Yes, same everywhere. republicanism in ireland is split into so many small groups it is a joke. IRSP, Eirigi, 32 CSM, RSF, SF, . that is not even to mention the leftist groups who oppose the republican socialist agenda, SWP, CPI, Socialist party.
Results 1 to 20 of 38
Socialist Parties
There's the Socialist Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Youth-- you get the idea.
Do you think this fragmentation could be contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing?
Yes, same everywhere. republicanism in ireland is split into so many small groups it is a joke. IRSP, Eirigi, 32 CSM, RSF, SF, . that is not even to mention the leftist groups who oppose the republican socialist agenda, SWP, CPI, Socialist party.
Well that all depends on what "movement" you are talking about.
Do I think the sectarianism and fracturing of Trotskyist, Stalinist, Anarchist, etc. movements are harmful and "contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing"? - No, not in the least, but that's only because I understand "the movement" as being something totally different to what they do.
I think slight divisions are a good thing to give different perspectives and increase debate so things do not get stale and has a better chance of keeping democracy in a post-revolutionary society. However, I think it has now gone beyond that and there are far too many different parties (mainly coming out of the Leninist/Trotskyist tradition) and it has resulted in lots of sectarianism
While I agree that there are lots of splinters out there, I think a merger is only going to happen on a princpled basis. Princples are "a central idea to being a communist". Thusly, without a principle, you can't be considered a communist and a discussion on merger is inherently flawed from the start. I think these should be considered principles:
1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.
2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.
3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.
4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.
5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.
6. Revolution: the means to this goal.
7. Workers' democracy: without workers' control and management over society, socialism is doomed from the start.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Didn't the SWP once focus on the destruction of the lumpenproletariat?
This is an argument as old as the socialist movement itself.
In the end, parties do not matter, but the working class and its level of revolutionary consciousness. Uniting very different parties into one organization changes nothing.
The capitalists don't have one party, but they've been successful, haven't they?
I think this is an important point, and it highlights the difference between those who want to "unite the left" only for the sake of uniting the left, and those who want to unite to bring about social revolution. There's been a lot of people in the past who have wanted unity for the sake of unity, but their efforts have all inevitably failed.
That said, even Q's principles raise issues that would have to be hashed out before any kind of lasting unity could be achieved. For example:...
To what extent is "orientation" enough? And why an "orientation", and not an actual attempt to be a part of the working class? Having an "orientation" is fine if your organization is composed on non-workers, but if we all agree with the principle set down in the First International, that the liberation of the working class is the task of workers themselves, then what is the point of an "orientation"? (Incidentally, that principle of self-liberation sets higher than all others, IMO.)
What constitutes class struggle? Is it a political struggle, as Marx and Engels outlined, or is it explicitly at the point of production? And if it is a political struggle, what kinds of actions constitute class struggle and which don't? Is pleading with the capitalist class for "jobs not war" a part of the class struggle, or is that merely begging?
What is solidarity? This term, like others used below, has lost a lot of its original meaning. Today, even the most vile corporatist union official can mouth words of "solidarity" while stabbing workers in the back. The meaning of the term has to be clarified in order to develop agreement.
What is internationalism? Is it simply "the enemy of my enemy is my ally", as some on here venture to believe? This gets into the question of what constitutes "anti-imperialism", and it also is tied to Points 1 and 2 above, because (again, IMO) there often seems to be a disconnect between what self-described socialists and communists do in the national arena and in the international arena when it comes to this issue.
Personally, this term is the biggest bag of mush out there. What is socialism? These days, and especially when you get outside of the organized movement itself, this means all things to all people. Some people consider public roads and the post office to be "socialism". Others have a more discerning definition. Does it mean the transition from the capitalist to communist mode of production? Does it mean the lower phase of the communist mode of production? Is it a mode of production separate from capitalism and communism? Does nationalization equal socialism?
History knows all sorts of revolutions. What kind of revolution is needed? What classes are in motion, and to what extent does the balance of class forces change in the process of revolution? What constitutes a revolutionary situation, and would any of us really recognize it in time?
What is workers' control? This has become an issue since the October Revolution. To what extent should or will workers themselves have control over the means of production and exchange? Will it be direct, through workplace committees and an independent Congress of the Economy? Or will it be "representative", through state-run commissaries and appointed managers with "workers' control" limited to consultation? Will it be a multi-party system, with many workers', socialist and communist parties vying with each other while working together to enable the transition to continue? Or, will it be a single-party/"leading party" system, where there is one party in charge and one or more parties operating as satellites?
I raise these questions not to piss on anybody's parade, but to point out that there is more to this than an abstract agreement over bumper-sticker "principles". I know Q is sincere in his opinions and generally correct in his view, but there is the question of making sure everyone involved in such a unity is speaking the same political language.
I think this is a nail-hits-head argument. The issue is not whether the working class is organized into one, two or 10 parties; that kind of unity will develop organically, through the process of working together and, in some cases, working separately. This is the context in which we can understand the view that one step forward of the real movement is worth more than a dozen paper programs.
But there is another level to this, and that is developing a united front for defeating/overthrowing capitalist rule. I think we often forget that workers' councils, workplace committees, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., are themselves the highest forms of the united front. They represent the development of the new society within the shell of the old.
I mean, Q and I could argue for weeks about whether the Old Man was right when he wrote "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo", but I'd rather work with him on achieving a practical unity that actually advances our class toward the defeat of capitalist rule.
If there is somewhere to concentrate our efforts on achieving unity, this is it.
Miles: In your post you ask with every principle what exactly this entails, a justified question. The question of principled unity is still forming for me, so the post also serves the function to see I'm on the right track or not, in other words: if people agree in principle that unity should be based on principles (still following?) and not on every minor idea that flows out there (I'm willing to write more on the latter part if you like).
But yeah, principles should serve the function to be clear to everyone and therefore your questions are good ones.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Well the American Communist Party is not a real party all they tell people todo is vote for the Democratic Party which is part of the problem.
Last edited by STJ; 27th April 2009 at 21:23.
In many cases, the Dems and Repubs effectively function as two factions of one party.
I think its good to have differing views and perspectives, parties should eliminate democratic centralism and tolerate differing views instead of splintering into small defunct intellectual groups. Stuff like this makes the left seem like a joke.
A communist party is the vanguard party of the Proletriat class. Its for the advancemnet and organization of the workers to fight against the Bourgeiose class. Its not a club for bricking, but an organization that is established to help and lead the workers in their struggle for freedom. We can't have bickering in this kind organization as it would weaken it. For this reason, Democratic Centralism is nessary to keep the party from splitting or becomeing revisionist. The party is needed for victory of the working class and socialism.
I think its a problem, the split. We have a task ahead of us and I know if I was going to dedicate my time and risk alot towards building a better society I'd want to do it in a group I knew had the size and ideas neccesary for this to happen. But our disagreements inevitably lead to splits. I think our size is depressing and at times absurd, and I have real fears basically no one is ever going to make gains. I wish we could cooperate more but i think its unrealistic on most things. I mean, if on a demo etc I saw a Trot or a maoist getting batoned to the floor i'd help them, and in a revolution i wouldnt kick off a factional in fight but disputes happen because we do all disagree. fundamentally if ure a leninist or an anarchist from day 0 your approach to revolution is different so you know...
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
Yea, this is a major problem that is affecting the common goals we wish to accomplish. Don't get me wrong, diversity of ideas is a good thing, but for the left it has made things worse. I'm not a major sectarian and I would be willing to work with anti-revisionists to anarchists as long as it doesn't interfere with my core beliefs and is something I agree on. I think completly ignoring other factions will lead us nowhere, but as H-L-V-S was basically saying, we all have different theories and beliefs that will always divide us in some way or another on any issue right down to the things that happened in history, which is pretty sad.
I understand the reason for a vanguard party, but I fear if you put them in the hands of "commited revolutionaries" who happen to be oppurtunists, they could corrupt a potential revolution and turn it into a bureacracy. I don't think proletarians will need a vanguard party when its time for revolution, because I believe when its time, they will know what theyre fighting for. My reason against democratic centralistion is because it could ruin a party if its dominated by the wrong people, a good example is the Communist Party USA which is dominated by misguided socialists and democrats. Also imagine if counter revolutionaries infiltrated a party by entryism, what would happen to the party and it real commited members? Would they have to follow something their against or create another party to compete with the hundreds of others that are fighting for the same goal? I prefer a united party with different ideas, not dominated by one ideology, by doing this it will keep us in check with each other and when its time for revolution I believe the workers will choose what they want.
Though I repsect your constructive Cricitism and not slandering me, i must disagree with you. The Commited revolutonarys were needed in Russia as it was dangerous to be an oppostion so it needed a small party of experienced revolutionaries with support and sympatheizers of the masses. This dosen't have to be in all countires, like the US.
The Party is needed for the revolution as it would be use for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Also, there needs to be an organize from of government if the workers of the country hope to defend the revolution from imperialis and reactionist forces.
And though I agree with you on the domination of the wrong people, that problem should also support nessarity of pruging in the party.
For your United party, what about the revisionist (Trotskyites, Maoists, Left Communists, and Eurocommunists) who would lead the party to destruction, like Gorbachev?
i was a member of militant, the biggest complaint the likes of the swp had was that all 8000 members agreed on policy, we were accused of being robots etc.
truth was much different, our "party" emphasised political education, emphasised taking part in struggle, emphasised being part of the working class rather than being above it and it accepted that it's actual working class members carried a whole history of prejudice and betrayal by "labour" and "communist" parties not to mention "trade union leaders".
it was the biggest threat to capitalism in britain since the general strike.
militant no longer exists, however, there are at least 8000 difficult to manage, un co operative and bolshevik workers out there causing the bosses a headache, there are at least 5 factions i know of, born out of militants demise.
and, in the end, as trotsky said, we might march seperately but we will strike together.
imo, all the different factions, whilst rendering the movement ineffective in bourgouis parliamentary terms, actually reflect the strength of marxist/leninist/trotskyist education, we are all thinking for ourselves, we accept no facts as given, we question everything including all we have learnt.
AND we reflect the attitudes of the youth that are going to be most affected by this latest collapse of capitalist economics.
imo.
Centrism
[This post is a revolutionary-centrist response to both comrades Miles and Q. Later on I'll repost a programmatic summary of the basic principles for lasting unity.]
The two principles can be combined into one: class strugglism. As for the latter question on politics vs. economism, Marx said that there were open and hidden class struggles. The former is certainly a political struggle, but I'm not so sure about the latter.
It should also be asked: is the struggle for "socialism" as per below a political struggle or an economic one?
It has to be agreed upon that the capture of the full political power of a ruling class for itself is part of the process.
There's a more fundamental issue at stake here: inter-nationalism ("between nations") is no longer sufficient. Transnationalism ("beyond/transcending nations") is the order of the day, and that also means transnational organization (a la Bordiga the left-communist), not just an "international" with a bunch of national parties.
I altered the Basic Principles text to mention "social labour" and the "participatory economy."
This is where my proper centrism/"Kautskyism" kicks in. I think Q here is, in the traditional "revolutionism," implying the usual political revolution and not the underrated social revolution, which turns off a lot of workers. However, the political revolution - the capture of the full political power of a ruling class for itself - is inherently part of the class struggle. Mentioning class struggle and social revolution (and also explicitly rejecting the politics of social evolution a la Bernstein) is enough to unite all class-strugglists, "revolutionists" or otherwise.
Basic Principles
Once more, human labour – be it manual or mental – and its technological, labour-saving equivalent are the only non-natural sources of value production. The written history of all societies, up to and including the present, is primarily one of open and hidden class struggles over the exploitation of these non-natural sources of value production. The modern bourgeois-capitalist society has not abolished the very non-conspiracist class antagonisms, but has instead established in place of the old ones both new conditions of oppression – primarily the various forms of wage labour and hidden debt slavery – and new forms of class struggle, a very scientific concept which, fundamentally speaking, can no longer be taken for granted.
Nevertheless, without the technological, economic, political, and other developments associated with this society, the realistic possibility of abolishing the exploitation and alienation of human labour through, along with more emancipatory measures, the full establishment of collective worker control and responsibility over an all-encompassing participatory economy – free from surplus labour appropriations by any elite minority, from private ownership of productive and other non-possessive property, and from all forms of debt slavery – could not have come about.
Transnationally obstructing both this socially revolutionary transformation and socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation are the following: private philanthropy by the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie; scientific management and social engineering by the coordinators; social-statist legislation and administration within the framework of the bourgeois-capitalist state, especially social-corporatist ones by the aforementioned classes; so-called “vanguardism” on the part of philosopher-conspirators who do not rely on a highly class-conscious, organized, and politico-ideologically independent working class; and the politics of spontaneous development, including the politics of social evolution, fashionable “identity politics,” and the class accommodation accompanying both. The equally transnational emancipation of labour, which has nothing to lose but its chains, can only be brought about by a highly class-conscious and organized working class independently, capturing the full political power of a ruling class for itself in accordance with the slogan “WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!”
Class-Strugglist Social Labour (“the Social-Labourists”) disdains to conceal its views and its anti-capitalist task regarding the above versus barbarism, the common ruin of the contending classes: Against the aforementioned obstructions, the working class in itself cannot act as a class for itself except through its vast majority constituting itself into a simultaneously transnational, social-revolutionary, class-strugglist, and worker-class-only “party” – distinct from and intransigently opposed to all non-worker parties and to all class-accommodationist parties. Therefore, the merger of social labour and the worker-class movement that is Class-Strugglist Social Labour seeks to educate, agitate, and organize the various divisions of the working class and their struggles into a class-conscious, collectively unified, and politico-ideologically independent whole, thereby making that class for itself aware of its historic aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 28th April 2009 at 01:32.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
I do think you're more or less on the right track here. We've seen the failures that have resulted from attempts at unity on the basis of mere slogans and on the basis of reconciling doctrines. Unity on the basis of principles and program remain the only workable way.Miles: In your post you ask with every principle what exactly this entails, a justified question. The question of principled unity is still forming for me, so the post also serves the function to see I'm on the right track or not, in other words: if people agree in principle that unity should be based on principles (still following?
But yeah, principles should serve the function to be clear to everyone and therefore your questions are good ones.
But beyond principles themselves is a question of culture -- organizational culture. It is not enough to just agree politically, even though this is about 90 percent of it. There has to develop a culture of camaraderie and trust among members in order for it to succeed. Honestly, this is why many self-described Leninist groups fail so often, even when they agree enough to be a single organization.
Someone once described democratic centralism (as practiced by most Leninist groups) to me as "organized mistrust". That is, the leaders don't trust the members and the members don't trust the leaders, and therefore every mechanism in the organization is designed to play to one or another's mistrust. An organization whose members don't trust each other could not lead ants to a picnic, much less lead a revolutionary struggle. To put it another way: If there is no trust, there is no organization; there is only a collection of individuals constantly watching their backs.
Trust among members, and trust by the class of the organization as a whole, is central to its success. Let's remember that, as revolutionaries, we're asking workers to have confidence in our perspective -- i.e., to trust that we know what we're talking about and doing. If we cannot have trust among ourselves, there's no way that other workers are going to trust us.
Of course, the problem is that there are some self-described socialists and communists who do nothing but breed mistrust. They see members of other organizations as "opponents" and "enemies", for no reason other than they are not in their organization. Unity is seen not as a goal or a necessity, but as a "tactic" (e.g., "regroupment tactic"). Entries and raids make up the bulk (if not the sole focus) of their "party-building" work. At times, it seems these elements have more trust in the capitalist state (i.e., they are willing to appeal to them to bring about positive social change) than they do in their "comrades" in other organizations.
As I said, though, I think you're on the right track. Just take your time and think it through.
