On Uniting the Left: Socialism Without Adjectives
-E.M. Diderot
My Comrade, Jack, posted on Facebook yesterday "Socialism without adjectives". It sparked a few tongue-in-cheek responses including my personal favorite: "Sentences without adjectives or verbs." But the sentiment is very real. Another Comrade, Chris, has been posting lately on the Anarchists, with whom the radical left on Facebook recently spontaneously and (nearly) unanimously declared solidarity over the Anarchist Memes fiasco, and their absolute refusal to accept our solidarity. I have to say the level of despair he is proclaiming is not unique to him. There is a reason I have stopped actively engaging the AnCaps on the usurper AM page. There is a reason many of my Comrades have dropped the offensive. But then, in a Facebook group whose aim is the discussion of radical Communist theory in general, on the same day as all this, a post was made asking which Leftists would we be unwilling to work with in a revolutionary group.
Three independent individuals, posting at different times in different places with different intentions, all in one day, underlining the ever-present snake that is Leftist sectarianism. And it really made me think about what "Socialism without adjectives" and the concept of a "United Left" really mean.
For starters, "Socialism without adjectives" is simply that. It is sort of a declaration similar to non-denominational Christianity. You are declaring your adherence to a particular ideology and its particular set of principles without any further qualifiers or modifications. So adjectiveless Socialism would necessarily argue for (in general) the following:
- The abolition of capital;
- The emancipation of labor;
- The full democratization of political power; and
- The full equity of social relations.
Sounds nice, right? Well, the definitions of each bullet point, how they relate to class struggle, and how they are best to be accomplished are what causes sectarianism among the Left. So it's really a lot harder than it looks to nail down what the basic tenets of a United Left or "Socialism without adjectives" should look like. But it's a place to start. That being said, using those (highly simplified) bullet points, we can very quickly throw out a few groups as NOT being amenable to a United Left or belonging to an adjectiveless Socialism. These even came up in the post about who you wouldn't work with:
- Liberals; they support operation within the current system which is opposed to the abolition of capital and the full democratization of political power--we cannot consider them as being on the Left.
- Stalinists; my understanding of Stalinism and its modern adherents is that the full equity of social relations and the full democratization of political power are questioned if not outright denied--no matter how "Left" they are, we cannot consider them Socialists
I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones who most readily come to mind. This is the first restriction on the definition of a United Left in this country, that not all who lay claim to the Left can be considered allies in the sense of pursuing class struggle to its inevitably revolutionary end. Hal Draper discusses this trend in his 1948 critique of Neo-Stalinists, and he is far less forgiving than I am in his treatment of whether or not they can claim to be "socialist".
As far as the Anarchists who refused our solidarity and openly mocked it, challenging us on the merits of Marxism rather than the merits of unity and solidarity, it is the question of the third bullet that truly divides us from them: what, in a post-revolutionary society, would the full democratization of political power look like? They advocate for the complete abolition of a state apparatus upon the success of the revolution, while we (generally) advocate for a new kind of people's or worker's state. This is the rub of it. Ergo, because Anarchists do not represent a wide spectrum of the Left, a United Left can only be considered as such insofar as it unites and brings together various groups of a Marxist, Socialist, Communist variety. Anarchists can and should be admitted so long as the question of unity and solidarity trumps sectarian division on the question of the existence of the state, and we should openly support Anarchist groups and declare our solidarity with them, but in the actual formation of a United Left it is unfathomable to recommend full agency to Anarchism precisely because the definition of the state would be enough for schism.
It is an unfortunate reality that a United Left must necessarily recognize that certain groups that are historically on the Left or historically claim membership among the Left would be detrimental to a wider united front. But if we do not address these questions now, it would become harder later on to address them and address them effectively. Council Communism, Party Vanguardism, Democratic Centralism, etc. can all vie for prominence among the membership of a United Left because they all agree on the basic idea that a state apparatus in some form would exist post-revolution. But because Anarchists do not agree, these other strains would not even be able to vie for influence because the question of "state? yes or no?" would dominate everything else.
It is an unfortunate reality that a United Left must necessarily recognize that certain groups that are historically on the Left or historically claim membership among the Left would be detrimental to a wider united front. But if we do not address these questions now, it would become harder later on to address them and address them effectively. Council Communism, Party Vanguardism, Democratic Centralism, etc. can all vie for prominence among the membership of a United Left because they all agree on the basic idea that a state apparatus in some form would exist post-revolution. But because Anarchists do not agree, these other strains would not even be able to vie for influence because the question of "state? yes or no?" would dominate everything else.
The DNA of a United Left is to be decided upon what we on the Left can agree upon in general without relying on specific definitions. This rather exoteric approach to Marxism, a self-described scientific dialectical theory, has its issues, and problems most definitely would arise from it. But far from attempting a dogmatic orthodoxy of Marxism, it is a framework in which vibrant heterodoxies can flourish and challenge each other, urging a dialectical synthesis of Marxist formulations. Without insisting on a rigid, disciplined orthodoxy, a United Left could potentially be a formidable force. It is simply a matter of finding the platforms upon which we all in general agree, which is, of course, no simple matter at all.
