Sectarianism is revisionism

Sectarianism is revisionism

so basically y'all sectarians are counterrevolutional twits.

Attached: antisec.jpeg (474x670, 27.51K)

I'm down with left unity and everything but when you get down to it to a certain point you're only making this post because you think your sect is right.


Attached: anti_bait_gang.jpg (661x949, 379.22K)

and what would my sect be?
Because I refuse to categorize myself

So you have no idea of what kind of society you're actually for? I doubt that, I'm almost certain you're a generic Demsoc, am I right?

Attached: I'm a centrist.png (500x376 144.56 KB, 200.52K)

I want a left society
and DemSoc is a hoax

What's a left society and how can it be achieved?

Let me guess, another kiddie that doesn't understand the difference between socdem and demsoc.

Sectarianism has been part of the left at least since Marx and Bakunin, likely before that as well. The modern sectarianism is stupid but it's not ahistorical or revisionist.

Demsoc is meaningless as everyone but Bordigafags include democracy in their ideologies.

Not really, I agree it's somewhat vague but Demsoc implies a state or government so it's not anarchism and it implies actual democracy so it's not MLism. Those are the two major fighting strains in leftism, so being a 'left unity' Demsoc still means you don't want ultimate unity with those two.

What frustrates me most about sectarianism is when people refer to other sects as being literally anticommunist instead of just seeing them as misguided or ignorant. If you think that some other tendency is fundamentally flawed, revisionist, or incapable of bringing about socialism then fine, but its intellectually dishonest and pure slander to say that because of this they are on the same level as actual reactionaries. There is a world of difference between a reactionary and a misguided comrade.

Or, you know, that different people are working from different sets of information and have different inclinations that lead them to different conclusions. People Who Disagree With Me don't even have to be misguided. The things we disagree about are likely just complex issues and we're seeing different sides of them.

But anarchism isn't dude no rules lmao and ML states aren't necessarily undemocratic hellholes. When I see self-described Demsocs describe their praxis and organizational goals it usually looks like Leninism without the cringy sovietboo aesthetics and edgy gulag jokes. It's a confusing label that isn't particularly useful or descriptive in my experience.

A lot of that is from certain MLs like Parenti or the tripstache who define communism as "aligned with the Comintern and similar ideological lines" rather than the real movement or the state of affairs. In this regard they're correct in that the various socialists aren't aligned with early 20th century ML, but it's an ahistorical use of "communist" that has no relevance in a world where the cominterm is dust and is often accompanied by other dishonesty such as accusations of reaction.

Tell me about it.

Apparently, no one likes market socialism, because No true scotsman.

Everyone has no master above and no slave beneat

I know you guys are all into my political scripts
But I don't believe in that, I think democracy is a tool to control the people, nationalism is a way to free them.
International communist society is ideal but utopian

Btw with nationalism I mean separatism

It's sabotage.
Their constant refrain is, literally, "don't do anything." Don't do anything because it's not "pure" enough in some total vapid bullshit they spout, keep enriching porky because anything else means you're not some fetishized worker, even if you work your ass off but for your neighbor or the gift market instead, everyone but us saboteurs get off the board, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't want to STOP at market socialism, but it's a fucking good idea. And most of left history, because reals > saboteurs. Work from the now, then work for what comes next.

Isn't trying to purge sectarianism itself sectarianism?

Attached: thonk.png (1200x992, 144.11K)


Under capitalism there are no more noble privileges, no slavery, no serfdom, in short this society is therefore already the utopia you wished for, for we're all equal before the law!

No we're not

No it's not. Even Marx and Engels talked about this. Tactical cooperation is good, but cooperation for the sake of "unity" with revisionist and hostile factions is bad. You could even call it opportunist.

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 23.74K)

Market socialism is acceptable as long as you recognize that it's not the end state and that there needs to be active movement toward planning. While you try to more fully socialize society (or not) the market is at work causing accumulation of resources which is pushing society toward a class system again as soon as somebody has gathered enough resources to effect a class system.

Nowadays there are no masters and no slaves forced to follow their orders, no noble landlords and no peasant serfs with their feudal obligations, all that remains are people equal before law, with nobody being born with a privilege(or the lack of it) to eg. assume a certain post within the state apparatus. All that fits the vague description of about the "left society".
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité has been a motto of capitalist revolutions for a reason

haha, that's funny, that comic is pretty much what happened with Platformism.