Results 1 to 20 of 60
A unified left?
Hey there, as a relatively new leftist (since the end of 2011) I'm just curious as to what everybody thinks about the hope of a unified/united left?
In-fighting and sectarianism seems to be the most notorious stumbling-block for the left and often leads to our demise (e.g in the Spanish civil war). Personally I lean towards anarcho-communism, but I would happily fight alongside anti-capitalist comrades from any tendency if it meant creating an effective fighting force. I acknowledge, however, that this attitude has historically landed many loyal leftists in betrayal and persecution/executions by their Leninist counterparts (and very occasionally vice-versa)
To what extent do you think it is important to compromise and/or cooperate? For me it seems absolutely essential if we ever want to be a capable force, but I am also concerned by the prospect of post-revolution persecution..
[FONT="System"]"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."[/FONT]
It's something I've been an advocating for a long time. There've been many different attempt internationally and some have been more successful than others. Some have worked temporarily and then imploded.
I've tended that find that unity in action, and really working with people in a friendly positive way, produces greater genuine unity, than simple mergers of organizations.
what i'll call the fractal nature of sectarianism is also a problem. For instance, not only is the left divided between trots, anarchists, stalinists, maoists, left coms etc... but each of these groups are themselves divided.
This presents a problem, because suppose anarchist group A wants to invite trot group B to join its coalition. Ok it seems like a start, right? but trot group C sees this as an opportunity to highlight how trot group B "betrayed" trotskyism and so on. So this provides an incentive for trot group B to be wary of working with anarchist group A.
Now maybe one way to try to mitigate this is to have all the trot groups should get together first, all the anarchist groups should get together, and then there should be some grand coalition on top of all this. Perhaps such intermediate level unity or at least networking is feasible in the short term. SOme religions follow this model - for instance if I'm not mistaken I think the various orthodox churches in Greece, Africa, Russia, etc... have some kind of regular meeting or mechanism to let them speak as Orthodox and then talk to the catholics and the protestants.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
We need this. Not to be cheesy, but we are all brothers and sisters in the fight against capitalism. Every tendency has the same end goal: The end of capitalism. If we can realize this and get more cooperation going it would be much more likely that our differences could be handled civilly after Capitalism is no more.
To MarxSchmarx, I understand your point here. But instead of bringing together existing groups, perhaps a new one should be formed whose ONLY official aim is the abolition of capitalism through the unity of all anti-capitalists? Of course it would have to be vehemently opposed to infighting - different groups within could pressure the system by whatever means they deem most appropriate.
Forgive me if this is simplistic or just plain absurd, I know the idea has plenty of holes, it's a thought that I can't get out of my head
[FONT="System"]"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."[/FONT]
to Deity, I could not agree more comrade
even if it is practically difficult, surely it is worth our struggle
[FONT="System"]"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."[/FONT]
we dont have as much in common as some would like to think...plus i'm not even sure what an aggregate mass of leftists (whoever that's supposed to include) would be able to achieve, if anything.
Care to elaborate on that point?
Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the primary goal of most on revleft is the end of capitalism, does that not unite us to at least some degree?
[FONT="System"]"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."[/FONT]
It's something I worry about often, especially when I look at the list of registered parties in the UK.
On the Left, there are -
And more, including regional parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
- Respect
- Alliance for Green Socialism
- Alliance for Workers' Liberty
- Communist Party of Britain
- Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
- Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
- Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
- Democratic Labour Party
- Democratic Socialist Alliance
- Independent Working Class Association
- International Socialist Group
- Left Unity
- New Communist Party of Britain
- Peace and Progress Party
- Permanent Revolution (UK)
- Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
- Socialist Equality Party
- Socialist Labour Party
- Socialist Party (England and Wales)
- Socialist Party of Great Britain
- Socialist Resistance
- Socialist Workers Party
- Spartacist League of Britain
- Workers Power
- Workers' Revolutionary Party
On the Right -
It's disconcerting that they are so many parties on the left verus a smaller number of parties on the right, who seem to have greater electoral support and member numbers.
- UKIP
- British National Party
- British Democratic Party
- British Peoples Party
- National Front
- British National Socialist Movement
I've no solutions, just a depressing observation
i dont think to highly about "left unity", i mean i get what a lot of people hope it would achieve but i think except getting a few more votes at an election it will bring nothing. the "left", and i will include here all partys and groups and indivduals who are commies and anarchs that dont see themselfs as leftists, will always be weak as long as the working class is weak. no united party will change that, especially not a party that will be plagued by so much infighting over tactics, party structure and what not. it would be doomed right from the start.
seeing all these partys i have the to say the bolded one is quite the joker.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
I think the odds of that happening are minuscule, at best. And I'm not sure this is something bad, to be honest. Of course I support left unity, in principle, but many Trotskyist groups have outright horrible politics. I would be wary of a left unity coalition including the SEP, for example. Even the saner Trotskyist groups tend to deviate to liberalism occasionally. For example, during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I think only the ICL/IBT/IG/RR and maybe the IMT didn't side with Yeltsin.
"Are you a Communist?”
“No I am an anti-fascist.”
“For a long time?”
“Since I have understood fascism."
from Hemingway's For whom the bell tolls.
and in that fashion I support unified left as all anti - fascist fought for a common goal - fall of fascism, in the same manner should the anti - capitalists fight for the same goal, commies, trots and anarchists all the same.
as for trotskysm I don't know much about it but what I gathered on wiki pretty much states it in early 20th century Russia, and claims that revolution from feudal to socialistic society can go all in one shot, with no pause for capitalism, which is today absolutely irrelevant, since we're in a cappie society.
I think we need the international workingmen's association, as it was in the days of Marx and Engels - a global union of working men instead of hundreds of little unions that have no head and no tail. The capitalist mode of production is in our, workingmen hands completely, and with a global union, a global strike may appear, and with strike on a global level we can make the world stop spinning for the capitalists and crush the system that simple. From there I assume chaos will burst and the union of working men on a global scale can become army of working men and the forcible overthrow of all social conditions is pretty much sure thing.
It is all very simple, and a bearded man has said it all, a long time ago - Working men of all countries, unite!
Just to clarify, I'm not really talking about any sort of coalition of registered parties such as 'Left Unity' in the UK. I'm not about winning votes, you're right that is futile.
I guess the idea is strengthening the working class and attacking exploiters as a united community of individuals- working together in tolerance as each tendency uses different means of fighting capitalism - united by that one aim.
Some sort of united direct-action group is probably more accurate to what I am trying to describe (forgive me, I am new to this). like antifascist action- 'anticapitalist action'? Hahaha
I know it's far-fetched.. but I think there is little to be gained from defeatist rhetoric such as 'we'll never get along'/'it's too complex' etc etc. I'm willing to be proved wrong though!
A united left sounds like a good idea, but it's impossible in practice. Different brands of leftist thought have different tactics and ideas on how to fight capitalism, and some of those differ very much from one another.
For instance, anarchists and ML's have diametrically different ideas on organizing and it would be impossible for them to unite. If there was nothing to argue about there would be no tendencies in the first place. Fascists don't have that sort of problem, because they don't really have a theory.
Leftist groups can (and should) cooperate on stuff like anti-fascism or during strikes and riots, but can't work together on "preparing a revolution" because of different theories.
"By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward" - Mikhail Bakunin
Just because you aim to abolish capitalism does not mean your actions will get you there. I think many strategies are a dead-end and many 'Marxists' interpretation of the proletarian dictatorship is not actually that, and will not result in communism. So cooperating with them would not produce desirable results, and the disagreement on the course of our joint movement would lead to it splitting up again in innumerable sects. I think many demands and programmes made and articulated by, in general, Leninists is highly problematic.
As for ideologies I have a close affinity with, orthodox Marxism, left-communism, and anarchism, these each have their problems as well. Many left communists ostensibly prefer isolation over participation for puritan reasons; and many anarchists object (implicitly usually) to formal structures and often have "liberal" elements within them (lifestylism instead of class struggle).
So I'd wish for left unity between these three ideologies, but this is unrealistic. Usually platformists favour formal structures, and in many ways I'm a platformist, but their platformism also disallows for unity with non-anarcho-communists.
I'm currently in an organisation -- Breakthrough -- with both anarchists and Marxists, but we're incredibly small.
pew pew pew
The problem comes down to the fact that it is fruitless for the various left sects to combine. A truly revolutionary situation, in which the question of socialism and proletarian class dictatorship is posed, is the only situation in which the truly anti-capitalist, socialist, left can work together. We seen that in the form of factions in the Bolshevik Party early in the revolution in Russia, the involvement of Anarchists in the workers councils, etc.
Yes, the truly anti-capitalist socialists will work together when the time comes, not before.
Sectarianism is the politics where the organisation is build around a common set of ideas, such as: theories, a common conception of history, a common "method" that defines the core of the organisations' work or an extensive "platform". Given the diverse currents within the working class movement, lasting genuine unity can never be build on this basis, indeed our class can never develop on this basis. Not only groups, but each individual is different, with their own views, experiences, abilities, etc.
What we need instead then is a programmatic view on unity: A concise document that describes how we go from where we are today toward proletarian political power and, beyond that, to communism. On this basis then, a free flow of ideas can occur that define strategy and tactics. If these debates are done publicly, before the eyes of the entire working class, they also have an educational function and positively invite the more advanced layers of the working class (those that think about politics) to participate themselves.
What we need then is "unity in diversity" where the uniting body of ideas is never a finished product but a continuous process. Only within such an open process can the politics of communism - that is, the politics of the collective of our class and humanity in the final analysis - take root and can all sectarianism, opportunism and other problems be tackled.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Such a purely spontaneist view will not solve the authority problem when a revolutionary crisis is actually happening. Building a party-movement that forms our class takes time - think in years or even decades, not in days or months. Only considering this question during a revolutionary crisis is a proven recipe for failure.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
This is a failed notion taken from the 2nd international style social democracy, which not only proved a failure, but lead to the demise of the socialist movement in Germany.
The question can only be considered in a revolutionary situation. At which time the workers are actively engaged and actually able to be organized around a truly socialist program by a truly socialist party. Such a party may develop from a sect, or may originate in the revolutionary situation. If it, however, subordinates the will of the proletariat to the will of the party bureaucracy, we will see yet another failed attempt. Such a failure will be a great lesson for the proletariat, but a success will prove ever more fruitless.
There is a lot of food for thought here, really appreciate your responses.
Two last questions for now-
If the left is impossible to unite then why unite online? On revleft? (this is not an attack, I’m genuinely curious)
If the left is impossible to unite, do you think the separate groups in your areas really have the potential to instigate revolution on their own? I mean, divided, I can’t see the Aus Communist party, the socialist alliance, the ASF or the IWW realistically overthrowing capitalism any time soon.. or even making any substantial difference at all to be entirely honest. Nor can I see myself passionately supporting any of them in their current fractured and minuscule states of existence. If sectarianism is indeed inevitable, it seems like a bit of a dead end for anticapitalism?
[FONT="System"]"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."[/FONT]
