The Fall of the Left: A Response to the 'United Left'

Day 2,799, 04:12 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Sir Rex Fleddington


In this article I will reacting to the foundation and creation of the new Left-wing organisation that was created by Comrade Kant and Frixios in response to a divide in the eComintern. I will demonstrate how, not only is the ‘United Left’ a contradiction in itself and its values but also it’s self-destructive nature and reckless foundations on which it was built.

1. Before I get into the argument over why the ‘United Left’ is and will be a failure I will give my observation of it’s creation. The ‘United Left’ was built after a dispute occurred in the eComintern over it’s own future. On one side, Immanuel Kant and his followers were pushing for a complete overhaul of the eComintern changing everything from its constitution to its name and identity. The ‘for’ argument (pro-reconstruction) was that in order for the eComintern to grow beyond its already high achievements, major changes would be needed to bring in a wider audience from across the left spectrum. The ‘against’ argument (led by myself and Fitzgerald.13) said that although constitutional changes would be in everyone's best interests, a name change would have no effect on the scale of the membership and it wouldn’t bring in the active community that was dormant at this time of the year. After a back and forth that escalated to a communist/socialist debate, the two leaders of the pro-argument cut their losses, resigned the Comintern and created ‘United Left’. The irony being that those who wanted to unite the left, dislodged from the only left organisation and created a competitor because of their unwillingness to compromise on their extreme positions. This can be seen as a contradiction of its own values but is not the only contradiction that it faces.

2. In the introduction articles, Comrade Kant showed us how he planned to run the ‘United Left’. This being that the main ideologies of the left will be put into ‘factions’ (Communist, Socialist, Anarchist and Centre-Left) with a committee put above the factions in order to facilitate communications. This is a contradiction and, almost, a mockery on what a united Left-wing would look like.
2a. Firstly as mentioned by Fitzgerald.13, Communists are anti-class (pre-Communist Manifesto), against more than one party being in a government (Leon Trotsky: Communism and Terrorism) and are, obviously, against any ideology that are against the state (Spanish Civil War). The faction-system is basically a class-system in which a hierarchy has been formed from the top (Secretary General) to the very bottom (basic member of a faction), this gives the say of the bottom rung very little influence and result compared to a faction leader and although opposition to this criticism would argue that this, in theory, would not occur it is difficult to understand why a bottom-ranked member would have much of a say in foreign affairs as the MoFa in the organisation; this constitutional blunder was one of the first things noted in the eComintern and was altered in the 2nd international. The faction system is also a multi-party organisation that would be criticised for its lack of democracy and its emphasis on competition between factions; this wasn’t ever an issue in the eComintern as it emphasises a ‘round-table’ direct democracy that has been around since the founding. The last point being that anarchists and Communists are on the complete opposite sides of the libertarianist spectrum and would never be able to compromise on any policy further than being against the right-wing.

2b. As expected, most of the power rests in the hands of those who would be least interested in holding it, least likely to push for the most radical reforms in eRepublik and least likely want to see all the factions appeased. The Socialists and Centre-lefties will make up the top ‘brass’ of the leadership. This, in itself, is not a poor decision as it means that more members could be interested to see their own ideas reflected in the organisation but it also means that the other two factions will become almost instantly disillusioned by their ideas being ignored and their hard work being forgotten before the work of most, less interested, centred workers. Any opposition to this criticism would instantly argue that the eComintern does the same process but with the radicals in charge, and that would be a fair point but it fails to look at the big picture. Socialists look for a push towards egalitarianism in any shape or form regardless of how strong it’s effects are, whilst anarchists and communists look for a push towards egalitarianism in a very specific and extreme way. The only way socialists would be disillusioned in the eComintern is if it was made absolutely clear that their viewpoints were not respected as their ideals would always align with the radicals but the radicals are more likely to see their values rejected in a diluted, centred organisation.

Now, this outright rejection of the socialists values did occur because of their attempt at trying to turn the eComintern into what I have explained in this essay and that is why the socialists feel disillusioned, because they attempted to push their own values onto the radicals that would have seen the radicals stripped of their power that would have benefitted all parties involved. The socialist leaders did not see that their most extreme reforms would have permanently limited any Communist reforms and would have removed the Communists from their positions as policy creators and pushed them into obscurity.

An interesting quip was that the failure to allow these reforms to be accepted was an act of reactionary-thinking, an insult to any communist/socialist who is supposed to push progression over antiquated values. This can only go as far as I have described it though, an interesting quip. Political progression isn’t a straight and narrow path, it can push towards Rykov and Bukharin (right-wing communism) or it can push towards Trotsky and Zinoviev (left-wing communism). A person can be for one type of progression and against another, especially if one type of progression leads towards the dilution of the values of the person choosing. In fact, you could argue that by rejecting these reforms there would have been more progressive than accepting as the acceptance would have lead the eComintern towards a regressionist spiral back towards a less democratic and efficient style of organising.

This article was not an attempt to dissuade any socialists from striving to get their own ideals recognised nor was it an attack on them. It is my view on why the socialists should push for a united left from within the eComintern due to its strong foundations and its, already, well-developed and efficient system of organising the masses. There can be no unity without acknowledgement that there will be many disagreements and toil along the road. We can only strive together co-operating, as soon as we start competing we will witness the fall of the left.