How would this organization promote it's long term plans "We hope to build a revolutionary workers state... or maybe not. But the point is you should support us"

I am against this idea on the grounds of it being impossible.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't believing in organizing with people I disagree with on fundamental issues.

Yet you're a member of IWW and LCAP?

[Bilan]

Revleft demonstrates why this wouldn't be possible. Too much infighting

[redguard2009]

With all "due" respect, RevLeft is hardly an accurate demonstration of the state of leftism in the world.

[The Feral Underclass]

With all "due" respect, RevLeft is hardly an accurate demonstration of the state of leftism in the world.

What? Middle class, white, straight men arguing over pedantic issues and refusing to accept when they're wrong? I think it's pretty damn accurate if you ask me. :tt2:

[Pogue]

What? Middle class, white, straight men arguing over pedantic issues and refusing to accept when they're wrong? I think it's pretty damn accurate if you ask me. :tt2:

I'm a black lesbian proletarian, actualy. And I'm wrong alot. There.

[Forward Union]

Yet you're a member of IWW and LCAP?

I'm not opposed to working within useful tools, both of these have a specific economic function, not a long term political one, hence I am also a member of LnS. I do believe large and diverse organizations can be built, accommodating certain differentiating views, but the rifts within the entire left are unbridgeable.

I would have through you agreed with that aspect of the platform anyway, the AF being a non-synthesit organization as it is.

[Bilan]

With all "due" respect, RevLeft is hardly an accurate demonstration of the state of leftism in the world.

I meant in regards to infighting. Which has often been demonstrated in history, and contemporary society as well, with socialists of all tendencies fighting and killing each other.
Look at Spain in 36 (George Orwells Homage to Catalonia discusses this, I think) or Russia, or whatever.

[Pogue]

I meant in regards to infighting. Which has often been demonstrated in history, and contemporary society as well, with socialists of all tendencies fighting and killing each other.
Look at Spain in 36 (George Orwells Homage to Catalonia discusses this, I think) or Russia, or whatever.

But theres still common ground, which we should unite under. Say there was what could be called a revolutionary situation of such, mass strikes, heavy repression, and the working class were taking things into their own hands witohut being concious of needing to abolish capitalism, like in Paris 68, surely all genuine revolutionaries would be united in their support for this and opposition to the state repression, etc.

[Bilan]

They weren't. Ever read about what some Stalinist groups - for example - did during Paris 68? or the Unionists? or those who opposed the Paris 68 strikes and revolt, but still maintained they were 'communists' or 'socialists' or whatever?

[Bilan]

or how about the PCF?

[Bilan]

A little wiki example,

In May 1968 widespread student riots and strikes broke out in France. The PCF supported the general strike but opposed the revolutionary student movement, which was dominated by Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism), Maoists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) and Anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist), and the so-called "new social movements" (including environmentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalist), gay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay) movements, prisoners' movement — see Michel Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault), etc.). The PCF also alienated many on the left by supporting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring).
Nevertheless, the PCF benefited from the left-wing mood of the period, and from the collapse of the socialists. Due to Waldeck Rochet's ill health, Jacques Duclos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Duclos) was the candidate at the 1969 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_1969). Duclos polled 21% of the vote, completely eclipsing the SFIO whom, represented by Gaston Defferre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Defferre), came in third in the first round. For the second round, the PCF refused to distinguish between Gaullist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaullism) Georges Pompidou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Pompidou) and Centrist Alain Poher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Poher), considering that was "six of one and half a dozen of the other" (in French: blanc bonnet ou bonnet blanc').

[Bilan]

The unions

These strikes were not led by the union movement; on the contrary, the CGT tried to contain this spontaneous outbreak of militancy by channeling it into a struggle for higher wages and other economic demands. Workers put forward a broader, more political and more radical agenda, demanding the ousting of the government and President de Gaulle and attempting, in some cases, to run their factories. When the trade union leadership negotiated a 35% increase in the minimum wage, a 7% wage increase for other workers, and half normal pay for the time on strike with the major employers' associations, the workers occupying their factories refused to return to work and jeered their union leaders.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not opposed to working within useful tools, both of these have a specific economic function, not a long term political one, hence I am also a member of LnS. I do believe large and diverse organizations can be built, accommodating certain differentiating views, but the rifts within the entire left are unbridgeable.

So you do organise with people you disagree with on fundamental issues...


I would have through you agreed with that aspect of the platform anyway, the AF being a non-synthesit organization as it is.

I agree broadly with it

[Forward Union]

So you do organise with people you disagree with on fundamental issues...

Ok yes, I do, in a limited way. But of course I recognize the limits of these kinds organizations. And the need for a different kind of organization that has theoretical unity.

There is a difference between organizations that are essentially political tools, such as the IWW. And political organizations.

I cant see the Socialist Umbrella group having any function at all, as its purpose will be either to propagate a theory it wont be able to agree on (in a big way!) or to act in a way it won't agree on.