[Marxism] On Unity [was NEP a retreat?]

[Aaron Aarons]

>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Pance Stojkovski <pance at rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] NEP a retreat?
>
>Aaron Aarons wrote:
>
>> Actually, the "unity" mantra was constantly raised by the likes
>> of the SWP and the CP as a reason to try to suppress radical
>> anti-imperialist politics. In fact, the SWP-led coalition that
>> organized the large anti-war demo in Manhattan on October 15,
>> 1965 tried to impose a list of six slogans that would be the
>> only ones carried.
>
>Is this an example of "unity" Aaron?

It's an example of what happens when "unity" is made the
primary principle. Nearly every group in that coalition agreed
to the limitation on slogans in order to maintain unity with
anti-communist "peace" groups that were opposed to the U.S.
military being in Vietnam but not to U.S. imperialism in
general.

Fotunately, thanks to radicals who defied those limitations,
there were few, if any, attempts to repeat them in future
actions.

The post of mine that Pance is responding to above is the one with headers:

>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:53:08 -0700
>From: Aaron Aarons <aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] NEP a retreat?

It includes more general arguments against the "unity" mantra
as chanted by David McDonald, and echoed favorably by Pance in
the following post, which I hadn't seen when I wrote mine:

>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Pance Stojkovski <pance at rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] On Unity [was NEP a retreat?]
>Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>To: Aaron Aarons <aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm>
>
>--- Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>> (forwarded from David McDonald)
>>
>> It is interesting to me that Americans spend almost no time or thought
>> on the question of unity, how it is achieved, how it is maintained, how
>> it is deepened. In the 1960's, for instance, unity was on no one's
>> agenda, not the SWP's not the CP's, not the Maoists, not anybodys'. Yet
>> when I look back at it, it seems to me that we squandered the energies
>> of tens of thousands of revolutionary-minded people without ever
>> honestly grappling with the question of why we were not bent on creating
>> one gigantic fist, when we had the forces to make such a fist.
>>
>> And yet the real revolutionaries, the Lenins, the Fidels, the Correas,
>> the Evos, are totally consumed with how to create the unities needed to
>> seize power and hold onto it.
>>
>> David McDonald
>>
>
>Thanks for forwarding this note Louis and thanks to David for
>bringing back the not so au-currant concept of 'unity'. I know
>we, on the Left, have our differences, and we love to debate
>each other. But as long as we cling to these differences that
>separate us, the right will continue to rule. The right has a
>stranglehold on power because it is strong, this is true. But
>part of its strength comes from the left's own weakness - or as
>David has eloquently described it - no clue of how to "seize
>power".
>
>If 'location' is the mantra of realestate, surely 'unity'
>should be the mantra of the working class and all progressive
>forces.

This is an example of the philosophical idealism so common
on the subjectively revolutionary left. Like the "crisis of
leadership" that Trotskyists use to explain repeated defeats,
it basically says that "if the rest of you followed my ideas,
we would (have) made a revolution. It doesn't occur to such
idealists to look at social reality, and especially the reality
of imperialist parasitism that is participated in by large
sections of the working class, to explain why people don't
behave in a revolutionary manner. But the "unity" mantra is
even worse, since it doesn't even say what ideas leftists
should unite around.

>Speaking as someone who has been around the Marxist left for a long time, I know these differences are very real and can't be glossed over. But surely honest Marxists on this list (and those outside this list) can come to some ground rules for unity and moving forward. Otherwise, we will be left on the sidelines cheering for the lesser of two evils.

I'm glad that Pance's "unity" doesn't involve unity in support
of the evil of two lessers. ;-) Unfortunately, for much of what
passes for the "left" in the U.S., especially so-called
"progressives", "unity" does mean just that.

Unity is a fine idea, in the sense that it's beneficial to
unite as many people as possible around a correct program. But
what is the correct program we should unite around?

On the other hand, limited tactical unity around specific
actions is certainly desirable. But no unity should ever serve
to subordinate revolutionary to reformist politics.  And
without specifics, the call for"unity" is at best meaningless.

>Pance.

 - Aaron

------------------------- For those who hate hard-wrapped text as I do,
------------------------- here's the unwrapped version:

>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Pance Stojkovski <pance at rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] NEP a retreat?
>
>Aaron Aarons wrote:
>
>>Actually, the "unity" mantra was constantly raised by the likes of the SWP and the CP as a reason to try to suppress radical anti-imperialist politics. In fact, the SWP-led coalition that organized the large anti-war demo in Manhattan on October 15, 1965 tried to impose a list of six slogans that would be the only ones carried.
>
>Is this an example of "unity" Aaron?

It's an example of what happens when "unity" is made the primary principle. Nearly every group in that coalition agreed to the limitation on slogans in order to maintain unity with anti-communist "peace" groups that were opposed to the U.S. military being in Vietnam but not to U.S. imperialism in general.

Fotunately, thanks to radicals who defied those limitations, there were few, if any, attempts to repeat them in future actions.

The post of mine that Pance is responding to above is the one with headers:

>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:53:08 -0700
>From: Aaron Aarons <aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] NEP a retreat?

It includes more general arguments against the "unity" mantra as chanted by David McDonald, and echoed favorably by Pance in the following post, which I hadn't seen when I wrote mine:

>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Pance Stojkovski <pance at rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] On Unity [was NEP a retreat?]
>
>--- Louis Proyect wrote:
> (forwarded from David McDonald)
>
>>It is interesting to me that Americans spend almost no time or thought on the question of unity, how it is achieved, how it is maintained, how it is deepened. In the 1960's, for instance, unity was on no one's agenda, not the SWP's not the CP's, not the Maoists, not anybodys'. Yet when I look back at it, it seems to me that we squandered the energies of tens of thousands of revolutionary-minded people without ever honestly grappling with the question of why we were not bent on creating one gigantic fist, when we had the forces to make such a fist.
>>
>>And yet the real revolutionaries, the Lenins, the Fidels, the Correas, the Evos, are totally consumed with how to create the unities needed to seize power and hold onto it.
>>
>>David McDonald
>>
>
>Thanks for forwarding this note Louis and thanks to David for bringing back the not so au-currant concept of 'unity'. I know we, on the Left, have our differences, and we love to debate each other. But as long as we cling to these differences that separate us, the right will continue to rule. The right has a stranglehold on power because it is strong, this is true. But part of its strength comes from the left's own weakness - or as David has eloquently described it - no clue of how to "seize power".
>
>If 'location' is the mantra of realestate, surely 'unity' should be the mantra of the working class and all progressive forces.

This is an example of the philosophical idealism so common on the subjectively revolutionary left. Like the "crisis of leadership" that Trotskyists use to explain repeated defeats, it basically says that "if the rest of you followed my ideas, we would (have) made a revolution. It doesn't occur to such idealists to look at social reality, and especially the reality of imperialist parasitism that is participated in by large sections of the working class, to explain why people don't behave in a revolutionary manner. But the "unity" mantra is even worse, since it doesn't even say what ideas leftists should unite around.

>Speaking as someone who has been around the Marxist left for a long time, I know these differences are very real and can't be glossed over. But surely honest Marxists on this list (and those outside this list) can come to some ground rules for unity and moving forward. Otherwise, we will be left on the sidelines cheering for the lesser of two evils.

I'm glad that Pance's "unity" doesn't involve unity in support of the evil of two lessers. ;-) Unfortunately, for much of what passes for the "left" in the U.S., especially so-called "progressives", "unity" does mean just that.

Unity is a fine idea, in the sense that it's beneficial to unite as many people as possible around a correct program. But what is the correct program we should unite around?

On the other hand, limited tactical unity around specific actions is certainly desirable. But no unity should ever serve to subordinate revolutionary to reformist politics.  And without specifics, the call for"unity" is at best meaningless.

>Pance.

 - Aaron