People coming into political motion often take a look at the field of activity on the Left and shake their heads. “Why are there so many small, disunited groups?” they ask. “Why can’t they get along and work together?”
Line differences within groups have come from practice, or responses to the practice of others. At certain points in history the line differences are worth splitting up over, because they lead to qualitatively different further practice. Sections of groups part ways because each believes their way is correct and the other way is going to lead to failure.
But most of the sects that exist today emerged out of a previous era of struggle, and their differences are rooted in the past. Many of the questions that were once crucial and defining, are irrelevant to people coming into political life today. They don’t want to (and shouldn’t have to) go through a long list of historical verdicts and ideological points that they have to agree with to join a group. It’s too hard – what if they agree on 60% or 80% but can’t come to agreement on the rest? Then they’d either have to suppress their differences and join anyway, or would have to form another sect with that minor difference as the distinction between them.
Instead, now people are seeking to organize new groups from the ground up, with people who generally agree on current issues and basic goals, and are willing to figure out the rest as needed.
This is why, I think, there are so many small collectives starting everywhere. People coming into political life for the first time, or getting back into it after a long break, or coming out of some of these sects, are figuring out what they think about our current conditions. They are putting aside the impulse to form verdicts on historical questions, and starting over.
This doesn’t mean they don’t learn from previous struggles. People are studying — not to just appropriate a finished system of thought in the abstract, but creatively, in order to see how others approached similar problems in different times and places, and to find solutions and methods that can help today. It’s great that they’re starting fresh, because when people define their own theories, ideologies and political lines, then they’re rooted in their own experiences, observations, and emotions. The ideas become an integral part of the people, who then become an integral part of a movement, in a way that can’t happen if they come in and rely solely on the previous work of others. The creative process of articulating beliefs and forming principles, incorporating what makes sense from past lessons, and testing what parts of the new mix works and what doesn’t, is part of the liveliness of an emerging movement.
The people coming into motion today don’t see the need to divide themselves along the same lines, or down to the same level of detail as those who have been around a long time — though divisions are still there based on very broad historical verdicts and deep scars. For example, in recent decades I haven’t noticed anyone refuse to work with someone who has a different opinion on Enver Hoxha’s break with Mao. Most people don’t know or care about it. On the other hand, many anarchists still feel betrayed by communists because of the Spanish Civil War and other blunders and won’t even consider working with them, or will only with extreme wariness and some expression of regret on the part of the reds.
Splits form along new lines: anarchists are splitting over being vegan or omnivore. Deep green environmentalists demarcate themselves from technotopians. Anti-war activists congeal into mutually frosty camps around whether or not to express support for the rulers of countries being attacked by the U.S.
So the splits and divides are more (not always, but much more) based on issues and events that are occurring and relevant today.
It’s like ecological succession. The groups that emerged from the 1960s are mature, solid, complex organisms. They’ve been through a lot and grown into big trees. The new collectives emerging everywhere are pioneer species, like the small plants that spring up on damaged ground, fast-growing and highly adaptive, but fragile and less formed. Some will be short-lived and not very well-defined. They’ll prepare the ground for stronger plants to take root and become established.
A revolutionary situation will require a lot of different kinds of forces working in tandem. Like in an ecosystem, there is strength in diversity, and a particular role for all of these types of groups in relation to the others. We should cooperate as much as possible. The elders of the movement have experience and wisdom. The new people have fresh views and energy. We should appreciate both, and all be learning from one another.
A couple of months ago, I talked about “Why Revolution, Why Socialism?” at Candlelight Collective in West Bend, Wisconsin and exactly this question came up. A month later, ISO came to do their presentation on the Madison protests and how that related to a socialist regroupment and, of course, the same question came up. A lot of people are sincerely distressed by the lack of a central revolutionary organization of the left because they perceive correctly that we are less strong because we are divided. I like your analysis, although I can see you are influenced by your previous experience as I am by mine.
I have noted that you are involved in the Kasama project and I investigated what they have online. But I find they are still overly influenced by their own background as members of the RCP. While you are far too young to have been involved at that time, there are a huge number of people who have bad impressions because of the actions of RCP during the anti-war movement in physically attacking and trying to secure authority by force especially against anti-war organizations in which Trotskyists were influential, which also happened to be the largest and broadest anti-war coalitions of the time. This has left bad feelings; somewhat more humility and admitting of the profound sectarian error of that time might help, as opposed to the dismissive tone of responses I observed on the Kasama website.
You are very correct in saying that differences in opinion have sometimes led to very different political actions. There are many people who consider themselves revolutionary who would not defend China against imperialist attack; others who consider Cuba to need a regime change; some who feel that ecosystem damage is the most important problem, others that poverty and discrimination are most important. There are many who hold self-contradictory opinions with good hearts, depending on what issue is put before them.
Some of the issues which divide us as revolutionary socialists do affect how we view the process of change. It is not so much that our view of the future society itself is abstract, but that we do not know for certain the path to get there. To my mind, the view that “socialism in one country” is possible is a massive detour from what is necessary. All strategies must proceed from the premise that change must aim at and draw support from a world-wide movement where no country is considered already transformed until we abolish nation-states and can move forward together, Global warming even as the only issue dictates that approach, but there are many other issues which can never be resolved within any single country.
Actually most of the groups that emerged from the 60s are mere remnants of what they were in the 60s and 70s. Most have shrunk. Many former members have fragmented into other groups and causes, as have you and I. Some have even disappeared. Some have been resurrected nostalgically, like the IWW and SDS. So while our individual experience and wisdom may live on, I do not see it embodied in any present organization. I would love to see an environmentalist revolutionary internationalist socialist group that viewed previous revolutions without bias, that admired what was to be admired, that saw the difficulties in maneuvering in an imperialist world, that condemned undemocratic policies without reservation. I don’t see it yet. We may have to depend on spontaneous Collective organization and hope they have strength enough to defeat a moribund imperialism, but I am Leninist enough to realize they are a flawed instrument compared to a unified revolutionary party.
When I got into SDS around 1965, I found a group of people determined to avoid the endless sectarian battles of the Depression Era generation. By 1969, we were immersed in even more ridiculous sectarian strife. The first time as tragedy. The second time as farce. Apparently Marx did not envision a 3rd time so I don’t have an adjective for today’s sectarian shenanigans. I see a lot of movement today, but a paucity of organization. Hopefully organization will grow out of the movement and be relevant to the demands of the 21st century.
There are lots of problems out there, unfortunately. Many groups on the Left that came out of the student movement have been stagnant around real organizing for a long time, preferring to be small and dedicated. It would be nice if there was a group like SDS, which is non sectarian, for folks who aren’t students. DSA and the Socialist Party are okay but personally not very inspiring. It’s sad to see anarchists take sectarian stands against things that they have no direct or sometimes even indirect connection to, like getting pissed off about the Spanish Civil War (as “Hey Baby, I’m an Anarchist” by Against Me! outlines).
Hey Stephanie, Wes and I are actually hosting a discussion based on this essay at Candlelight Collective, a radical community space we’re both involved in!
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=196566487078294
Hi Ben and Wes, I’m thrilled to know that — I’m happy this is useful! Thanks for telling me.
Hey All You people looking for a unifying force!
May I recommend a visit to http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au?
We are as fed up as you are at what is happening to our society and the behaviour of our “representatives”.
In order to bring all the individuals and groups striving for a better Australia together, we have devised a whole new Constitution that we think might solve most of our problems.
Not everyone will agree with everything, of course; but perhaps there is enough we CAN all agree on to light up a way forward.
Let us know what you think.
charles
After reading this I was pondering what is the common denominator among leftists of all flavors. Maybe if we can focus on what’s the same about all of us we can find some common ground while still retaining our differences. Is it collectivism or the common good that defines the left?