Why all this damn infighting?

[B5C]

During my time in rev-left I see more infighting than trying to unite against the capitalist system. We got a lot of people here violating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy all the time. All this Moaists vs Trotskyite vs Stalisnts vs Marxist-Lenists vs Anarchists vs... is getting really tired and giving me a head ace.

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, but this is really giving me a headache.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it's important to recognise that political differences are unavoidable - after all, would it really be a good sign if we agreed with each other all the time?

But I think it is also important to recognise the areas where we do agree, and I think they are pretty important insofar as they mainly revolve around opposing capitalism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

One would assume that on a political forum people would discuss politics.
Also infighting is not something that we only do now.
Wether it eas Marx with the anarchists, or Lenin with all kinds of political trends, iinfighting is something that stays. We can't just scream about unity and think we'll get unity.
Also I'm a bit wary of people who want unity at any cost. Even Engels wasn't fond of the unity-shouters:
"One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger[*], for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/73_06_20.htm

We can't promise unity, it is something we have to achieve ourselves but never trade in principles for peace with opportunists either.

[skitty]

This might be a good time to remind everyone to leave the personal attacks and vulgar language at home.

[MarxArchist]

During my time in rev-left I see more infighting than trying to unite against the capitalist system. We got a lot of people here violating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy all the time. All this Moaists vs Trotskyite vs Stalisnts vs Marxist-Lenists vs Anarchists vs... is getting really tired and giving me a head ace.

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, but this is really giving me a headache.

Like unite in support of the new healthcare law for instance? No thanks.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This might be a good time to remind everyone to leave the personal attacks and vulgar language at home.

Why?

[Ostrinski]

Because with legitimacy people do not find anything reconcilable between their own political views and the political views of others that share this board even if they are nominally similar.

You have to understand that revleft is a multi-tendency forum that incorporates a pretty broad range of the political spectrum despite our common opposition to capitalism. In fact many tendencies view other tendencies as not having broken with capitalism conclusively.

I mean, you can't get the Trotskyists to unite with each other, the Stalinists to unite with each other, or even the anarchists to unite with each other. The idea that you will get any form of cooperation between tendencies ever is a pipe dream.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

During my time in rev-left I see more infighting than trying to unite against the capitalist system. We got a lot of people here violating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy all the time. All this Moaists vs Trotskyite vs Stalisnts vs Marxist-Lenists vs Anarchists vs... is getting really tired and giving me a head ace.

Should we at least try to put down some of our differences and unite as one to bring down the capitalist class as one?

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, but this is really giving me a headache.

It seems to me that you're belittling the reason why there is "infighting" at all. This is not a giant misunderstanding in the family, but tendencies that have been bitterly opposed to one another throughout the history of Marxism. Not to mention their methods on how to engage the working class and their very conceptions of socialism are vastly different, despite some similarities that may exist. Despairing over "unity," as you seem to be, does not address the causes as to why socialists are largely estranged from the working class. Blaming that estrangement on "infighting" tendencies does not really touch on any of this, but instead functions as a weak guilt-trip.

[Sentinel]

Trying to unite all the revolutionary left in a single, permanent organisation really is doomed to fail. As pointed out, we have split into different tendencies because there really are significant differences in politics and tactics.

But despite all the 'infighting' our organisations do try cooperate with each other around concrete issues on a regular basis, in different networks etc. It's not always successful and often ends in the networks eventually splitting and everyone blaming each other for it.

But efforts are made on a regular basis, and sometimes it actually works for a while and goals (stopping the nazis, winning a local struggle for some transitional demand etc) are reached. As I see it it's a responsibility of all communists to from their part try and make these things work as smoothly as possible.

I also think that whenever possible, we should also try to steer 'inter leftist' discussion into a more friendly direction, and correct our own comrades if they are being unnecessarily sectarian/hostile towards others - something I try to do myself, here on revleft and when working politically in real life.

[Zostrianos]

Differences will always be there. I for one think authoritarianism is as contrary to socialism as capitalism is, and so Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and most of the other so-called socialist systems put into practice during the 20th century are completely repugnant to me and have no place in a free and egalitarian society. I can appreciate what Lenin did for socialism, but I can't forgive him for being the person who perverted Marxism into a dictatorial tool of oppression.

That being said, we don't necessarily have to have immature infighting and flaming - let's just emphasize what we have in common. As an example, I'm friends on Facebook with a guy I met through an ancient philosophy group - a very intelligent person I may add...who paradoxically happens to be a conservative Republican (and he's an atheist but is also anti-abortion). While I abhor his politics, we've had good discussions and we agree on many philosophical points. Just an example of how stark differences can be bypassed by focusing on common points and values.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's a bit hard to work with people who sympathise with dictators and make the rest of us look bad. More progress would be made if people stopped calling the soviet union socialist or stopped saying stalin was a good leader, etc. Until then, those people need to be fought.

[Zostrianos]

It's a bit hard to work with people who sympathise with dictators and make the rest of us look bad. More progress would be made if people stopped calling the soviet union socialist or stopped saying stalin was a good leader, etc. Until then, those people need to be fought.

It's thanks to their misdeeds that Communism's reputation has been irreparably soiled in the west.

[Rational Radical]

It's a bit hard to work with people who sympathise with dictators and make the rest of us look bad. More progress would be made if people stopped calling the soviet union socialist or stopped saying stalin was a good leader, etc. Until then, those people need to be fought.

I agree completely, and i think it's necessary to make it clear that these people aren't communists and have terrible politics.However what i don't agree with(and starting to abhor ) is semantics between communists who's politics actually overlap and converge ie. when you have the uneducated anarchists(clarification:certainly not throwing all anarchist comrades under the bus,i mean the,if you will "bakuninists ") throwing fits about "authoritarianism"(or things they don't find to be reconcilable with their "anarchist" philosophy) or rejecting polices/methods that they could actually empathize with/advocate if they gave it some thought and the left comms/marxists giving a vague,confusing way of how the DotP functions,ranging from armed communes and workers councils to unspecific descriptions of a party, for the sake of dogma and tradition.

[Le Socialiste]

Unity on the left is a profoundly idealistic notion that can't wholly come to fruition. That isn't to say we can't work together if necessary, but I've been in enough coalitions (and seen them fall apart) to know it takes tremendous effort to hold such a diverse - and at times incompatible - force together.

[rednordman]

It's thanks to their misdeeds that Communism's reputation has been irreparably soiled in the west.

to be honest, think the fact that the west is full of religious monarchies has more too do with the concept of communism having a bad name than the so called 'bloody history of socialism'. All the former Leninist states have done is give them all ammo which they use to justify there own existence. Even if some of that ammo is filled up with bullshit of the highest degree.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?

[Karl Renegade]

I have a different belief. It's not just politics, there's just a lot of very rude people in our culture these days. I've been called stupid at least 3 times already in this forum and I'm just new here. Some people are incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone and have a need to constantly look for the slightest reason to object to what someone said so they can show people how much more knowledgeable they are about socialist theory. This has lesser relevance to reality. What use do theories have if you can't put them in practice?

[BIXX]

Some people are incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone and have a need to constantly look for the slightest reason to object to what someone said

If you mean your opposition to gay rights, I don't know that "stupid" was the correct word...

I alway expected arguments amongst the left. I mean, I used to see it even in the "left" wing of reactionary politics (like the Democrats), where there is an excessive number of people arguing amongst each other, whereas I see it very little amongst the reactionary right wing, so I imagine that the counter-revolutionary right has very little internal arguments. I think internal arguments are good, as long as we can put aside our differences when it matters.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?

It had a much better name before Stalin. Because of him and his influence, holocaust-like images, to many, are what they think of when someone speaks of communism. That's why communism is so unpopular, and that's the way it's gonna remain.

[Zostrianos]

If we are going to blame something,I think it is that the ideology of the ruling class being dominant is to blame fore the bad name of communism.
Or do you all think communism had a good name before Stalin?

Before Stalin, communism's bad reputation seemed to revolve around its desire to overturn the old order and emancipate the masses, which in a Victorian age of aristocratic vice and colonialism was seen as a threat to society - this reputation would not hinder it today, on the contrary. After Lenin and Stalin is when it sadly became equated with authoritarianism and dictatorship, a reputation further strengthened by all the other tyrants who followed them and claimed to be communists or socialists.