who are the real left and who are not?

[durruti02]

Maybe you could answer newbies questions about the IWCA on the other thread.

i do not think the IWCA fulfill my above criteria! that is why i am not in it! but i think their theoretical and practical move ( via red action and afa) to radical community based politics is a fundmentally good thing and i praise them for it on many levels

 

[urbanrevolt]

Pankhurst believed that working class people can organise themselves and fight for their own emancipation.

She believed in both facotry councils and local councils of direct action and direct democracy. At times she may have been too impatient for results but that is hardly a great sin. She was an able, effective organiser who believed in the possibility of working class self-emancipation. For that and indeed for her championship of the cause of Ethiopia in the 30s (drawing a veil over her latter friendship and sycophantic relationship with the emperor) where militants fought a btrave and heroic battle against fascist occupation (while 'their' ruling class either collaborated or fled abroad) she deserves study and emulation.

Rather than indulge in yet another attempt at sides with one sidfe claiming an exclusive monoploy on the truth, let's forget about the labels and get on with the nuts and bolts of organising for our own freedom by organising militant networks of workplace and community activists, and popular organs of struggle and power.

It can be done- there are little examples every day. The tirck is to join up the dots, make the connections and begin discovering our sense of agency and power.

 

[8ball]

Rather than indulge in yet another attempt at sides with one sidfe claiming an exclusive monoploy on the truth, let's forget about the labels and get on with the nuts and bolts of organising for our own freedom by organising militant networks of workplace and community activists, and popular organs of struggle and power.

It can be done- there are little examples every day. The tirck is to join up the dots, make the connections and begin discovering our sense of agency and power.

(nothing else to add, really)

 

[urbanrevolt]

Firstly what has held hegemony of the left in this country has been social democracy, even stalinism at its height (when the CPGB had 50,000 members) paled into insignificance in terms of its influence.

This though I think underestimates the influence of Stalinism- both because it could be used to sow illusions both in reforms, social democracy as an amelioration not a destruction of capitalism, an example of what happens when people are too left-wing and capitalism itself- it's impossible to have socialism or revolution it just leads to another dictatorship- look at Russia. Plus many in the union bureacracy both high up and lower down were social reform Stalinists using the methods of intimidation and party bureacratism to reign in autonomous activity of the working class.

That Stalinism is almost completely eradicated is a thouroughly good thing but it has nothing to do with the failure of socialism becuase it is the complete negation of everything socialism is- freedom and equality.

There are plenty of examples of the working class organising its own councils of power and emancipation- Paris 1871, Moscow and Petrograd 1917, other more fleeting examples (and those first two were fleeting enough).

If we ask why none ever sustained themselves then that is an interesting question of course and I think part of the answer must be to say that maximum workers' democracy as much as the armed power of the workers is an essential part of the revolution and cannot be sacrificed even temporarily without putting into peril the whole revolution.

Many generations have known 'socialism' as a barbaric inhuman soul-crushing dictatorship. We should not underestimate the stranglehold Stalinism had and even has from beyond the grave. That is why I think we need to get away from labels even Lenin, the Bolsheviks etc- sure learn all the lessons both positive and negative- but rediscover and in some ways perhaps discover for the first time how human beings organising in our workplaces and localities have the power to organise a new human society based on equality, direct democracy and freedom.

 

[Squatticus]

To Lenin

We address you as representative of the Russian Soviet Government and the Russian Communist Party. With deep regret we have observed you hauling down the flag of Communism and abandoning the cause of the emancipation of the workers. With profound sorrow we have watched the development of your policy of making peace with Capitalism and reaction.

Why have you done this?

It seems that you have lost faith in the possibility of securing the emancipation of the workers and the establishment of world Communism in our time. You have preferred to retain office under Capitalism than to stand by Communism and fall with it if need be.

Interesting. I note it's from November 1922, just over a year before Lenin's death; any evidence of earlier criticism, e.g. on the seizure of power under Bolshevik leadership, or was that OK by Pankhurst?

I also note (having read the letter in full) that it confines itself to criticising the Soviet government for having made peace with a capitalist country/countries (its not clear who). Harldy a repudiation on Lenin and all his works!

 

[butchersapron]

Interesting. I note it's from November 1922, just over a year before Lenin's death; any evidence of earlier criticism, e.g. on the seizure of power under Bolshevik leadership, or was that OK by Pankhurst?

I also note (having read the letter in full) that it confines itself to criticising the Soviet government for having made peace with a capitalist country/countries (its not clear who). Harldy a repudiation on Lenin and all his works!

Mate, the whole of Sylvia Pankhurst's political activities post 1921 was an ongoing and developing repudiation of Leninism/bolshevism. The book Anti-Parliamentary Communism:the movement for workers' councils in Britain, 1917-45 is a good starting point for this aspect of her politics.

 

[soulman]

.

 

[durruti02]

Pankhurst believed that working class people can organise themselves and fight for their own emancipation.

She believed in both facotry councils and local councils of direct action and direct democracy. At times she may have been too impatient for results but that is hardly a great sin. She was an able, effective organiser who believed in the possibility of working class self-emancipation. For that and indeed for her championship of the cause of Ethiopia in the 30s (drawing a veil over her latter friendship and sycophantic relationship with the emperor) where militants fought a btrave and heroic battle against fascist occupation (while 'their' ruling class either collaborated or fled abroad) she deserves study and emulation.

Rather than indulge in yet another attempt at sides with one sidfe claiming an exclusive monoploy on the truth, let's forget about the labels and get on with the nuts and bolts of organising for our own freedom by organising militant networks of workplace and community activists, and popular organs of struggle and power.

It can be done- there are little examples every day. The tirck is to join up the dots, make the connections and begin discovering our sense of agency and power.

hi urbanr .. yes you are of course right .. the key thing is to be active .. but as your next post points out we also DO need to be clear what is 'right', and what will work .. you rightly say stalinism needed destroying .. and it pretty well has been .. but i would argue that Leninism ( and its @ equivalents .. they are many ) need to go too .. i think the reasons they exist ( and ocntinue to hold us back ) are interesting .. there is a bit of Whilelm reichs or Eric Fromms repression in there and there to overcome 3000 years+ of Judeo-Christian forms .. that there is 1 god ( jayweh allah stalin polpot ) who we must follow on the one hand and the activist model based ( STILL!!! ) on Moses with his tablets in the desert and later the persecuted Jesus with his small group of disciples

It seems any political forms that replicate these top down authoritarian structures can ONLY end up replicating them .. ( as Rosa Luxenbourg says in 1904 and Bakunin said decades before that) ..

 

[urbanrevolt]

Mate, the whole of Sylvia Pankhurst's political activities post 1921 was an ongoing and developing repudiation of Leninism/bolshevism. The book Anti-Parliamentary Communism:the movement for workers' councils in Britain, 1917-45 is a good starting point for this aspect of her politics.

Left-Wing Communism was partly aimed at Pankhurst of course. However, this does not in any way affect the validity or otherwise of organising rank and file networks of militants in workplaces and communities- a goal of which Pankhurst would certainly have approved.

However, to actually do this it is necessary to overcome the sort of barbed sectarianism of many of the left who love to discuss and categorise people according to what group they belong to.

 

[urbanrevolt]

It seems any political forms that replicate these top down authoritarian structures can ONLY end up replicating them ..

Yes but rank and file networks of militants, facotry councils, other popular organs of struggle do not replicate top-down structures but are a way to achieve a totally different form of society based on freedom, equality and direct democracy (and of course when necessary representative delegate democracy but with power devolved as much as possible)

Now you may say- i predict- that's not Lenin's view. I'd disagree but think there are valid criticisms of both Lenin, the Bolsheviks and even more 'Leninists'

For a generation of activists presented with what Le Blanc calls “the ‘Leninism’ that Stalin made” it is urgent that we think through and think anew the real lessons from Lenin and the Bolsheviks, of a party with deep roots in the working class, and the absolute centrality of workers’ democracy.

We are very much in favour of reviewing everything, questioning everything and rebuilding Marxism and Leninism in a manner that learns from the past. .... Dogma is not what Marxism is about... We need a Marxism re-focused on the tasks of the hour.

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1851

These are interesting debates and probably necessary ones but what is not necessary and is actually a handicap is all the time making explicitly anti_leninist comments. Actually we need to work with all sorts of militants including those who may or may not define themselves as Leninists. The osession with labelling and being in the right group I think is part of the problem and we need to get beyond it in my humble opinion.

 

[durruti02]

Yes but rank and file networks of militants, facotry councils, other popular organs of struggle do not replicate top-down structures but are a way to achieve a totally different form of society based on freedom, equality and direct democracy (and of course when necessary representative delegate democracy but with power devolved as much as possible)

Now you may say- i predict- that's not Lenin's view.

er yes ! .. totally based on reading Serge, on Smith ( Factory Councils in Petrograd) on Goldman, on .. ( the american @ ) etc etc so much stuff BUT .. yes we do need to go beyond and i have been meaning to have a look at PR .. sounds half intersting

i think though Leninist themselve are the ones who do not deal do not compromise .. as they have the truth .. the single party the single way .. so however unsectarian you wish to be, if you see it in any way differrent, you will come into conflict .. no?

 

[durruti02]

.. it is necessary to overcome the sort of barbed sectarianism of many of the left who love to discuss and categorise people according to what group they belong to.

herein lies the problem .. how DO you debate or argue in a non sectarian fashion with those who believe ONLY THEY have the idea/theory and ONLY THEY have the party/organisation ..

 

[Squatticus]

Mate, the whole of Sylvia Pankhurst's political activities post 1921 was an ongoing and developing repudiation of Leninism/bolshevism. The book Anti-Parliamentary Communism:the movement for workers' councils in Britain, 1917-45 is a good starting point for this aspect of her politics.

yes, well lots of people who had in one way been Leninist, e.g. Trotsky, grew more and more critical after that date to what was also calling itself 'Leninism'/'Bolshevism', etc., on account of who had got their hands on the franchise.

I will look at that book, though.

 

[urbanrevolt]

..
i think though Leninist themselve are the ones who do not deal do not compromise .. as they have the truth .. the single party the single way .. so however unsectarian you wish to be, if you see it in any way differrent, you will come into conflict .. no?

Some may be but part of what I'm saying is that we can get around sectarians by making sure that we organise real rank and file initiatives, whether in communities or workplaces, and perhaps not be so obsessed with labels all the time.

There are of course serious and genuinely enlightening debates to be had but these should be alongside joint action. Of course some groups or individuals may be very hard or even impossible to work with but that doesn't mean we can't work around them.

And I think there are plenty of people in various groups and of course in no groups who are genuinely interested in building something better and it can be done

 

[durruti02]

Some may be but part of what I'm saying is that we can get around sectarians by making sure that we organise real rank and file initiatives, whether in communities or workplaces, and perhaps not be so obsessed with labels all the time.

There are of course serious and genuinely enlightening debates to be had but these should be alongside joint action. Of course some groups or individuals may be very hard or even impossible to work with but that doesn't mean we can't work around them.

And I think there are plenty of people in various groups and of course in no groups who are genuinely interested in building something better and it can be done

(((UR))) you are of course right and i salute you for your persistent optimism and long may it last ..

 

[newbie]

herein lies the problem .. how DO you debate or argue in a non sectarian fashion with those who believe ONLY THEY have the idea/theory and ONLY THEY have the party/organisation ..

by looking for openness, honesty and transparency, as you said earlier

 

[urbanrevolt]

Indeed. I am quite optimistic but only by taking the longer view. it is actually very frustrating that we have to wade through all sorts of hrdles to get anywhere and it is a long hard slog with no quick results.

But there are examples of persistence paying off even if only on the small scale and taking a larger theoretical view helps explain why there are no quick fixes and why we are in the mess we are in at the moment. In other words, don't give up if we don't get quick results!

Finally, of course there are difficult and arrogant sectarians but I think sometimes almost as many problems are caused by those who refuse to co-operate or even get involved with certtain campaigns because 'that lot' are involved. Of course we need to be very careful and not too trusting of certain organisations but the best way is I think to try and get everyone to work together and appeal to wider forces to get involved.

 

[treelover]

U/R, not that old carnard, People don't start off thinking 'I won't work with 'that lot' or this 'group' , it comes with experience and happens over time, constantly being frustrated, fucked over. I didn't even know there were left factions till I was twenty five! Anyway, some good posts by you...

Finally, of course there are difficult and arrogant sectarians but I think sometimes almost as many problems are caused by those who refuse to co-operate or even get involved with certtain campaigns because 'that lot' are involved. Of course we need to be very careful and not too trusting of certain organisations but the best way is I think to try and get everyone to work together and appeal to wider forces to get involved.
Reply With Quote

 

[urbanrevolt]

OK people don't start off like that but I have met too many people who are so anti a group- normally one in particular- that it becomes a problem.#

Possibly, saying 'almost as many problems' was ne exaggeration though you, cunningly, didn't highlight the 'almost'!

 

[Spion]

U/R, not that old carnard, People don't start off thinking 'I won't work with 'that lot' or this 'group' , it comes with experience and happens over time, constantly being frustrated, fucked over.

So, eventually you work with no-one? Is that what you're saying?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Well you could just try boycotting all the left groups I suppose! But my point is that that would far too schematic. Some good militant may be attracted by the SWP/SP or other left groups. It's a mistake I think to write them all off!

Of course it would be a mistake as well to only or primarily orient to people in left groups- actually they're a fairly small minority!

 

[brasicritique]

What's for sure is that some people aren't any good at maths!

your mothers not good at maths