Obviously, rightist forces will always call revolutionary communists ultra-left, though I have still used this term to describe those who are, as you guys say, “left in form, right in essence”, which is a term I’ve heard once or twice before and makes perfect sense when describing people like the Weather Underground and other groupings of that nature.

The thing about these left in form, right in essence forces is that they often champion certain issues or policies that are actually counter-revolutionary (they do not aid the revolutionary movement, but instead divide workers and help capitalism) while still posturing as if they are far to the left of any other communist forces through the use of extreme language and purifying their political action from any kind of work within ‘imperialist’ trade unions or parliamentary reformists.

Renouncing privilege isn’t just moving into a tenement, but risking your hassle-free existence and being willing to be in danger and afraid. It’s being willing to climb down from the spectator stands, wave your arms, and draw the attention of the authorities who’ve never noticed you before because they were busy beating on other people.

The rebellious lab technician in Radical-Eyes’ post renounced privilege the moment s/he spoke up, by risking his/her job, and risking isolation, disapproval and scorn. This is true whether or not the job was actually lost. Thank you for that story, Radical-Eyes — I’ve heard about the first part of that experiment many times, but not the part about the rebellious lab technician. That’s very inspiring.

If in stepping forward and leading we knew that others felt the same way and would jump in to back us up, it wouldn’t be so frightening. Renouncing privilege is to take action even when we know we might go down in flames. I means to accept risk and act in spite of fear.

In a way the RCP’s stance on Nepal, even before the facts came in, is another example, even more in line with what Lenin wrote in the topic in his work ‘Left Wing Communism, and Infantile Disorder,” where he talks about adopting an inflexible and immature attitude towards the necessity of compromise in achieving the revolution, arguing that the experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrates that forming parliamentary political alliances and compromises (e.g. the Mensheviks in Russia, the social democrats in Germany, the Labor party in Britain) will frequently be not only expedient but actually crucial in fomenting a revolutionary class consciousness and zeal in the masses.

Back more directly to the subject of this post, another separate topic that comes to mind about what was going on, has to do the way capitalism separates humanity into objects, commodities, and this whole concept of “bourgeois right,” being these were ‘paying customers,’ putting them into this special category that excludes them, in this case, from just a common sense right thing to do. These capitalist relations end up short-circuiting decent humanitarian social relations, vitiating a ‘communist morality” that entails values of solidarity. Just think about what a normal thing would be to do, and would have been done when grounded in just a basic, common humane-centered world view? Here is larger ship full of so many people with abundant resources on board. There is a human catastrophe just outside the gates. What do you do? Party, or go out and help? Here the cruise ship, could have themselves organized an outreach a “day of voluntarism’ bringing supplies and helping the masses in need in coordination with other aid organizations. There are thousands of able bodied, healthy, people on board the ship, who I bet, would be able and willing to help. Yet, the common sense options were not even presented as options, instead going forward with a creepy and repugnant party on the beach! This embodies the morality of commodities, whose use value is irrelevant if it doesn’t first prove its exchange value (i.e. profit). These passengers became part of the private property belonging to these cruise ships, so they were kept privately on their private beach, and the common sense option that any decent person would normally choose was never never even presented.

Am not sure this needs to be said, but, it is one thing when we’re talking about horrendous crises/disasters—whether earthquakes, floods, starvation, et al. and it is another thing to be talking about a more general perspective concerning solidarity, unity, moral and political obligations and responsibility and sheer justice—a whole attitude that can change the social/political landscape, and change it in the people’s favour.

It is pretty evident, that during say some natural (or man-made) disaster, most people rise to the occasion, and reach out – even across class lines – to help those in need. This happens for a myriad of reasons—e.g. some out of guilt (or “maybe I don’t have it so bad” and to assuage their guilt) or some out of genuine concern for their fellow human beings. Often times, the reaction is knee-jerk, spontaneous, and people don’t have to be convinced that they should contribute to helping others. What is not so apparent to a lot of folks is when the situation is more blatantly motivated by politics. I think Katrina became highly politicized during and in the aftermath and some very potent underlying contradictions in the U.S. were laid bare.

Seems like at every turn there are usually two, but sometimes more, poles out there in summing up an overwhelming crisis, such as Haiti; and there is an ensuing battle for public opinion. (From all I have read, what keeps coming through is that many people weren’t even aware of the preceding situation in Haiti—economically, politically, socially.)

But here is an example of the juxtaposition of two headlines that were recently reported in the AP: to paraphrase, lead headline—“chaos and desperation in Haiti hampering aid.” In other words, let’s blame the victims for the lack of aid getting through. Meanwhile, this article poised right next to one that talked about the rise of Haitian and other grassroots orgs., and the general outpouring of aid, sympathy and empathy and moreover action among people globally. (Have to say, besides all the pinche political and not so subtle innuendo regarding the first headline, I couldn’t help but think that for some who that headline might have appeal, those same people might just have a nervous breakdown if their cappuchino machine broke.)

During most of my years in working with different strata, what usually seemed to “win people over” who were in a better position monetarily, etc. (some of this pretty illusory) – i.e. many in the “petit bourgeois” — was the notion that they had much more in common with the super oppressed than they did with the rulers, and just how it is that they were actually used as pawns, and a buffer between the two prominent classes.

Here is a somewhat circuitous example—but politically motivated—although I would have to say this experience was with people who are on the bottom rungs of the fragile Mexican “middle class,” (some “devout” Catholics no less) but who had a reactionary outlook nevertheless.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, I happened to be at “my second familia’s” in the countryside of Mexico. We were watching the news, and I got pretty hysterical—as well as weepy. La madre turned to me and said, “Why are you so upset?” and after my explanation, she said, “Well, there are lots of people here in Mexico who don’t even have a tortilla to eat…” This triggered a huge discussion and debate, and the outcome was pretty positive, since most family members were either defending or siding with an internationalist (and frankly more humane) position. And it was reiterated, and became a lot clearer, just who were the same oppressors of both the Afghanis and Mexicans. This was not some kind of moral yak yak, but highly political.

I guess my point is—which as revolutionary-minded people is probably a given—that part of our battle to accumulate and win over allies, from different stratas, or even among the more exploited and oppressed, doesn’t just arise when a literally earthshaking “event” such as Haiti occurs. In fact, I propose that had more people around the world been aware of the prevailing and historical situation in Haiti before the earthquake, many more people could have been saved.

Perhaps there are places where “ultra-left” is defined as

“a rigidity of thought that precludes alliance with any forces – reformist, social democrat…. – not absolutely committed to revolutionary goals.”

More generally, I have seen “ultra-left” applied to anyone who thinks that revolution is a possibility — and that revolutionary work (organizing for revolution, speaking about revolution, analyzing opening for revolution) can-and-must be carried out in relatively NON-revolutionary times.

There is a swath of the left (those currents generally focused on electoral work, entrance into the Democratic party, and day-to-day trade union organizing) who consider anyone to their left to be “ultra-left.” They use that term so casually and often that they (essentially) own it.

Again: In my experience, “ultra-left” is a term that I’ve seen applied by electoral socialists toward communists who integrate revolutionary politics into their current activities. (And the difference here is between socialists and communists — not just electoral vs. revolutionary).

It is so commonly used that way, that I simply avoid the term altogether — because (regardless of my intentions and regardless of any other definition I or you attach to the term), many many people hear the word “ultra-left” and read it to mean “communists who integrate revolutionary politics into their current work.”

I am obviously not arguing that there are not “left errors” within communist politics or in communism’s history. Name any stupidity or infantile notion, and you can find that there is (inevitably) someone who has put it forward. And when I discuss such currents and problems, I use the clunkier but more revealing term “left in term, right in essense.” (For example, on the surface, both the Sparts and the RCP appear to be “left” sectarian — but their politics is in both cases rooted in a very real, and rather rightist, pessimism about what is possible.)

For example, the German KPD (communist party of the 1930s) insisted that social democracy and Hitler fascism were political “twins” — that was a “left error” in analysis within an overall work and method that also had major rightist elements (on the question of German nationalism, on “general crisis” approach to economic struggles etc.).

I would call the KPD a revolutoinary party that was often “left in form, right in essence” — i would not use the term “ultra-left” at all.

I’m sure there are other usages. And that is, of course, why a discussion is valuable.

Anyway, Nando wrote: ““Ultra-left” is simply not a term I use — perhaps because whenever I have heard it used, it is usually directed at politics I hold or would at least respect.”

But, as I understand it, there also is a pejorative sense of “ultra-left” defined by a rigidity of thought that precludes alliance with any forces – reformist, social democrat…. – not absolutely committed to revolutionary goals.

It brought tears to my eyes to read:

“Received an email recently about many Palestinians on the Gaza Strip who had sent not only a missive of solidarity to the Haitian people, but were offering what little they had to help the devastated Haitians.”

* * * * * * *

On solidarity among people: One experience that touched me deeply happened when a flash flood ripped through our coal camp in West Virginia (years ago). The water rose suddenly and then (because of environmental crimes of the coal operators) spread up the walls of the valley until the whole bottom land was waiste deep.

And it was remarkable how people fell out. Some hunkered down in their houses focused on their own property (until the moment it came into danger). While others rushed their families to safety and then gathered in a group to rescue those in danger (including older people and widows in the camp). And it was very stark who they were — because those of us who met, waist deep in the water to go from house-to-house were the same men who had been active together in the illegal strike movements. And the scab-hearted ones or foremen in that holler were just not seen helping us that night.

There erupted sharp debate (and even threats) between various groups.

For example, one cyclone fence between properties had become instantly packed with debris and was serving as a mini-dam. And the yard on the uphill side was rapidly filling with water, starting to flood the first story of that house. We jumped at that fence with axes and, from the downhill fought to chop it free from its moorings — to release the water and save the house — when suddenly the fence owner appeared yelling that this was his property, his land and his fence and we had no right to destroy it. He just didn’t give a shit that we were saving the home of his neighbor. We told him to fuck off, and finished the job.

The same question popped off even more intensely shortly afterwards as a trailer came floating down the swollen creek and wedged itself under the sole bridge in the upper holler — literally stopping up the flowthrough. The creek literally jumped out of its creekbed, and will full force was running through two homes (demolishing them) and starting to eat its way through an embankment toward several more.

A group of men met on that bridge within minutes and (sizing up the situation) decided to destroy the bridge — free the trailer, and let main flow of water remain in the creek bed. This is mining country and quite a few miners had a box of something in their garage that could quickly demolish a bridge. Suddenly a man stalked over, who had been watching the discussion from his porch. He screamed that this was public property, and no one had any right to destroy it. Over and over, someone said “don’t you understand, all those people’s houses will be gone in minutes if we don’t take this bridge out.” And over and over he babbled stuff about the law — and clearly threatened to report whatever was done. “I’ll see you put in prison,” was his parting shot.

In that case, the risks were real (people knew that asshole well, and knew he wasn’t joking), and so no one dared actually take out the bridge. And (sure enough) within an hour the water (like a massive forty-foot wide fire nozzle) had taken out one house after another down that row, washing out foundations, battering down walls, whisking away people’s few possessions (and cars).

It was just a community trying to save itself from a man-made flood.

But there was from beginning to end sharp struggle between the self and the collective, between property laws and the greater good. And the militant “union men” there and the two communists, had built their connections and common assumptions in the solidarity of the mines and a dozen different illegal strikes — and as they jumped into action together, also found themselves arrayed against those whose worldviews were actively opposed to that kind of outlaw thought.

Nando:

“My experience is that this view of the middle classes as worthless and an enemy force is tied to a kind of “identity politics of the oppressed” (even if those articulating it come from many different strata and circles) — and that it is generally tied to quite rightist notions.”

In terms of “identity politics of the oppressed”, IMO there is another aspect, and one that needs to be defeated, and that has to do with some thinking among the oppressed themselves. Sometimes the oppressed do not view their oppression as part of oppression across the board and that this is a question facing so many amongst humankind. To be glib, kind of like, a conversation–”I broke my leg.” “Well I broke both my legs.” People vying for just who it is who is “most” oppressed. Unfortunately I run across this kind of attitude all too often among some people, not all certainly, in a country where oppression and poverty are very stark and ongoing. On the other hand, with the advent of say Katrina, the tsunami, Haiti, or the contradictions and abject poverty of Honduras, etc.etc., most feel a solidarity and genuine concern.

Received an email recently about many Palestinians on the Gaza Strip who had sent not only a missive of solidarity to the Haitian people, but were offering what little they had to help the devastated Haitians.

But in sum, I think while we cannot ignore certain particularities facing different peoples amongst the overwhelmingly oppressed, as well as so many obstacles various peoples from different classes and groupings face, ultimately identity-politics is toxic, and ultimately takes the low-road in the scheme of things. To imbue a real sense of internationalism and genuine solidarity/unity amongst the people takes the high road, and I envision that as a key part of revolutionary politics.