Autor: Emil

~ 27/12/11

The following post is a reply to someone. You can read the original discussion here.

-Originally posted at Revleft on 3rd September 2011-

Some posts explaining why we need democracy  within our movement:

Disagreement is a pretty human thing. It is up to our forms of organisation in how we deal with that. In that sense there is some argument that we stay irrelevant due to our institutionalised infighting (so, infighting for the sake of staying disunited) and more commonly straight out ignoring of eachother.

The following post is a reply to someone. You can read the original discussion here.

[Quoting user “The Idler”]

No its genuine political differences.

Which should be fought out within one class organisation. The failure to recognise this basic point is what keeps us divided and thus irrelevant. And with our irrelevancy, we will never be able to organise the foremost fighters and advanced political layers of our class.

“But”, the retort often is made, “our group is indeed small, but given our pure political line on x, y and z, our ranks will swell as soon as a revolutionary situation happens and the masses get radicalised”. Sorry, but:
a) It never works like that and
b) You’ll always be too late, tailing behind the movement as you are.

We need to overcome this dead-end road strategy. The different unity projects have, despite their deficiencies, showed one important thing: Being united causes you to have social weight. So, even imperfect unity is actually progress. From there on we need to fight out our differences openly, which implies opposition to (proto-)bureaucratic leaderships and for rigorous democracy within our movement.

The following post is a reply to someone. You can read the original discussion here.

[Quoting  user “hindsight20/20”]

Not to mention that they are more often than not exploited by provocateurs and the burgeoisie to further deepen the conflicts with the revolutionary left.

I say, let them! I’m fully confident that we win the political debate. They’ll merely expose themselves as provocateurs if they are and continue to be dysfunctional. Disagreements should happen in a comradely and constructive fashion, this is not the method of provocateurs.

The following post is a reply to someone. You can read the original discussion here.

The point of democratic-centralism is not to have top-down rigid organisation in which all have to defend to elaborated platform of the organisation, this is the world upside down!

Democratic centralism is all about unity in disagreement, that is: Unity in organisation, but where minorities have the full right to openly express their disagreement with the majority position. Unity is therefore a dialectical development, whereas the unity of opposites create new understanding. Factions therefore come and go, as the disagreements spring up and are resolved during the march of events.

So, a party platform should not be a fixed thing, frozen in time. That’s just a parody of politics. It should always be criticised and tested, out of which the platform can then be amended as is deemed necessary.

I do make a difference in several “sections” of the “platform” (which I don’t think is a monolithic thing): The programme for example should reflect objective tasks that are necessary to build the working class movement and form it as a potential ruling class. It should therefore not change every other month, but should be a fairly steady bit of text, perhaps undergoing reflection once a decade or so. From this flow strategy and tactics, which are very much more subjective and fluctuant. Also, the theory underpinning all this should also be questioned at all times.

Only through questioning everything, do people start to think for themselves and that is the whole point of the excercise.

The following post is a reply to someone. You can read the original discussion here.

Yeah, these threads are always a bit disappointing as the main aim seems to be to increase the “marketshare” of this or that particular strand of revolutionism. How we go from this sectism to a class party (implying that many currents of disagreement are united in one mass organisation) is on the order of the day and this thread shows that once again.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment