The united red front?

[Davie zepeda]

I wanted ask you all would you consider voting for a united red front if it existed here in the usa?

What would the untied red front programme be?
I would consider letting all comrades in no matter ideology. We have a common
goal the end of capitalism.

I have been involved in d.c and most comrades only want be the next che none want be the worker it makes me sick.
How do we reach to the working class as the cpusa did in 192os in creating unions ?

_Anarchists_
Nefac
Crimethinc
_Trotskyists_
socialist equality party
Freedom socialist party
Worker international league
socialist Action
_Ex-Trotskyist Marxist-Leninists_
Workers world
party for socialism and liberation
socialist workers
_Stalinist/moaist_
Us marxist Leninist Organization
Party of the world revolution
_Multi-Tendency/Broad Socialists_
SP USA
Solidarity
International socialist
socialist labor party of america
_Anti-Leninist Marxists_
World socialist
_Left Communists_
International communist current
communist league/ workers party
_Liberal/Social Democratic_
Democratic socialist of america
labor party
green party
communist party usa

If was possible would you vote for it?

[revolution inaction]

Not being american i couldn't vote for it even if it existed, but the idea of achieving socialism through electoral means is absurd.

Also no real anarchist or anarchist organization would take part

[Davie zepeda]

So Lenin was absurd to use the duma?
Chavez Was absurd as well?
The Replica of Spain was absurd?
The point is not to get political power through it anyways but to break throw the media hold on what to show and not show. To show there is a other opinion not just these two parties.
I went to artist forum last year he said something very funny he said the anarchist that lived with him were sometimes even more organized then the marxist he would laugh under his breath by the contradiction .:laugh:

[revolution inaction]

So Lenin was absurd to use the duma?

Well we know how the russia revolution turned out, anyway when the elections didn't go the way of the Bolsheviks they arranged to dissolve the parliament so you can't really use that as a example of how parliamentary means can be used for the cause of revolution.



Chavez Was absurd as well?

Chavez is not any kind of socialist.



The Replica of Spain was absurd?

the republic sabotaged and attacked attempts at revolution.



The point is not to get political power through it anyways but to break throw the media hold on what to show and not show. To show there is a other opinion not just these two parties.

you can't use the capitalist media to spread a revolutionary message



I went to artist forum last year he said something very funny he said the anarchist that lived with him were sometimes even more organized then the marxist he would laugh under his breath by the contradiction .:laugh:

What contradiction? :blackA: anarchy is order :star:

[Davie zepeda]

no point in talking to you it's just preaching to the left which in my eyes is a waste.
The united front is the topic not the pessimistic propaganda coming out your mouth this is coming form a man who thinks osama is good heh. I 'd expected this from a person who ideology is to go against any form of order.

[revolution inaction]

no point in talking to you it's just preaching to the left which in my eyes is a waste.
The united front is the topic not the pessimistic propaganda coming out your mouth this is coming form a man who thinks osama is good heh. I 'd expected this from a person who ideology is to go against any form of order.

have you never heard of sarcasm? i put fucking emotacons in it for fucks sake!

And anarchism is not opposed to order!

i was serious about this

anarchy is order

[gorillafuck]

I went to artist forum last year he said something very funny he said the anarchist that lived with him were sometimes even more organized then the marxist he would laugh under his breath by the contradiction .:laugh:
Where on Earth did that come from?

[Raúl Duke]

Anarchists today are very unlikely to join part of a "united front" with most or all of those factions in the list and/or (even more so on that aspect) participate in elections. While before in the Spanish Civil War something of the kind was done, that experience (i.e. leaving the state intact allowed our so-called left "allies" the ability to crush the revolution in Barcelona) has now only confirmed that the state is useless and dangerous to our goals.

Also the left-communists are not going to join a "united front" with most/all of those factions. They consider most of those factions to be the "left-side of capital" (or something to that effect) and would not even join them under the pre-text of an "anti-fascist front" since they consider such collaboration with the bourgeoisie, etc to be reactionary.

[revolution inaction]

Also the left-communists are not going to join a "united front" with most/all of those factions. They consider most of those factions to be the "left-side of capital" (or something to that effect) and would not even join them under the pre-text of an "anti-fascist front" since they consider such collaboration with the bourgeoisie, etc to be reactionary.

I didn't see that, i only read as far as anarchist, i didn't need to read anymore after that

[Davie zepeda]

it's not a insult it's what the artist said he observed while living with them during his time in Berlin that's all.
I know thats your ideology but what i was trying to say was that you reject the institution and the state correct .So my point wasn't to make your get aggravated it was was to let you know that i knew what your saving and that's your veiw. i know i can't change it but i can try to sway it from normal standings.

[StalinFanboy]

The absurdity of this thread brightens my day.

[Brother No. 1]

how does it brighten your day and still very little possibleity for Socialsit cause in america comrade.

[StalinFanboy]

I enjoy absurd things.

[Davie zepeda]

Point taking it is reactionary but we can not keep doing the same tactics of the pass it calls for new ones if it were possible.Marx even him self said the first socialist revolution would be a failure the second a farce the third could be the one. To me anarchist are just leftist who want to skip the phases now and reach it. it is understandable because the communist in this day and age are useless we haven't even defend the old gains of the past .i understand comrade we have failed horrible but in the future we will make up for it the bureaucracy from the past will not exist because the elite will not be the revolution but the working class.

[Davie zepeda]

It may be absurd but it is needed the vanguard is not the elite but the working class
we have isolated are self's from them we must take to the factories and go were the working class is at and join them at there battle. Build new unions that let the working class think radical and let them express there true feeling for there bosses. It is time to purge the old comrades of cpusa and other factions for they have tooken the arms of the bourgeoisie and replace it with the youth who are still loyal to the cause.

[Raúl Duke]

Point taking it is reactionary but we can not keep doing the same tactics of the pass it calls for new ones if it were possible.

Actually, this proposal of a united front is not a new tactic in anyway. This was proposed before as a united front against fascism (sometimes even including liberals and other such parties) back in the 1930s.

Thus, cause it's been done before, I already have conclude that we (by this I mean the anarchists) should reject it considering the experience during the Spanish Civil War when we were sold-out by most of our statist leftist/anti-fascist allies.

I'm reaching this reasonable conclusion from historical facts.
Can you at least (besides just giving us a list of what this front may look like) argue why should a united front is useful, why it would work this time, etc?

Although you said "it is reactionary"...are you referring to the idea of united front? If so, then do you have another idea, are you actually telling us to do something "reactionary", or do you no longer hold this "new" idea?

[Davie zepeda]

these are not the same conditions and they don't apply to now they are historic factor but we cannot apply them to the usa.

argue why should a united front is useful, why it would work this time, etc?

For one as communist,anarchist,socialist etec we have learned from the past. The same mistake will not happen even thou some have been. We must be willing to learn and move like the water able to change with are conditions.
Second: we have an extreme advantage with crisis people will still be looking for alternative and with new age weapons for us to use that we have yet to learn how to truly use.

The united front would made up of different factions the programme would be built by are conditions and the debate on theory would be left for end . For the main object now is to end capitalism .

[Brother No. 1]

that is true so there differences would stop and they would fight to end Capitalism but can they actualy over come their differences.

[Davie zepeda]

I will stick with it because they maybe reactionary but im not truly.Im not Acting on me or my ideals but the conditions and what they ask and they ask for us to unite to give conciseness to the majority of masses who are afraid to express there real feelings because they might become isolated within there commuity but there worng for they will have us as comrades and the whole nation of uinted red front!

[Brother No. 1]

that was good comrade.:D

[Davie zepeda]

I believe we can but the problem is it calls for a leader and most movements have been based on a great leaders but this is nonsense it must be based on the working class once they realize that this is not representing on who will control the movement but empowering the working class they will stop their arguing and join to fight there true enemy the imperialist. There are two camps one of socialist and the other of imperialist.

[Brother No. 1]

but that might take awhile for the americans i have seen souly belive in the "America" thats right aka Capitalist america it make some time but we will pull thorugh in the end.

[Davie zepeda]

it' is difficult to accept but the revolution will not happen in are life time but who's to say we can not build the blocks to prepare the future generation to bring the system down we must build the foundation of the united front.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I voted no before I really read the post. I stick with no though. Certainly I would refuse if there was a revolutionary situation because of the course of history. As for right now in the USA it wouldn't be any harm but the idea of voting for a red front in elections sounds absurd to me.

I think it's funny how someone who supposedly supports communism is talking about how anarchists are against order because they want society without a state...... Irony much?

[Davie zepeda]

Communism is based on classless society ultimately in the end we will have anarchy but with the means of production in the hands of the working class not like now were we have anarchy but the means of production in the hands of the elite. Right now everything benefits the upper class .

[Chicano Shamrock]

Communism is based on classless society ultimately in the end we will have anarchy but with the means of production in the hands of the working class not like now were we have anarchy but the means of production in the hands of the elite. Right now everything benefits the upper class .
Ummm what? We don't live in an anarchist society right now...

[Davie zepeda]

The united state has anarchy as well as socialist moments but everything good can be used for evil as we can see with the socialism for rich and capitalism for the poor. Your freedom to complain and protest is anarchy and break and bash as well but they learned by now how to beat us just ignore everything we do and show nothing in the media.

[Circle E Society]

youre mixing anarchy up with liberties the state pretends to grant to us...

[Das war einmal]

It cant exsist just yet because the openingpost already calls certain organizations 'stalinist', maybe if you start by cutting that shit and treat your political opponents with a little more respect, cooperating would be a bit easier

[Pogue]

I enjoy absurd things.

Thats probably because you're an egoistic idiot.

[StalinFanboy]

Thats probably because you're an egoistic idiot.
Real mature.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Although its a nice idea its completly impractical. While for instance anarchists and trots can work together on something such as an anti ID campaign there is no way they can work together on reaching a revolution since anarchists and statists will at the end of the day be opposed to each other (in terms of the a state and the like).

Also anarchists dont run in elections because we are the dogs bollocks.

[Brother No. 1]

all of the different Communist have their own ideas of how things should run but for now they should just focus on one thing the destruction of Capitalism but who knows if they can and will actually do that.

[Davie zepeda]

The factor in this debate is are we going to gain more comrades and give the masses the real change they yearn for or stay isolated in are rooms calling for revolution at are posters! The debate can happen when capitalism and the ruling class are dead then we can take all the time we want to choose which policies to follow in peace with the workers sitting with us.

[S.O.I]

jeezuz people, lets fight it out AFTER we overthrow capitalism... were not getting any younger :lol:

[Brother No. 1]

true comrade

[Red October]

I'd shit myself if NEFAC joined any "red front" electoral coalition with stalinists, trots, etc. Hell, I'd be surprised if you could get even a handful of those groups into any coherent alliance.

[Brother No. 1]

bottom line Trots and stalinist dont mix Maoist and Stalinist dont mix and Anarchist well i dont know ask them really we dont get along with each other some times but we can fight later for now we destroy capitalism we can kill each other later

[Killfacer]

Although its a nice idea its completly impractical. While for instance anarchists and trots can work together on something such as an anti ID campaign there is no way they can work together on reaching a revolution since anarchists and statists will at the end of the day be opposed to each other (in terms of the a state and the like).

Also anarchists dont run in elections because we are the dogs bollocks.

This sums up my response.

[revolution inaction]

Whats with idiots saying we should cooperate on destroying capitalism now and argue/fight afterwards? do they not understand the principle differences between the different tendencies is how to destroy capitalism? any one with the most basic understanding of politics should be able to see this.

[Brother No. 1]

well killfacer do the anarchist work with any one else or are the on their own

[Red October]

well killfacer do the anarchist work with any one else or are the on their own

I'm an anarchist and I can work with other tendencies on certain issues, but if it ever got down to an actual revolution, we've got very little common ground with leninists and such.

[Brother No. 1]

just wondering so that means in the Revoltion you would mosty work with other Anarchist am i right like the Stalinist would work with them selfs and The Leninist will support the Marxist exc.

[Enragé]

its not possible, but yes I'd vote for a united red/black front (though i don't think the anarchists will participate), simply because you can use the parliament as a stage for revolutionary politics (but no more than that, consciousness is built in the streets!)

[Red Robespierre]

There's nothing particularly or inherently wrong with Fronts, but the Red Front proposed by the author of this thread is absurd.

For starters, the US working class is guided by the labor aristocracy and are unlikely to support socialism for the fact that, considering their relatively high attainment of personal material wealth, would find it contrary to their interests. Their is no revolutionary base for this program.

Secondly, you propose a grand alliance between revolutionary socialists and the participatory political movements that have no desire or interest in seeing the proletariat come to power.

Thirdly, even if this grand alliance were to materialize - the material conditions and political situation in the United States (as they exist now) would still render the socialist movement on the margins of politics.

[Davie zepeda]

It is not absurd the conditions are calling for a alternative if we are not willing to take the opportunity of this crisis then we are useless.

The working class is not entrench by material wealth i remember talking with my friend who works in a factory and him saying this words that had great passion for me "Me and other workers think we could run the factory better without boss and management since we know how to run the machines" The simple fact workers know they can run things without bosses or management shows there level of consciousness ready for revolutionary molding.

That could be true. But how would you know if your not are willing to try.A programme is built with the workers not the elite intellectual for that reason i do not assume what the working class wants. They must choose their programme.

Plus have you talk with any of these groups? one my comrades in D.c said there very much interested in the united front but need more people willing to set a side there differences.

Comrade capitalism is in crisis Marx is being sold left and right in Germany, Japanese are flocking to the communist party, Latin america is in the process of revolution even some parts of Europe are seeing that socialism was the way And you want to idle sit back?

There is no vanguard for these movements and it is needed the new international vanguard will be us in the united states no matter what Not a step backwards!

[skki]

Anarchists and Stalinists in the same party? Image those two getting together and discussing policy. Libertarianism vs Totalitarianism. may as well just invite the BNP too.

Also; every Anarchist would cease to be an Anarchist on joining.

Governments are inherently illegitimate, and can only spread their policies through threats of violence and incarceration. Every Anarchist opposes them.

[StalinFanboy]

Anarchists and Stalinists in the same party? Image those two getting together and discussing policy. Libertarianism vs Totalitarianism. may as well just invite the BNP too.

Also; every Anarchist would cease to be an Anarchist on joining.

Governments are inherently illegitimate, and can only spread their policies through threats of violence and incarceration. Every Anarchist opposes them.
This. Anarchists believe that the state is just as much of an enemy as capitalism is.

[Davie zepeda]

Then the state and capitalism will rule. no matter what our fight is always connected to each other even amongst those who doubt it is necessary to understand that if you can not over come your minor differences then tell me really how you can over come racism and homophobic thoughts you might as well fight a different battle comrade. that is what make us different from other camps are willingest to change are self's as the revolution evolves .

[StalinFanboy]

Then the state and capitalism will rule. no matter what our fight is always connected to each other even amongst those who doubt it is necessary to understand that if you can not over come your minor differences then tell me really how you can over come racism and homophobic thoughts you might as well fight a different battle comrade. that is what make us different from other camps are willingest to change are self's as the revolution evolves .
You're asking for Anarchists to compromise on an issue that is a key component of Anarchist thought: Anti-authoritarianism. There are not minor differences between Leninsts or Stalinists and Anarchists. It is a huge difference.

Fighting racism, sexism, etc. is taking the ideas of Anarchism to their logical conclusions. Fighting these ideas is not the same as ignoring our own.

[Davie zepeda]

Look if i can set a side fortune 500 looking for people to hire i think you can set aside your obstacles.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No, We are anarchists because we dont compromise with certain things if we did we would not be anarchists.

[ls]

Although its a nice idea its completly impractical.

While impractical it isn't quite impossible IMO.


While for instance anarchists and trots can work together on something such as an anti ID campaign there is no way they can work together on reaching a revolution since anarchists and statists will at the end of the day be opposed to each other (in terms of the a state and the like).

As you say, end of the day there not the beginning. I think some agreeable sets of circumstances could lead on to some strange mixed kind of revolution, it is highly improbable but not impossible.

[Davie zepeda]

Nothing is impossible with a plan of action truly effective in programme and inspiring the masses to higher standard of goverment.

[Das war einmal]

A united dead front is more likely seeing the pessimistic posts here. Atleast we are all equal then.

[casper]

it would be good to just have the left as a stronger general presence then what it is now. maby a loose collaboration will increase the amount of information available to people. maby people will understand that communism isn't totalitarianism and anarchy isn't social chaos. the red front=Promotional campain? after all i hate my economics book for a reason, it totally lies about communisim, or at least spreads mis-information.

[Enragé]

Johnny Darko:


Thus, cause it's been done before, I already have conclude that we (by this I mean the anarchists) should reject it considering the experience during the Spanish Civil War when we were sold-out by most of our statist leftist/anti-fascist allies.

Actually comrade, if the CNT had continued its policy of abstentionism, there wouldn't have been a leftist government, no revolution, no civil war (it was only because of anarchist votes that the popular front came into power). Now, where it all went wrong is that when the CNT had the chance to smash the state, oust the bourgoeisie from power it was split over the issue of "Whether or not to take power"... in the end they, with the narrowest of majorities, decided not to take power (because of their oh so anarchist principles) which put them ironically enough on the path to becoming a collaborationist PARTNER in a bourgeois government.

What we saw in spain during the revolution were anarchist principles clashing with the reality of class struggle: either you finish off the bourgeoisie (and thus in effect "take power") or the bourgeoisie regains its power and finishes you off.


While for instance anarchists and trots can work together on something such as an anti ID campaign there is no way they can work together on reaching a revolution since anarchists and statists will at the end of the day be opposed to each other (in terms of the a state and the like).

That's nonsensical, the lines won't be drawn like that. More likely it will be idiotic trots and idiotic anarchists on the one side, and decent trots and decent anarchists on the other. Lets just try and keep the idiots to a minimum.

[Vendetta]

no matter what our fight is always connected to each other even amongst those who doubt it is necessary to understand that if you can not over come your minor differences then tell me really how you can over come racism and homophobic thoughts you might as well fight a different battle comrade.

The differences between anarchism and Stalinism are in no way 'minor'

[Brother No. 1]

large differences between Stalinism and Anarchism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

While impractical it isn't quite impossible IMO.



As you say, end of the day there not the beginning. I think some agreeable sets of circumstances could lead on to some strange mixed kind of revolution, it is highly improbable but not impossible.

Its so improbable its not worth discussing seriously. Two groups opposed to each other on an issue as large as the existence of a state cannot work together.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

That's nonsensical, the lines won't be drawn like that. More likely it will be idiotic trots and idiotic anarchists on the one side, and decent trots and decent anarchists on the other. Lets just try and keep the idiots to a minimum.

It would be an idiotic anarchist who forgets the experiences of the early 20th centuray.

[Mindtoaster]

It would be an idiotic anarchist who forgets the experiences of the early 20th centuray.

It would be the idiotic anarchist who believes ideologies and material conditions are exactly the same as they were in the early 20th century

[Enragé]

It would be an idiotic anarchist who forgets the experiences of the early 20th centuray.

err yes, and what were they exactly?

Both during the russian revolution and its aftermath there were anarchists who switched sides (as, no doubt, there were leninists who were heavily opposed to the massacre at kronstadt etc.)

During the spanish revolution trotskyites stood side to side with anarchists in combatting the stalinists, and yet even there, there is at least one example i can recall where a prominent anarchist switched sides to the stalinists (not to mention that in the end the POUM and the Friends of Durrutti were the only ones still consistently pursuing the line of "revolution now! not "later"!", i.e trots and an anarchist group)


No, We are anarchists because we dont compromise with certain things if we did we would not be anarchists.

Too often (not always) adapting your TACTICS on the basis of objective circumstances is seen by anarchists as "compromising". Not rioting when you number only in the dozens, whilst being in favour of rioting while numbering in the tens/hundreds of thousands, has nothing to do with compromising or being "reactionary" (as one "autonomous" once put it at a meeting i was at).

[StalinFanboy]

No sane Anarchist would participate in a Unite Red Front with statists. That's what it comes down to. We are Anarchists because we view the state as an enemy just as important as capitalism. There is no preferable state.

[Enragé]

No sane Anarchist would participate in a Unite Red Front with statists. That's what it comes down to. We are Anarchists because we view the state as an enemy just as important as capitalism. There is no preferable state.

thats what the anarchists in spain said as well during the elections prior to the 1936 elections (i think it was in 1934). The result? Huge numbers of CNT imprisoned by the rightwing government that came to power.

Because of this, CNT dropped their "Don't Vote!" (No votad!) campaign in '36. The result? A left-wing government, prisoners released, bourgeois reaction to the government (attempted fascist coup), REVOLUTION!

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It would be the idiotic anarchist who believes ideologies and material conditions are exactly the same as they were in the early 20th century

Yup ideologies and material conditions are so diffrent that anarchists and Leninists have no disagreement over the state and its now not a very big issue and we can all get along.

Fuck off.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

err yes, and what were they exactly?

Both during the russian revolution and its aftermath there were anarchists who switched sides (as, no doubt, there were leninists who were heavily opposed to the massacre at kronstadt etc.)

Yes im sure there were. But those lennists wernt in power were they? Henceforth fuck all was achieved.


During the spanish revolution trotskyites stood side to side with anarchists in combatting the stalinists,

Yes but I doubt that would be the case if Trotsky was in the Kremlin insted of somewhere in Mexico.

[revolution inaction]

During the spanish revolution trotskyites stood side to side with anarchists in combatting the stalinists, and yet even there, there is at least one example i can recall where a prominent anarchist switched sides to the stalinists (not to mention that in the end the POUM and the Friends of Durrutti were the only ones still consistently pursuing the line of "revolution now! not "later"!", i.e trots and an anarchist group)

The POUM weren't trotskyites, i think a the time trotsky favored supporting the Stalinists.

[Crux]

The POUM weren't trotskyites, i think a the time trotsky favored supporting the Stalinists.
Sort of and no no no no no no. Why would you believe that?
Anyway the POUM was a centrist party, and Andres Nin a former co-thinker of trotsky and his group created POUM with a merger with a Bukharinist ("right communist") group. Trotsky was opposed to this becose the youth section of the Socialist party had openly asked Nin and his group to join them, expressing an interest in trotskyists ideas. In not doing this Nin missed out on an enormous opportunity. Instead the stalinists managed to capture most of the leftwards moving members of the young Socialists and thus create a base for themselfes. So not did Nin miss an oppourtunity to build the organisation in a significant way, he also provided the stalinsits with a base. This said trotsky did concidered the POUM to be the most classconsciousgroup of spain, and precisly because of this he was also extra critical of their wrong policies. marxists.org's trotsky archive has quite a bit on the spanish revolution and POUM.

[StalinFanboy]

thats what the anarchists in spain said as well during the elections prior to the 1936 elections (i think it was in 1934). The result? Huge numbers of CNT imprisoned by the rightwing government that came to power.

Because of this, CNT dropped their "Don't Vote!" (No votad!) campaign in '36. The result? A left-wing government, prisoners released, bourgeois reaction to the government (attempted fascist coup), REVOLUTION!

I thought the material conditions of 1930's Spain were different than today and what not :P

[Crux]

Yes im sure there were. But those lennists wernt in power were they? Henceforth fuck all was achieved.


Yes but I doubt that would be the case if Trotsky was in the Kremlin insted of somewhere in Mexico.
So the russian revolution achieved nothing? Really?

No, not necessarily. presuming that under these very diffrent situation the anarchists would still be a massforce in spain, not having long ago being eclipsed by the Communist internationals spanish section under a revolutionary leadership.

[peaccenicked]

The left is too sectarian. Each has its independent apparatus. There can be marriages
of convenience, but these marriages are intrinsically unhappy because of the need to control the direction the united front takes as it becomes a financial appendix to these groups. The goal becomes mutual sabotage, and parasitism of the front.
The majority group ends up with grounds for expelling the smaller groups.
The groups may even voluntary dissolve formally but it is usually just a show.
The trouble is that the cults of the personality and united front politics are incompatible.
Dog eat dog is the nature of the socialist groups in the current climate.

Yet marriages ought to be attempted, perhaps we will break the mould eventually
by starting an internal revolution aimed at the socialisation of all legal political activity.
The sharing of budgets for electoral seats with proportional representation . The accountability of leaders to the whole rather than a part. The goal of a united public relations that allows for differences of principles within the movement to be expressed in friendly terms, and unity of action when principles are in accord.
Why ask an anti-parliamentarian to take part in an election campaign?
Extra parliamentary action may cause difficulties for instance it should not be compromised by populist parliamentary considerations.
Living together is not easy but if common sense is applied it could bring a united front together, but then again there needs to be the political will.
Viva la Revolution!

[proletar1917]

Marxist-Leninism is the way of the red front :)

[Enragé]

Yup ideologies and material conditions are so diffrent that anarchists and Leninists have no disagreement over the state and its now not a very big issue and we can all get along.


most of this disagreement is semantics. I'll put it like this: decent leninists have a conception of post-revolutionary society which is the same as the conception of the anarchists, however, since marxists have a different definition of what a state is, they are pro-state: a state is in marxism simply defined as an armed group of people, thus, for as long as a worker's militia or whatever exists, there is a state (and in the leninist mind Aragón had a state during the spanish civil war).


Yes im sure there were. But those lennists wernt in power were they? Henceforth fuck all was achieved

Not the point comrade. The point was that there are (always have been and always will be) decent leninists aside idiotic ones, as there are (always have been and always will be) idiotic anarchists. The issue isnt whether someone is leninist or anarchist, the issue is whether or not they think critically, and with single-minded purpose of one thing (on the "political" side of things): revolution leading to classless society.


Yes but I doubt that would be the case if Trotsky was in the Kremlin insted of somewhere in Mexico

I don't know, but again, not the point.


I thought the material conditions of 1930's Spain were different than today and what not :P

Err, ofcourse. But right-wing governments are still more prone to lock up left wing radicals than left-wing governments are, and the bourgeoisie would still react in the same way as they did in spain if you had a government that would do anything to the extent of what the popular front was planning/in the process of doing/enacting (enormous land distribution). That hasnt changed, or do you think it has?



Mayakovsky:

presuming that under these very diffrent situation the anarchists would still be a massforce in spain, not having long ago being eclipsed by the Communist internationals spanish section under a revolutionary leadership.


That's an extremely nonsensical claim seeing the history of both the anarchists as well as the marxists in spain. The CNT were strong for a reason: out of all the grouplets and somewhat larger revolutionary organisations they were the "best" adapted to the specific circumstances in spain. Not to mention, anarchism simply got to spain earlier than marxism did. The CNT also grew enormously fast, i think it was only in 1908 that the group Solidaridad was founded (they had a newspaper and all! damn trots xD), which went on to eventually found the CNT.

[Mindtoaster]

Yup ideologies and material conditions are so diffrent that anarchists and Leninists have no disagreement over the state and its now not a very big issue and we can all get along.

Fuck off.

So if a marxist was to say "Well, alright. After the elections we'll have a vote, and parties where you have the majority will have the state withdrawn from them"

You would just say; "No you're going to stab us in the back as soon as you take power! Just look at what the stalinists did a hundred years ago!"

:rolleyes:

[Enragé]

So if a marxist was to say "Well, alright. After the elections we'll have a vote, and parties where you have the majority will have the state withdrawn from them"

define "state"

apart from that, i still dont get what you're getting at o0

[Mindtoaster]

define "state"

apart from that, i still dont get what you're getting at o0

I'm saying its stupid to not form an alliance with someone simply because they don't identify with your particular brand of communism

[revolution inaction]

So if a marxist was to say "Well, alright. After the elections we'll have a vote, and parties where you have the majority will have the state withdrawn from them"

You would just say; "No you're going to stab us in the back as soon as you take power! Just look at what the stalinists did a hundred years ago!"

:rolleyes:

we don't need to go back a hundred years for stalinists claiming to be revolutionary then enacting reactionary policies when in power
http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-nepal-propose-t99880/index.html?t=99880

[revolution inaction]

I'm saying its stupid to not form an alliance with someone simply because they don't identify with your particular brand of communism

its stupid to form an alliance with someone whose politics and tactics are completely incompatible with yours

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So the russian revolution achieved nothing? Really?

No but it seemed to do fuck all for anarchism within Russia and for there to be a chance of a "Red front" there must be Mutual benefits to both parties and for anarchists a state is not a benefit.

Leninist want a state and will cast anarchists away when that is needed for them to set up their state. However us anarchists not being fans of being cast away have a very good point when telling you to go fuck a radiator.

And no we will not be "anarchist" wing of your vanguard and thats that.

[peaccenicked]

The difference between anarchist and Leninists are varied and different. These differences get resolved a little when we work together for a consensus, in practice. Theoretical differences are of little consequence except in the prison cell afterwards, maybe.
Yet the differences cannot be ignored. They inform each other's political decision making.
Hence it is possible for us to march separately and strike together.
It looks like what is required is communication skills.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So if a marxist was to say "Well, alright. After the elections we'll have a vote, and parties where you have the majority will have the state withdrawn from them"

You would just say; "No you're going to stab us in the back as soon as you take power! Just look at what the stalinists did a hundred years ago!"

:rolleyes:

I would say probably say somthing more along the lines of. No because its not logical for them to do that to achieve their aims henceforth chances are they wont do that. Which is a shame since it means we don't end up with proper elections and a proper democratic choice.

[peaccenicked]

The difference between anarchist and Leninists are varied and different. These differences get resolved a little when we work together for a consensus, in practice. Theoretical differences are of little consequence except in the prison cell afterwards, maybe.
Yet the differences cannot be ignored. They inform each other's political decision making.
Hence it is possible for us to march separately and strike together.
It looks like what is required is communication skills.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

most of this disagreement is semantics. I'll put it like this: decent leninists have a conception of post-revolutionary society which is the same as the conception of the anarchists, however, since marxists have a different definition of what a state is, they are pro-state: a state is in marxism simply defined as an armed group of people, thus, for as long as a worker's militia or whatever exists, there is a state (and in the leninist mind Aragón had a state during the spanish civil war).

Apart from Leninists dont want a paris commune style state they want a state in the style of the soviet union like one in the year 19XX.




Not the point comrade. The point was that there are (always have been and always will be) decent leninists aside idiotic ones, as there are (always have been and always will be) idiotic anarchists. The issue isnt whether someone is leninist or anarchist, the issue is whether or not they think critically, and with single-minded purpose of one thing (on the "political" side of things): revolution leading to classless society.

Yes but whether sombody is a Communist Guru or as thick as shit dosent matter if the two sides end up opposed other something as large as the exsistance of a state. They can only go so far together in terms of making the working class aware of it selves then the two groups must go their separate ways.




I don't know, but again, not the point.


How aint it the point?

[ls]

They can only go so far together in terms of making the working class aware of it selves then the two groups must go their separate ways.

That would be fine by me, that would in fact be very good and an advancement for all concerned sides of the left.

I did vote no in the end of the day to this poll though because end of day it's too impractical; semantics in this case are too important to ignore.

[Davie zepeda]

Stop leaving the decsion of the worker up to the vanguard and elite bureaucracy. Certain theory's have there pro and cons but the decsion of policy is in the hands of the worker not YOURS! The workers will decide which path to follow. As the vanguard it is are job to defend and protect them. Revolution some time needs a revolution within it's self or we become like are enemies conservative to are ideals enslaved by are theory's and not following the examples of leaders of before . Continuing the revolution by adding new material conditions as well as new phases in the revolution!
It is understandable to stick with your ideals but it is not understandable to let the ruling class rain without dissent from the left at all . We all have become consumed with are ambitions are views that hold us back from progression. Death to the bourgeoisie and there dividing tactics let the working class be the one to ignite socialism once a again.
Comrades we Can not wait!
I will raise this issues at the next assembly the cpusa has become reformist but who's to say it will stay like that.:star3:

[mikelepore]

It's not clear to me how these groups would form a united front. It seems to me that the reason they are now separate groups in the first place is that we have a lot of people to say to each other: the goal or strategy you consider workable, I consider unworkable, and the goal or strategy you consider unworkable, I consider workable. So what's the basis for unification? Can the fire department welcome volunteers who want to join and go along on the fire truck so that they can spray gasoline on the fires? It's the same kind of difficulty, that the groups in the list generally look upon the other groups in the list as part of the problem that has to be defeated.

What any or all of the groups in the list *could* do is, for starters, is to pick one task that all of them agree on, say, produce a book or video that explains how capitalism is the cause of poverty, pollution, and other social problems, explains the exploitation of labor, expose capitalism as inherently incapable of operating in the interests of the majority of the people. Have all of the participating groups sign their names and share the cost of publication. The preface should point this out: while they all disagree on how to fix the situation, they agree on such an assessment of what the current capitalist situation is. That would be a useful exercise in cooperation. This might give them all some practice in cooperating, and make it easier to cooperate on additional things in the future.

Another thing all left organizations should do is meet to debate issues about the best goal and program, and share the cost of distributing these debates in the form of printed documents and audio/video recordings. There can be no basis for anyone feeling that they have compromised their principles.

Various left organizations should also try to co-publish books and videos in which they agree on how to describe the disagreements that they have with each other. In other words, even while they while they disagree about the necessary goal and program, they should try to agree on the words that comprise an accurate description of their disagreements. This will help them to understand each other better. I believe that a large segment of the population would be interested in these publications or videos.

These groups are nowhere near being able to unite in the literal sense, but there are several projects that they could cooperate on immediately. Maybe such exercises would gradually lead to a unification of a class conscious working class movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe such exercises would gradually lead to a unification of a class conscious working class movement.

But didn't your repetitive buddy Dave say that raising class consciousness was like "saving souls for the Lord"? :D

[peaccenicked]

. Maybe such exercises would gradually lead to a unification of a class conscious working class movement.
I do not think a common program will develop as a matter of political will
in itself. Such political will can only come about by common struggle leading to common conclusions. It is possible that people come to the same conclusions by different routes. As I indicated earlier, I think the project is premature, in that the political will is largely missing for the reasons i gave.

The left is in its infancy compared to what is needed for mass action to sustain momentum. There needs to be a pole of attraction, that can cohere working class unity.
All we have is left celebrities, who act as loose canons with no accountability.
We need something better, something democratic, that is conducive to
building lines of communication, and crystalizing the discussion on what is needed to go forward.
I suspect the left will wake up when the workers demand more from their "own" as sickening capitalism roughens them up.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Stop leaving the decsion of the worker up to the vanguard and elite bureaucracy. Certain theory's have there pro and cons but the decsion of policy is in the hands of the worker not YOURS! The workers will decide which path to follow. As the vanguard it is are job to defend and protect them. Revolution some time needs a revolution within it's self or we become like are enemies conservative to are ideals enslaved by are theory's and not following the examples of leaders of before . Continuing the revolution by adding new material conditions as well as new phases in the revolution!
It is understandable to stick with your ideals but it is not understandable to let the ruling class rain without dissent from the left at all . We all have become consumed with are ambitions are views that hold us back from progression. Death to the bourgeoisie and there dividing tactics let the working class be the one to ignite socialism once a again.
Comrades we Can not wait!
I will raise this issues at the next assembly the cpusa has become reformist but who's to say it will stay like that.:star3:

What if the workers dont want to join a vangaurd and become some twat in a hats plaything. We are also talking about here and now as well.

Also in regards to the CPUSA the fucking fuckers fucked.

[Crux]

No but it seemed to do fuck all for anarchism within Russia and for there to be a chance of a "Red front" there must be Mutual benefits to both parties and for anarchists a state is not a benefit.

Leninist want a state and will cast anarchists away when that is needed for them to set up their state. However us anarchists not being fans of being cast away have a very good point when telling you to go fuck a radiator.

And no we will not be "anarchist" wing of your vanguard and thats that.It's interesting you should say that, because lenin actually had plans for giving the anarchists a piece of russia to try their stateless way to socialism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yeah but in real life though he had no intention.

[Crux]

It's interesting how much you seem to know about his *intentions*. You do know he died in 1923, right?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It's interesting how much you seem to know about his *intentions*. You do know he died in 1923, right?

Yes but I can imagine thats just something he said since if he means that i doubt he would have acted in the way he did over ukraine.

[Crux]

There were several attempts, in vain, to reach an agreement with the Black Army. Like the menshiviks and most of the social revolutionaries they too went into armed resistance against the Soviets. However, the makhnovischina was hardly the only anarchists in the russian revolution.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

True. But id be intrested to know what those agreements were that the soviets tried to make. I suspect they were shite.

[peaccenicked]

And no we will not be "anarchist" wing of your vanguard and thats that.
In a democratic red front.If anarchists were the majority, there might be a "Leninist" wing of their collective. If you see it in those terms.
The trouble is that Leninism and vanguardism are very much shadows of their former selves. Take this crisis for instance, what is being done. There should be public meeting after public meeting, flyers all over the place, demo's protests, sit-ins.
We are being screwed over and its getting worse every day.
The mobilisation for Gaza was the best the left could muster.
Indymedia calls for co-operation and direct action.
I don't see much of anything.
Sometimes I think all of the left has been sabotaged by the State.
What has developed is a culture of silence.
This involves sheepish routinism.
We need committees of action.

In Iceland they are holding the parliament under seige.
How bad does it need to get before we start to move in this direction.
The left is underplaying their cards, it is though nothing has changed.
Just a routine business cycle drop.
Who is asking the question? Is this the final crisis of capitalism?
Where is the debate on this?

Is that so out of the question for revolutionaries?
The left are making safer estimates for capitalism than many economists.

[ashaman1324]

i voted yes to a united red front.
i think i may have misinterpretted the question as i didnt read the whole conversation before i voted.
i voted yes because i believe all leftists can work towards a common goal, not revolution. a group of leftists campaigning for workers rights, anti fascism, protesting, etc. i think is possible. im not familiar with all parties and organizations listed by davie but leninists and anarchists even might be able to work together depending on the structure/ leadership of the "united red front"

[Charles Xavier]

There might be a common popular front possible but not with all the groups you mention, especially not the international "communist" current who are against doing anything or supporting anyone, they are wackos. And as for 1 of the anarchist groups, I hardly find how eating out of dumpsters is revolutionary.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

In a democratic red front.If anarchists were the majority, there might be a "Leninist" wing of their collective. If you see it in those terms.

There might be but obviously the lennists would want a lennist organization and the Anarchists would oppose such an organization. Neither of them who want to get anywere would compramise.


The trouble is that Leninism and vanguardism are very much shadows of their former selves. Take this crisis for instance, what is being done. There should be public meeting after public meeting, flyers all over the place, demo's protests, sit-ins.
We are being screwed over and its getting worse every day.
The mobilisation for Gaza was the best the left could muster.
Indymedia calls for co-operation and direct action.
I don't see much of anything.
Sometimes I think all of the left has been sabotaged by the State.
What has developed is a culture of silence.
This involves sheepish routinism.
We need committees of action.

We do. The answer to this is not attaching water and electricity as the pro "red fronters" which but for the revolutionary groups to pull their fingers out. I have also found that people are now much more open to left wing ideas then before and Anarchists in the UK are trying to get their shit together at the conference.

[StalinFanboy]

There might be a common popular front possible but not with all the groups you mention, especially not the international "communist" current who are against doing anything or supporting anyone, they are wackos. And as for 1 of the anarchist groups, I hardly find how eating out of dumpsters is revolutionary.


Lol what an insightful post.

[skki]

I'm saying its stupid to not form an alliance with someone simply because they don't identify with your particular brand of communism
Fuck it hurts to read stuff this stupid...

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

Unfortunately the way this this poll and the question posed by the comrade are misguided even though it is a very important topic.

A united front is a front of action. Whereas the conception put forward by the comrade is one of a programmatic or propaganda or electoral bloc.

[Blackscare]

I think we're all a little too worked up about post-revolution aims and we're neglecting the practical applications of a "united front". Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

We'd never actually elect anyone to president the first run because outright socialists are still a 'fringe' in the us, and such a tenuous alliance wouldn't last anyway. So in effect, differences in theory mean nothing because there will be no proverbial spoils of war to divide.

I think the idea is a great way to bring the broad idea of socialism in all it's forms to the front of people's minds. If we had an impressive enough showing, we could even demonstrate to people that there does exist a fairly large group of socialists in the country, thereby smashing people's ideas that communists and socialists are outside forces that are inherently 'anti-american' (whatever that really means).

As an anarchist I was on the fence about whether I'd participate in an election when I entered this thread, but I thought it over a bit and seeing how it would really just amount to a huge PR campaign for the revolution, I really have no problems with it.

[Enragé]

Apart from Leninists dont want a paris commune style state they want a state in the style of the soviet union like one in the year 19XX

Leninists who dont want a paris commune style state (apart from commonsensical objections to it like "it was smashed, that says something"), aren't leninists, they're bureaucrats in the making, and should, ofcourse, be hung with the guts of the last capitalist.

Russia was, for the first few years after the revolution, democratic and paris commune-style. Civil war, the absence of support from revolutions in e.g germany and a backwards economy, tends to fuck that up a little (im not condoning the massacre at kronstadt, just giving reasons for why it got that far).


Yes but whether sombody is a Communist Guru or as thick as shit dosent matter if the two sides end up opposed other something as large as the exsistance of a state. They can only go so far together in terms of making the working class aware of it selves then the two groups must go their separate ways.


Ofcourse it matters! the thick ones will end up on the wrong side, while the "guru's" will end up on the right side (on the average). Thats all im saying. The only case in which that will not be the case if anarchists and leninists hate eachother's guts from the start and the two groups will end up alienated from eachother, even hostile towards one another (which will add to the risk of one of those groups doing something stupid/wrong, harming the revolution).


How aint it the point?

Because
1. We cant know and will never know if it would have been different with the trotskyite line winning from stalin
2. The issue here is not the revolutionary "purity" of Trotsky and Lenin or Kropotkin and Malatesta for that matter, but that of those who claim to "follow" them in their footsteps.

[casper]

I think we're all a little too worked up about post-revolution aims and we're neglecting the practical applications of a "united front". Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

We'd never actually elect anyone to president the first run because outright socialists are still a 'fringe' in the us, and such a tenuous alliance wouldn't last anyway. So in effect, differences in theory mean nothing because there will be no proverbial spoils of war to divide.

I think the idea is a great way to bring the broad idea of socialism in all it's forms to the front of people's minds. If we had an impressive enough showing, we could even demonstrate to people that there does exist a fairly large group of socialists in the country, thereby smashing people's ideas that communists and socialists are outside forces that are inherently 'anti-american' (whatever that really means).

As an anarchist I was on the fence about whether I'd participate in an election when I entered this thread, but I thought it over a bit and seeing how it would really just amount to a huge PR campaign for the revolution, I really have no problems with it.
the left does need a larger audience, we need to inform more people, so few actually know what communism or anarchy is, they are still defined by cold war propaganda and general bullshit for to many people. its time to edumacate (educate) people.

[Enragé]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we're all a little too worked up about post-revolution aims and we're neglecting the practical applications of a "united front". Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

We'd never actually elect anyone to president the first run because outright socialists are still a 'fringe' in the us, and such a tenuous alliance wouldn't last anyway. So in effect, differences in theory mean nothing because there will be no proverbial spoils of war to divide.

I think the idea is a great way to bring the broad idea of socialism in all it's forms to the front of people's minds. If we had an impressive enough showing, we could even demonstrate to people that there does exist a fairly large group of socialists in the country, thereby smashing people's ideas that communists and socialists are outside forces that are inherently 'anti-american' (whatever that really means).

As an anarchist I was on the fence about whether I'd participate in an election when I entered this thread, but I thought it over a bit and seeing how it would really just amount to a huge PR campaign for the revolution, I really have no problems with it.


exactly! Use parliament/congress/whatever as a stage for our ideals! nothing more, nothing less (:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Leninists who dont want a paris commune style state (apart from commonsensical objections to it like "it was smashed, that says something"), aren't leninists, they're bureaucrats in the making, and should, ofcourse, be hung with the guts of the last capitalist.

Im not aruging with you about this since this topic is not "Why Leninists are bastards and anarchists are better in bed" but over the idea of a red front.



Ofcourse it matters! the thick ones will end up on the wrong side, while the "guru's" will end up on the right side (on the average).

What two sides? Anarchists and Lennists wont be part of the same "side" at the end of the day because they are opposed to each other.


Thats all im saying. The only case in which that will not be the case if anarchists and leninists hate eachother's guts from the start and the two groups will end up alienated from eachother, even hostile towards one another (which will add to the risk of one of those groups doing something stupid/wrong, harming the revolution).

Im not argueing for hatred between the two im just arguing not to mix water and electricity.




Because
1. We cant know and will never know if it would have been different with the trotskyite line winning from stalin
2. The issue here is not the revolutionary "purity" of Trotsky and Lenin or Kropotkin and Malatesta for that matter, but that of those who claim to "follow" them in their footsteps.

Exactly! Trotsky wasnt some kind of supreme geezer despite his hair and spitting imagine of napoleon dynamite he would have being like everyone else in power.

People in power act differently to those not in power.

[Enragé]

Im not aruging with you about this since this topic is not "Why Leninists are bastards and anarchists are better in bed" but over the idea of a red front.

Err yea, and you reject it since you apparently believe all leninists are bastards and all anarchists are flawless, noble, heroic, incapable of doing fucked up things. Therefore you want to maintain the anarchists ideological purity by keeping them seperated from leninists. Sectarianism to the fullest.


What two sides? Anarchists and Lennists wont be part of the same "side" at the end of the day because they are opposed to each other.

Revolution and counter-revolution. Anarchists and leninists are diametrically opposed in semantics (and on some minor levels theoretically, disregarding semantics), that doesnt mean they are opposed to eachother in practice. Leninist groups might be on the side of counter-revolution, but so might anarchist groups. You cant really say for sure which groups will be on what side (tho im pretty sure the stalinists wont be on the right side, and extremely sectarian anarchists wont be either).


Im not argueing for hatred between the two im just arguing not to mix water and electricity.


wtf? Leninists are people who want to achieve classless society via revolution, so are anarchists. They are not intrinsically different, they just have different words in their heads describing the same things (its all about semantics). The minor differences that remain aside from semantics are tendencies toward certain positions in practice (e.g a leninist org will more quickly support national liberation than an anarchist one, but that isnt to say that there arent leninist groups which dont support it and anarchist ones who do, or more importantly, that there arent individual self-proclaimed leninists/anarchists who hold different views on certain things than do other self-proclaimed leninists anarchists. THATS ALL IM SAYING)


Exactly! Trotsky wasnt some kind of supreme geezer despite his hair and spitting imagine of napoleon dynamite he would have being like everyone else in power.

People in power act differently to those not in power.

So, then, lets make sure nobody ever gets any more power than anybody else/those in power can be recalled in an instant, thus making them have no power outside executing the wishes of the people. And those who try to get more power than others, we'll hang them with eachothers guts, whether or not they call themselves leninist/anarchist/whatever. The extent to which someone is genuinely revolutionary has nothing to do with what he calls himself, but what he does

[StalinFanboy]

Err yea, and you reject it since you apparently believe all leninists are bastards and all anarchists are flawless, noble, heroic, incapable of doing fucked up things. Therefore you want to maintain the anarchists ideological purity by keeping them seperated from leninists. Sectarianism to the fullest.
lolwut.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that. What we ARE arguing is that anarchists are militantly against any form of central organizing. Leninists are not.

[RedSonRising]

I think the way to acheive this is to take the most basic but similar and core elements of each philosophy and bind it, and then after a victory be able to establish a sort of limited pluralism; not counterrevolutionary organizations, but competing policies in the different ideologies that agree with the basic layout of decreased statism, democratic control of resources (whether through syndycalism or local institutions), humanitarian goals and whatnot. I think it's one of our only chances and simply saying that "electoral change" is impossible is jumping the gun: one cannot enact revolution and a war against the stae without popular education, realization, and support: and if a united party fails, a militant movement has a strong base.

[Zurdito]

Thus, cause it's been done before, I already have conclude that we (by this I mean the anarchists) should reject it considering the experience during the Spanish Civil War when we were sold-out by most of our statist leftist/anti-fascist allies.

How were "you" sold out?

The bourgeois governor of Cataluña Luis Companys offered to the anarchists to step down and leave them in power.

They refused, left him in power, and ended up collaborating in his government as minsiters (4 of them I believe).

If this is how you want to "smash the state" I am sure the state is very grateful.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We are being screwed over and its getting worse every day.
The mobilisation for Gaza was the best the left could muster.
Indymedia calls for co-operation and direct action.
I don't see much of anything.
Sometimes I think all of the left has been sabotaged by the State.
What has developed is a culture of silence.
This involves sheepish routinism.
We need committees of action.

In Iceland they are holding the parliament under seige.
How bad does it need to get before we start to move in this direction.
The left is underplaying their cards, it is though nothing has changed.
Just a routine business cycle drop.
Who is asking the question? Is this the final crisis of capitalism?
Where is the debate on this?

Is that so out of the question for revolutionaries?
The left are making safer estimates for capitalism than many economists.

Comrade, of all people I expected more patience from you. Why are you advocating a repeat of the tried, tested, and FAILED "strategy" of the mass/general strike?

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=366


I have also found that people are now much more open to left wing ideas then before and Anarchists in the UK are trying to get their shit together at the conference.

And to all in this thread, anarchist, "Leninist," or whatever:

"The left, in other words, needs to break with the endless series of failed ‘quick fixes’ that has characterised the 20th century. It needs a strategy of patience, like Kautsky’s: but one that is internationalist and radical-democratic, not one that accepts the existing order of nation-states."

[Davie zepeda]

Well comrades i think i can close the poll now and the winner in vote for a united front is
well of course you all can see up on top. It was close a tie at first then the lead was tooken:)

[Nosotros]

I'm afraid the answer to all you're above questions are all yes, socialism was never achieved in any of those Republics and I don't see that it will be achieved in Venezuala either.

[Nosotros]

So Lenin was absurd to use the duma?
Chavez Was absurd as well?
The Replica of Spain was absurd?
The point is not to get political power through it anyways but to break throw the media hold on what to show and not show. To show there is a other opinion not just these two parties.
I went to artist forum last year he said something very funny he said the anarchist that lived with him were sometimes even more organized then the marxist he would laugh under his breath by the contradiction .:laugh:
I am referring to this quote.

[Davie zepeda]

There was once a young lad who was educated in some priest's college and who believed strongly in miracles.He knew nothing about life, because he had spent his life in the college and left as a man of twenty one. All the injustice he discovered were one evil; he did not understand that on one side was misery and human suffering and on the other the rich.But he managed to find a dove which wrought miracles And so, as his thoughts were on the suffering of others , he resolved to do everything to help others, so that there should be no hunger or cold,so there everyone should have house in which to live, so that each one should achieve his desires. HE did not think about himself but asked the dove to do miracles for others. So the dove appeared to him perched on his hand.He said :'give house to the poor-and housing appeared with furnishing.Give food to the starving-And the food appeared,good food. He would even call person to ask them what they wanted,and he would grant it. Until the day when he found a girl with whom feel in love. His beloved would ask him for something and he would grant it. Other folk said that they too had wants ,but he had no more time, had time only for his beloved.Suddenly the dove took wing and flew away.The miracles ended and everything he had done as a miracle begain to disappear; while the dove was still in his hand ,the miracles ended. He could no longer do anything for others ,because he was thinking only of his girlfriend ,of his belly

I could care less about one's ideal who they follow there are two camps one of socialist the other of imperialist In my eye's we are the same camp .Counter-revolution is disillusionment in the movement and lack of faith in common forces when people believed in a "bright future they fought side by side,Irrespective of nationally-common question first and foremost! but when doubt comes men lose faith ,hope,spirit and blame everything but themself's for the working class loses.

[StalinFanboy]

There was once a young lad who was educated in some priest's college and who believed strongly in miracles.He knew nothing about life, because he had spent his life in the college and left as a man of twenty one. All the injustice he discovered were one evil; he did not understand that on one side was misery and human suffering and on the other the rich.But he managed to find a dove which wrought miracles And so, as his thoughts were on the suffering of others , he resolved to do everything to help others, so that there should be no hunger or cold,so there everyone should have house in which to live, so that each one should achieve his desires. HE did not think about himself but asked the dove to do miracles for others. So the dove appeared to him perched on his hand.He said :'give house to the poor-and housing appeared with furnishing.Give food to the starving-And the food appeared,good food. He would even call person to ask them what they wanted,and he would grant it. Until the day when he found a girl with whom feel in love. His beloved would ask him for something and he would grant it. Other folk said that they too had wants ,but he had no more time, had time only for his beloved.Suddenly the dove took wing and flew away.The miracles ended and everything he had done as a miracle begain to disappear; while the dove was still in his hand ,the miracles ended. He could no longer do anything for others ,because he was thinking only of his girlfriend ,of his belly

I could care less about one's ideal who they follow there are two camps one of socialist the other of imperialist In my eye's we are the same camp .Counter-revolution is disillusionment in the movement and lack of faith in common forces when people believed in a "bright future they fought side by side,Irrespective of nationally-common question first and foremost! but when doubt comes men lose faith ,hope,spirit and blame everything but themself's for the working class loses.
What

[Raúl Duke]

How were "you" sold out?

The bourgeois governor of Cataluña Luis Companys offered to the anarchists to step down and leave them in power.

They refused, left him in power, and ended up collaborating in his government as minsiters (4 of them I believe).

If this is how you want to "smash the state" I am sure the state is very grateful.

I'm not discussing the fact that the CNT-FAI collaborated with his government and the Spanish Republic. I was referring to Los Hechos de Mayo in which the state's units crack-down on the CNT-FAI in Barcelona.

It's on record that I am against such collaboration and I see this to have been a mistake on the part of the CNT-FAI.

[peaccenicked]

Jacob.
I am not advocating anything so outlandish. A general strike (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,604115,00.html)?
How I see is a largely stagnant movement. Patience in such an environment is a joke.
What are we to wait on? Education?


Trotsky once spoke of what he called the molecular process of revolution. Under the surface, and invisible to superficial observers, the discontent of the class was growing, maturing and reaching the critical point where quality becomes transformed into quality. The psychology of the class had been prepared by a long experience of attacks, a thousand pin-pricks which gradually stoked up the collective anger to the point where the masses said: "Enough is enough!" Once this critical point is reached, any incident can spark off a social explosion.
1 (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/greek_general_strike_501.html)

The question I would ask is how a struggle can be brought to the level of State, if there is next to no struggle ie a quantitative glut.


The left, in other words, needs to break with the endless series of failed ‘quick fixes’ that has characterised the 20th century. It needs a strategy of patience, like Kautsky’s: but one that is internationalist and radical-democratic, not one that accepts the existing order of nation-states."
__________________

This is not an either/or situation. There are no "quick fixes". There are battles we lose and battles we win. Theses are politicizing events, the level of politics is dependent on previous events, that have determined the level of discontent, and the intensity of propaganda work done by revolutionaries. This can be the only background to electoral gains, and prototype workers councils.
What do we wait on internationally, solidarity.
What are we ready to give the French workers?
Not much. (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Strike-Updates-for-India--by-chris-rice-090119-537.html)

Class unity around an international has been tried before, it is a failure we must learn from, but to up hold a vacuum where a vacuum needs filled, in the name of patience,
internationalism and democracy is in itself vacuous.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I would love to vote for a united socialist party but that will not happen untill the majority of the voters from the 1930's to 1950's die off because most of them have a misconception of communism because of Stalin. I believe that an elected socialist leader is possible but would have many difficulties because of the congress which over time usually likes to hate the president and because of the american way of reversing what ever the last guy did. Like Obama is doing to bush's policies(i agree with obama though)

[StalinFanboy]

I would love to vote for a united socialist party but that will not happen untill the majority of the voters from the 1930's to 1950's die off because most of them have a misconception of communism because of Stalin. I believe that an elected socialist leader is possible but would have many difficulties because of the congress which over time usually likes to hate the president and because of the american way of reversing what ever the last guy did. Like Obama is doing to bush's policies(i agree with obama though)
Why do you have a Circle-A as your display picture, but you state that there should be a socialist president and that you support obama?

[redarmyfaction38]

Why do you have a Circle-A as your display picture, but you state that there should be a socialist president and that you support obama?

the contradictions of political belief against political reality! :laugh:

a "united front" is essential if us "revolutionary parties" ever even want to begin to appeal to the masses.
the divisive politics, the control freakery of certain revolutionary parties, the dogmatic approach, quoting this and that god like philospher as the only the only true prophet reduces us to the level of religious fundamentalists.
lets just blow up the twin towers, that'll solve everything! whoops george bush beat us to it! :lol:

by the way, don't you admire the revolutionary discipline of the greek anarchists in their fight against the greek capitalist state?

oops they're anarchists, nobody organised anything, there was no discipline, it just happened :D

[Comrade Anarchist]

Why do you have a Circle-A as your display picture, but you state that there should be a socialist president and that you support obama?

I believe that the way to no government is through socialism. Marx wrote that the final stage of communism is pure communism which is when the state will stop servering a purpose because of the common ownership of everything.

[StalinFanboy]

the contradictions of political belief against political reality! :laugh:

a "united front" is essential if us "revolutionary parties" ever even want to begin to appeal to the masses.
the divisive politics, the control freakery of certain revolutionary parties, the dogmatic approach, quoting this and that god like philospher as the only the only true prophet reduces us to the level of religious fundamentalists.
lets just blow up the twin towers, that'll solve everything! whoops george bush beat us to it! :lol:

by the way, don't you admire the revolutionary discipline of the greek anarchists in their fight against the greek capitalist state?

oops they're anarchists, nobody organised anything, there was no discipline, it just happened :D

Wut

[StalinFanboy]

I believe that the way to no government is through socialism. Marx wrote that the final stage of communism is pure communism which is when the state will stop servering a purpose because of the common ownership of everything.
But Anarchism is against the state AND capitalism. You can't (or shouldn't) use anarchist imagery, while advocating any sort of centralized state.

[Crux]

So why do you use the hammer and sickle?

[ZeroNowhere]

So why do you use the hammer and sickle?
It represents socialism. He is a socialist. Woah.

[StalinFanboy]

So why do you use the hammer and sickle?
http://poisonedcandy.com/RAAN/sickle-a.html

[Brother No. 1]

Montana. I would have never thought.

[Davie zepeda]

Im telling you the masses are smarter than you think they deal with this system because they have no alternative we as revolutionary should give them one either by the ballot or the bullet!

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I wanted ask you all would you consider voting for a united red front if it existed here in the usa?

What would the untied red front programme be?
I would consider letting all comrades in no matter ideology. We have a common
goal the end of capitalism.

I have been involved in d.c and most comrades only want be the next che none want be the worker it makes me sick.
How do we reach to the working class as the cpusa did in 192os in creating unions ?

_Anarchists_
Nefac
Crimethinc
_Trotskyists_
socialist equality party
Freedom socialist party
Worker international league
socialist Action
_Ex-Trotskyist Marxist-Leninists_
Workers world
party for socialism and liberation
socialist workers
_Stalinist/moaist_
Us marxist Leninist Organization
Party of the world revolution
_Multi-Tendency/Broad Socialists_
SP USA
Solidarity
International socialist
socialist labor party of america
_Anti-Leninist Marxists_
World socialist
_Left Communists_
International communist current
communist league/ workers party
_Liberal/Social Democratic_
Democratic socialist of america
labor party
green party
communist party usa

If was possible would you vote for it?




the thing that pops in my mind is to create a huge revolutionary "party" like this I would believe to be dangerous. Their would most likely end up surfacing like any other organization pop up some head honchos, and if Revolution does occur do to this party.... who's to say they will step off their high horse? Political power corrupts indefinitely, and I can see big problems.

[Davie zepeda]

Why would this be dangerous if we all adopt are theory's together i doubt we would fall to the same errors of the pass but i do think the liberal's and social dems should be watched closely.
If we as comrades make the same mistake of past comrades of fear within the party and bourgeoisie then we will fall as well but if we have faith in the workers to maintain there will then we will live in are workers paradise forever.

[Davie zepeda]

Honestly i think we should adopt a congress mandatory to have 5 representatives of each ideology of the communist theory in way it would be are own check and balances so no Stalinist can become power hungry as well as Congressional elections every 2 years to ensure corruption dose not take hold. This would help keep an eye on the bureaucracy and insure the party works for the workers. If a cook wants to run he can run no man will be locked out of the elections but no man will stay to long.

[Brother No. 1]

Congress with a Marxist,Leninist,Maoist,Troskyist,Anarchist, and Stalinist. That wont be a pretty picture.

[Davie zepeda]

I know it wouldn't but hey it would keep each of the groups in check so no one group get the upper hand with out debating then asking the working class to vote on which policy to go with for that year.

[Brother No. 1]

True. But i can just see the aguring among them. Besides Wouldnt the Anarchist not want to be in it for they dont want a state.

[Davie zepeda]

I also think the army should not be in the hands of any one branch i think it should be a split between three branch's first workers then the Assembly then the chairman but never leaving it in the hands of one man solely.

[Brother No. 1]

Power to only one man is to much. Power can crroupt anyone. so power to many is a good idea.

[Davie zepeda]

I think we could work something out with anarchist. I mean we can give them provinces were the state has no control where they can implement there theory but they have to keep there actions within those provinces we as the state give them there territory as long as they live in peace with causing aggression on us they can live there in peace without the state influence. I mean i don't mind them at all as long as we stay out there province and they out of ares we both can live in peace. But i do feel sorry for the comrades sons who become anarchist lol but they will have that decsion to make hey fuck it.

[Brother No. 1]

there can be peace. Just that all of the Comrades have to take part in it.

[Davie zepeda]

Exactly i mean we all want the same thing the end of capitalism even thou others have difference theory's. I think we all can work together to build a workers nation of pure thought and not corrupt.

[Brother No. 1]

but it will be hard to get Anti-revisonists and Troksyist to work together. and for Anarchist to help us. but in the end i think we can do it.

[Davie zepeda]

It will be hard at first but soon we will all realize that socialism can not succeed without debate and in depth thinking we can't just pass policies without thinking about how it will affect the workers. Anti and troskyist both answer to the worker we do not answer to are leadership but the workers remember comrade.

[Brother No. 1]

I know. But others will maybe not understand you as well as I do.

[StalinFanboy]

I think we could work something out with anarchist. I mean we can give them provinces were the state has no control where they can implement there theory but they have to keep there actions within those provinces we as the state give them there territory as long as they live in peace with causing aggression on us they can live there in peace without the state influence. I mean i don't mind them at all as long as we stay out there province and they out of ares we both can live in peace. But i do feel sorry for the comrades sons who become anarchist lol but they will have that decsion to make hey fuck it.
Are you capable of understanding what we have been typing? Any anarchist in his/her right mind will not participate in a statist revolution, or compromise with statists so that we can have our own "territory."

[Davie zepeda]

What the issues doesn't make you less revolutionary. The state would not intervene so what could be the real issue if you have autonomy. I don't care i think most would be open to the idea because it would be one more freedom that most other nations would not even offer.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Honestly i think we should adopt a congress mandatory to have 5 representatives of each ideology of the communist theory in way it would be are own check and balances so no Stalinist can become power hungry as well as Congressional elections every 2 years to ensure corruption dose not take hold. This would help keep an eye on the bureaucracy and insure the party works for the workers. If a cook wants to run he can run no man will be locked out of the elections but no man will stay to long.
Anything even with checks and balances can become corrupt and dangerous. Look at America! checks and balances where put in place also, but it has gone super far in being a corporate/militarist super giant. Creating such a huge party, I think is dangerous. Sway the working force, and revolt...... what is some huge political party going to do? working from the top down, I think is a bad idea.

[Brother No. 1]

Amercia was bad from the start. Thinking to highly of its self.

[Davie zepeda]

Are you saying we would use the same economic system as the united states. No the reason it has failed here is because they are capitalist and greed rains over all not the workers. Also this is no democracy this a republic we will place a democracy where all the decisions are made by the majority and the bureaucracy will answer to committees and other collective groups.

[Brother No. 1]

Yeah. american and European Capitalism are very differnet it seems wouldnt you agree comrade.

[Davie zepeda]

Yes in ways of taxes but then again no because they both are oppressive the workers are exploited in both of them. In means of taxes they are different but in policy there are same.

[Davie zepeda]

Just because they have a few gains means nothing because the only wish to keep the worker content so he dose not revolt. Give him enough so he doesn't beg but either die.

[Brother No. 1]

Exactly. they seems different in Taxes but the Oppresion is still the same. But in amercia there was a DVD called the Internationale descrbing the song. It seems we are famous in this DVD but they just like the song not us personaly.

[Davie zepeda]

lol honestly i would love to slap them because they think the point of the international is to sing about socialism but rather it is a song about the world uniting to fight imperialism.

[Davie zepeda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXZVhKvvMVU just look at this and smile comrade

[Brother No. 1]

I have seen that and i love it. See this for it proves the People are the Strongest thing in the World they can beat any militry and Goverment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWKuLfDyh9E

[Qayin]

Id vote for it.
We need all commies,socialists,progressives,unionists,and such to stand together against the neo-conservatives and pussy liberal democrats


ONE PROBLEM that arises from this is would the party give up power?
Would it turn into another vanguard party?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Would it turn into another vanguard party?

Yes. The anarchists involved would be the kind of idiots who would join and henceforth unable to stop it.

[Qayin]

Yeah I sort of caught that at the last minute
fucking lenin.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yeah I sort of caught that at the last minute
fucking lenin.

I think as is said earlier lenninists and anarchists would still be able to work together on things such as anti ID campagins or whatever but just not on achiveing revolution. Since at the end of the day the whole "state" thing puts the two groups in opposition to each other.

[Qayin]

More so to end capitalism

then the infighting begins!:laugh:

[Crux]

I think probably most anarchists will, as they have historically, join the redblock. you have to remember, the kronstadt uprising was a minority group within the anarchist movement aswell, during the revolution. hell in spain the anarchists even joined the people's front (something which I think ultimatly was a bad idea).

[AnthArmo]

I wanted ask you all would you consider voting for a united red front if it existed here in the usa?

What would the untied red front programme be?
I would consider letting all comrades in no matter ideology. We have a common
goal the end of capitalism.

I have been involved in d.c and most comrades only want be the next che none want be the worker it makes me sick.
How do we reach to the working class as the cpusa did in 192os in creating unions ?

_Anarchists_
Nefac
Crimethinc
_Trotskyists_
socialist equality party
Freedom socialist party
Worker international league
socialist Action
_Ex-Trotskyist Marxist-Leninists_
Workers world
party for socialism and liberation
socialist workers
_Stalinist/moaist_
Us marxist Leninist Organization
Party of the world revolution
_Multi-Tendency/Broad Socialists_
SP USA
Solidarity
International socialist
socialist labor party of america
_Anti-Leninist Marxists_
World socialist
_Left Communists_
International communist current
communist league/ workers party
_Liberal/Social Democratic_
Democratic socialist of america
labor party
green party
communist party usa

If was possible would you vote for it?




I would easily vote for them, the same way I would vote for Obama in America or The Greens here in Australia as the lesser of two evils.

I think such an organization would achieve more as a very loose collective federation. The entire party would work together on holding mass protests on controversial topics. and a shared "bank account" for the separate groups to take part in. It would obviously have to work without leaders, on an anarchist basis.

A "Statist" arm may work on grabbing political power through reform. Obviously if this arm does have it's own way it would need to respect the sovereignty of anarchists. That way anarchists have an incentive to support it's political affiliation.




What any or all of the groups in the list *could* do is, for starters, is to pick one task that all of them agree on, say, produce a book or video that explains how capitalism is the cause of poverty, pollution, and other social problems, explains the exploitation of labor, expose capitalism as inherently incapable of operating in the interests of the majority of the people. Have all of the participating groups sign their names and share the cost of publication. The preface should point this out: while they all disagree on how to fix the situation, they agree on such an assessment of what the current capitalist situation is. That would be a useful exercise in cooperation. This might give them all some practice in cooperating, and make it easier to cooperate on additional things in the future.

Another thing all left organizations should do is meet to debate issues about the best goal and program, and share the cost of distributing these debates in the form of printed documents and audio/video recordings. There can be no basis for anyone feeling that they have compromised their principles.

Various left organizations should also try to co-publish books and videos in which they agree on how to describe the disagreements that they have with each other. In other words, even while they while they disagree about the necessary goal and program, they should try to agree on the words that comprise an accurate description of their disagreements. This will help them to understand each other better. I believe that a large segment of the population would be interested in these publications or videos.

These groups are nowhere near being able to unite in the literal sense, but there are several projects that they could cooperate on immediately. Maybe such exercises would gradually lead to a unification of a class conscious working class movement.

Actually that pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject. Go Mikey! :)

- - -

I've gotta say that a lot of the anarchist's here are being extremely unreasonable. You don't honestly expect Capitalism to be overthrown by just you guys do you? At the moment, the public perception of Anarchy is Chaos. Like it or not, there is a very powerful state here and until there is enough awareness being raised by the Left to overthrow it you cannot possibly afford to be elitist enough to avoid working with other Leftists. We all want the same thing.

As I said before, if your working together on propaganda and raising awareness, then we could be a much more powerful force. It's only the most responsible and logical thing to do.

You can't afford to be elitist and say. "I'm not working with you guys! I'm too cool to do that! Fuck you! I'd rather stick with Capitalism then work with you!"

Yeah, real mature.

[MikeSC]

Wouldn't this just be dominated by the "mixed-marketeers"? The "social democrats" and the like? It would be nice if it wasn't, but I can't see it.

EDIT: But yeah I'd vote for it, if it did come together.

[Voice_of_Reason]

No Is my answer, I say fuck the titles, this is unneeded. We don't need to specify what we are, but what we believe in. Therefore in my personal opinion I think such a program would just support the whole "ist" deal.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In regards to the poll, there should be an option for "not relevant."

Seriously, if you want a movement for leftist change or some broad group I think that's an excellent idea, with or without electoral politics. But no group should try to merge the leftists political parties. That'd be a complete waste of resources.

And the whole debate holding said (non-anarchist) parties apart is what, applying Maoist economics vs. Castro vs. Lenin? How about we just say fuck all those debates and move on, eh?

The American Left is in a shitty place, and it ought to stop looking to the past to save it. There's so much opportunity, let's not squander it.