Socialist Unity

[ZrianKobani]

After looking at different Marxist and Socialist organizations, it seems to me that there are literally dozens of groups in the U.S. who are either trying to be a vanguard, create a vanguard, or think they are the vanguard.

Granted, some of them came into existence from splits, etc., has there ever been an attempt to get these groups working together or at least talking with each other?

(I'm talking about the Socialist Party-USA, African People's Socialist Party-USA, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Action, World Socialist Party (US), the Party for Socialism and Liberation, International Workers League, International Socialist Organization, Socialist Equality Party, etc.)

[DiaMat86]

This is a manifestation of revisionism.

Trotsky used lies about the USSR to create self-serving rifts in the Left. Now instead of a world communist movement. There is a communist movement and a socialist movement in competition with one another.

The old Left failed to achieve communism. Our predecessors went revisionist in the 50s and 60s.

They have even abandoned the word "communism". Or, even worse, communism is used synonymously with socialism.

[ZrianKobani]

Part of the problem is sectarianism; too many groups unwilling to compromise with each other because of some ideological disagreement when what really matters is what we're all out to accomplish, a democratic workers society.

[ZeroNowhere]

They have even abandoned the word "communism". Or, even worse, communism is used synonymously with socialism.

Marx and Engels were horrible revisionists.

After looking at different Marxist and Socialist organizations, it seems to me that there are literally dozens of groups in the U.S. who are either trying to be a vanguard, create a vanguard, or think they are the vanguard.

Granted, some of them came into existence from splits, etc., has there ever been an attempt to get these groups working together or at least talking with each other?

They don't matter, and they generally* know this, even if they won't admit it.

*It may not be general, it's just that I like to willingly forget that most others exist.

[DiaMat86]

Marx and Engels were horrible revisionists

Marx did not use the term "socialism".

[Per Levy]

Marx did not use the term "socialism".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch03.htm

yeah he did...

[ZrianKobani]

Can someone please answer the OP?

[Per Levy]

Can someone please answer the OP?

sorry, i dont have any insights to the american socialists/communists partys, but im sure someone will sooner or later awnser your question.

[ColonelCossack]

this is all so depressing.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is a manifestation of revisionism.

What the fuck isn't a manifestation of revisionism for you revisionist loons??

[ZrianKobani]

this is all so depressing.

Welcome to radical leftism in the 21st Century.

[DiaMat86]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch03.htm

yeah he did...

Corrected: Marx used the term socialism when he criticized it's inadequacy. When he prescribes a solution he refers to "communism of a lower order". See the critique of the Gotha Programme....

[RichardAWilson]

Sectarianism is your answer. Instead of working together toward the common cause: Socialists and Communists have splintered.

[RGacky3]

This is a manifestation of revisionism.

Trotsky used lies about the USSR to create self-serving rifts in the Left. Now instead of a world communist movement. There is a communist movement and a socialist movement in competition with one another.

The old Left failed to achieve communism. Our predecessors went revisionist in the 50s and 60s.

They have even abandoned the word "communism". Or, even worse, communism is used synonymously with socialism.

We're in 2011 and your still *****ing about trotsky and stalin neither of whome has been relevant for 40 years.

[tradeunionsupporter]

There must be Socialist unity.

[ZrianKobani]

I recommend putting aside differences as to how to make revolution, what that revolution would look like, who should lead it, etc. and concentrating on what we all want to see accomplished.

Thoughts?

[Commie73]

I recommend putting aside differences as to how to make revolution, what that revolution would look like, who should lead it, etc. and concentrating on what we all want to see accomplished.

Thoughts?

the problem here is that different "left" groups are not neccessarily seeking to accomplish the same thing. Whilst there is talk of communism or socialism from leftists, what they actually advocate in many cases is just a different way of organizing capitalism, or even if they are genuine communists, their tactics (such as parliamentarism) may actually be harmful to overthrowing capitalism

I think there is a need for cooperation between communists, and in the UK there are some attempts at that through class struggle forums etc, but I dont think this should mean unity between communists and state capitalist leftists.

[A Marxist Historian]

I recommend putting aside differences as to how to make revolution, what that revolution would look like, who should lead it, etc. and concentrating on what we all want to see accomplished.

Thoughts?

Sounds real nice but it could never work. Why? Because the differences between the various small left groups over what we all want to see accomplished are *much bigger* than the microscopically small differences between, say, Democrats and Republicans.

Do most left groups really want to make a revolution? In theory, yes, but in practice just about all left groups think revolution is a good idea in theory, but will never happen, so meanwhile they want to get some things done. Like trying to elect Obama instead of somebody like Sarah Palin for example. Or whatever.

Why are things this way? Because the human race made one big attempt to establish socialism. That was in Russia, in 1917. It failed, and all the leftists have been arguing ever since about why, and what to do about it next time around.

Until said arguments are resolved, it's all pretty hopeless. Like Santayana said, those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

The most important task leftists have is to figure out how and why things went wrong in Russia, and how to avoid this next time. Till this is done, nobody is ever going to take the left seriously. Anyone who says hey that's old hat, let's look to the future and forget about all that, is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Who has the correct analysis? IMHO, the Spartacists and absolutely nobody else. They're really small, and they are not perfect, but they are the only left group which is really any good. Most left groups are crap one way or another, and people know that, which is why the left is so unpopular.

-M.H.-

[Valdemar]

We got lost here it seems, but No Fear Valdemar is Here!

First we need to clear things out, for instance, we have used word Left and unity of Left which isn't same like Unity of RevLeft.

Left, are all leftist, like Social Democrats or Democratic Socialist (who can be too revolutionary) and others. Most of them are also dedicated to final cause, and that is Communism (stateless, classless society etc.) but problem is that most of them have different strategy how to achieve it (like ZhiZhek puts it, cutting balls slowly- basically achieving victory with small steps), and that makes them different from Revolutionary Left.

RevLeft on other hand, believe that only way to achieve Communism and before that Socialism is via Revolution.

Although a lot of leftist abandoned the final goal, making Communism, and believe that Workers can be free in free market society with socialist changes.

So we have basically three group of leftist, in my opinion, and some parties include more then one strategy, and sometimes strategies overlap.

Like OP said, RevLeft organizations should-must stand under one banner, and stop that sectarianism nonsense.
All left is hard to unite under one banner, almost impossible, but they could make some co-op.

Anyone correct me, If I'm wrong...