The Question of Leftist Framentation

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Political fragmentation is one of the most iconic problems of political Leftism. This thread is made to determine the following things:

1. The causes of Leftist political fragmentation
2. If Leftist Unity is the most desirable course of action
3. If Leftist Unity is possible

It is my personal opinion that the fragmentation of the Left is the single greatest barrier to our success. The apt maxim that "united we stand, divided we fall" holds excellently here. We have so many different kinds of political leftism, and each of them unique, but we must remember that we are not philosophers and our parties are not philosophical schools of thought; political parties are formed to bring about action, not to pontificate about the righteousness of a specific position relative to nearly-identical ones. The single uniting plank of all leftist parties is opposition to capitalism. For some, like the Greens, this does not include a Marxist vision of socialism, merely an opposition to rampant corporatism, consumerism, and wanton destruction of the environment. For others, like the anarchists, this means total revulsion with all forms of state-oriented society, be it capitalist or socialist (some even have the gusto to refer to socialism as "state capitalism!" ) Others are Socialist Utopians, desiring Faurieresque social structures which are anti-capitalist but not driven by the same Hegelian-inspired ideas of Marxism. And then, of course, we have the various schools of Marxism, from the left Trotskyists and grass-roots stylings of Eugene Debs to the right-leaning, pragmatic Stalinists and Maoists, and everything in between, including the high-minded Marxist Feminists and Marxist Humanists. At the furthest Right of our group are those parliamentary "socialists," the various Labour and Social Democratic parties, who are mostly nowadays socialist only in name. I do not know if they are worth including in such an alliance, since they more often take the side of the capitalists when true socialists enter the argument. I hold similar reservations about anarchists, and for similar reasons, but I think for the time being more important things demand that we set our differences aside in the interest of throttling the bourgeoisie.

Separated, we bicker amongst ourselves, our hatred sometimes as virulent as those fights between the denominations of the early Christian Church. This infighting has weakened our ability to fight the capitalists, and caused disinterestedness and loss of membership in all our parties. We stand disunited, together criticizing capitalism in all the same old ways, but we are all just little voices yelling in a crowd, independently, we are not feared, we are not heard, and our voices mean nothing. What we must do is draw together some sort of Leftist Alliance, and turn our individual yells into a unifying shout of defiance. We must cooperate together to end the capitalist system, the thing we all agree must be done. Once we have conquered Capital, then we can sort out our different ideas about how to create a just society in a civilized way. And even then, it may not be pretty, since our differences are sharp in many areas, and the necessity of ending capitalism is perhaps the only thing we can universally agree on. But we continue to lose ground every day that we bicker amongst ourselves about how to do it. If we care half as much as we say we do about ending exploitation and oppression, then we should be able to do this.

The overriding drive, in my opinion, must be discipline. Not party line discipline, but personal control of ourselves, and adherence to our own commitment to democratize various aspects of society. All actions must keep this in mind. It was a great weakness displayed, for example, by the Bolsheviks, to have resorted to repression and self-righteousness rather than compromise, but the other parties of the day were just as guilty of that complex. Some blame that on their Russian-ness, some say it is a product of Lenin and a conquest for power, and some say it is endemic to socialism. I think the reason in the context of today is irrelevant and a question for historians to debate; it should not shape our thinking today, except to serve as an example of something to be avoided.

Another question whose answer we must be united around is the conquest of power itself. Is revolution acceptable? Is it the only way to end Capitalism? Is the only way that Capitalism should be ended? Whatever is decided, it must be adhered to by all Leftist parties if only for the sake of cohesion. This is one of the most difficult subjects for us, so we must always been on guard when debating it to quell the self-righteous urge to split and "do things our own way." As noted above, this will get us nowhere, and being right means nothing if it never comes to pass.

I hope this at least inspires some thought in the minds of Leftists who read it. Its a problem we will most definitely need to face if we ever intend to do anything other than pontificate and pray the masses flock to our brand of "the right way." Our motto is, after all:

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

 

[Trajan12]

Leftist fragmentation is arguably undermining the current administration. There are so many leftist groups organized around singular issues and each of them are afraid to unabashedly embrace being leftists whereas those on the right carry their banner proudly. This I believe is the reason that so many on the left are so myopic and fail to see how victories on other fronts relate to their fight.

 

[Cato the Elder]

We totally need this over here in Belgium, the right has much better rhetoric, much more power, and much more credibility than the left does. The communists tend to say the same thing over and over that nobody listens to anymore (except in the last elections, where they doubled their votes, perhaps from 0.5% to 1%, but doubling nonetheless), the social democrats are essentially a centrist party, and the greens tend to be too aetherical and not substantive enough. On the other hand, we have 2 powerful rightist parties, one semi-powerful one, and one powerful but on the decline extreme-right party. Not proportional at all.

 

[Shadylookin]

You'd probably have an easier time herding cats than uniting various leftists factions.

 

[Munch]

This is obviously an important question.

Right-leaning factions tend to have an ability to operate more cohesively, to agree on concrete action, and to draw voters into the fold far more easily than any left-leaning faction. This, perhaps, is endemic. For a modern day, pretty trivial example, compare the Bush administration's ability to get things done compared to Obama's. But why is this?

In general I don't think any left-leaning person could really argue that leftist unity was counterproductive. If there is a common uniting strand, in your post anticapitalism, then let that be dealt with first, together; I don't see what the argument against that course is. But I suppose the reason why this unity doesn't exist is related to the apparent right-leaning unity. Perhaps it is just the case that the common person doesn't feel that left is the direction which will favour them personally.

 

[REDY]

We totally need this over here in Belgium, the right has much better rhetoric, much more power, and much more credibility than the left does. The communists tend to say the same thing over and over that nobody listens to anymore (except in the last elections, where they doubled their votes, perhaps from 0.5% to 1%, but doubling nonetheless), the social democrats are essentially a centrist party, and the greens tend to be too aetherical and not substantive enough. On the other hand, we have 2 powerful rightist parties, one semi-powerful one, and one powerful but on the decline extreme-right party. Not proportional at all.

This made me love Belgium much more.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

The squabbling is just like the Abrahamic faiths.
Should have joined the USSR when you guys had the chance.

 

[Camikaze]

It is my personal opinion that the fragmentation of the Left is the single greatest barrier to our success.

Well there is political fragmentation on the right too (Democrats vs. Republicans), and they succeed, so perhaps this is the whole problem. Although it probably is, and for the sake of argument, I think it is.

I do not know if they are worth including in such an alliance

We must cooperate together to end the capitalist system, the thing we all agree must be done.

The thing is thought that not all leftists do want to end the capitalist system, so much as modify it to obtain varying outcomes (more socially focused than economically focused). Unless, of course, you're applying the term 'leftist' strictly only to those that do want the end of the capitalist system, but that's narrowing your group a great deal, and is the fragmentation that you speak of anyway. The only way for the left to have a chance of becoming dominant is to incorporate all of the left, not merely the ones who want capitalism destroyed. Including those that you say you are not sure are worth including in this alliance. And this means compromise. Which is hard to achieve when there's such a variation of views on the left itself. How do you reconcile those that want the end of capitalism, and those that do not? For instance, I would describe myself as a leftist, a socialist, a social democrat and a social capitalist all at the same time (with of course a differing definition of 'socialist' than what you would take). But I personally would rather a moderate right-wing government, or even an average Republican platform, than a communist government. So how do I compromise with communists, who are also on the left, to overcome a political party that I would generally prefer? It seems counter-intuitive, but it is probably the only way to become dominant over the right, so it's very hard to do, without someone abandoning the central plank of their political beliefs.

 

[Ayatollah So]

People who are arguing for new ideas - here I exclude Stalinists from "new", since that idea has been tried - should bicker among themselves. Newness comes with uncertainty, hence room for reasonable disagreements. That doesn't mean they couldn't unite behind some immediate practical goals, however. Does it?

I think it's more about a failure of strategic thinking, than theoretical differences. Now, why is it that the kind of person that subscribes to leftism tends not to be the kind of person adept at strategic thinking? Is it only, or primarily, manipulative bastards who tend to be strategic thinkers?

 

[Merkinball]

Cheezy, let me ask you a question. I like and respect your views as a socialist because you don't necessarily project them onto me. Just as I don't project my views unto you. You and I can co-exist within this world independently from one another and get along just fine. You can run your egalitarian business and share the wealth and means of production with your employees, and I can run my business as I see fit. With that said, why would you ever want to unite, or associate with the vast majority of the people you talk about in your post? What's to unite behind in regards to anarchists and totalitarian communists/socialists/marxists?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because the purpose is not to create a new society somewhere else for us to socialize as we wish, it is to change this society into one which embodies equality and justice. Our motives are not selfish, but humanitarian.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Because the purpose is not to create a new society somewhere else for us to socialize as we wish, it is to change this society into one which embodies equality and justice. Our motives are not selfish, but humanitarian.

Point is, change into what? There's a lot of bickering over that point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Point is, change into what? There's a lot of bickering over that point.

Which is why we need to focus on what we agree on and work from there. This is about a movement of Leftists and particularly socialists, not all oppositionists to the present way of things.

 

[Merkinball]

Because the purpose is not to create a new society somewhere else for us to socialize as we wish, it is to change this society into one which embodies equality and justice. Our motives are not selfish, but humanitarian.

I think you need to examine some of these groups you describe. You generally have a tendency to promote your own version of leftist through through education. You genuinely believe that the end to your means is not selfish, bu humanitarian. I would contend that the majority of those groups above are indeed selfish, not humanitarian at all, and would have little to no regard for individual such as myself and that the system they'd prescribe would devour and spit out your egalitarian ideals.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Such as whom? Which of them pursue selfish ends and not humanitarian?

 

[Merkinball]

Such as whom? Which of them pursue selfish ends and not humanitarian?

I think it's rather naive to frame the question as such. I mean, if it was merely about humanitarianism at its purest level then you wouldn't have ever written the OP. You guys would all be united. The question you need to ask yourself is where do I, your buddy and pal, fit into any of those otther groups. Where is my place in their worldview?

I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit Cheezy. In fact, I think you are really debasing yourself by putting your ideology on the same level as those other groups. Your worldview has evolved far beyond your average anarchist, green fascist, marxists, socialists, hegelists, progressives, etc, etc. I also think you underestimate the pragmatic nature of pure and total statism that exists within most of these groups. I find it kind of funny that you even mention Debs, a socialist, who was imprisoned for sedition by a progressive. Most leftists follow this same statist, controlling, selfish worldview at some level. That doesn't mesh with unselfishness or humanitarianism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You think Wilson was a progressive? Wilson's administration was a fascistoid, racist monstrosity.

You place, Merk, is beside the rest of the working class: heirs to the world. You think that we would do nothing for the average joe, but it is in fact the average joe for whom we fight. There are only a small minority of the population who are real enemies of the rest of us, whose concerns are not those of the poorer working classes, who are milking the many for the benefit of their few.

As for the "pragmatic and statist" nature of these groups, I've never seen them, and I suspect I'm more involved than you are with them and their members. The CPUSA, for example, is a Marxist-Leninist organization, but their platforms are borderline libertarian-socialist. The Party and I are nearly of one mind, the uniqueness of this circumstance is why I joined. The Socialist Party preaches similarly libertarian ideas; no need to question the anti-authoritarian nature of the Anarchists. The only pro-big-government ones I see are the parliamentary socialists and the Green parties, and honestly I don't expect much from the former as they are de facto capitalists and the latter are more often than not single-plank parties whose votes or support can be rounded up by addressing the things they take issue with, and possibly by adopting their answers also. But the only matter they're really pro-government on is environmental regulation, in many other ways they support grass-roots organization, community involvement, and a general libertarian mindset, not unlike the socialist parties.

It should be noted that I use the lowercase "libertarian" to mean the opposite of authoritarian, which is top-down decision-making (meaning, its classic sense), which is different from capitalized "Libertarian," the rightist Neo-Liberal ideology we popularly associate with the term today.

 

[Harshad]

The powerful elements of the left as you consider it are mostly concentrated in the intelligentsia. The powerful elements of the right are based among the most powerful, namely the forces of capital and government.

Since the intelligentsia are a group engaged in complex mental and creative labor(thanks Wiki) that are physically disunited because of geography, it follows that groups of intelligentsia in different locations would come to different conclusions.

Government and Capital are more engaged in practical concerns, namely the pursuit and/or protection of power(Government), and the accumulation of wealth(Capital).

Plus, lets face it, most on the left are hypocrites. I don't see any of them forgoing the profits they make in writing. Chomsky is an example of that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The powerful elements of the left as you consider it are mostly concentrated in the intelligentsia.

Not really.

Since the intelligentsia are a group engaged in complex mental and creative labor(thanks Wiki) that are physically disunited because of geography, it follows that groups of intelligentsia in different locations would come to different conclusions.

Geography has nothing to do with anything. And we aren't talking about an intelligentsia, here, we are far weaker than that.

Plus, lets face it, most on the left are hypocrites.

ORLY.

I don't see any of them forgoing the profits they make in writing. Chomsky is an example of that.

I can't think of anyone who is against profits. But as you'll note, Chomsky has no magnificent fortune, its really quite minuscule for someone whose written as many books as he has and worked at a top US university for God knows how many years.

 

[Phlegmak]

You know what's sad? That Communists all over the world have to defecate on the Russian language by using it in their propaganda.