Talk:Revolutionary Communist League (France)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2006 tendency line-up

John has added the comments below to the main page. I feel they need to be reworked here. My comment to John was the "account of the LCR congress seems to fit badly. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a news journal, so really punctual stuff like this doesn't fit. I can see that you've tried to balance your accounts, but it's clearly more partial to the views of some currents than other. Furthermore, it's not really the case that the LCR is simply a Ligue of currents. It's a league of communists, and clearly has a live separate from its tendencies. can I suggest you rework your additions? I have moved them to the LCR talk page with this note." --DuncanBCS 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As its name "Ligue" suggests, the LCR includes members with rather different positions on a number of key theoretical and practical issues. As a general rule, the tradition in the LCR is to work to find a compromise between different positions rather than to debate and then take a single binding position.

At the moment, as the 2006 conference is being prepared, there are a number of platforms, which will each present a slate of candidates for leadership positions. The National Leadership Committee will be made up proportionally of members of these platforms, depending on how many votes they get (it is not an all-or-nothing system). The Central Committee will be elected from the National Committee, but will likely remain much influenced by the established fulltimers.

Platform One is a compromise alliance representing the present majority on the leadership, and defending the strategy followed over the last few years.

Platform Two is made up of comrades who feel more effort should be made to maintaining traditional marxist theory. These comrades are generally less optimistic about the prospects for different new left mobilisations such as the committees against the European constitution. They are generally optimistic about the possibility for united work or even fusion with Lutte Ouvrière.

Platform three is made up of people who in general feel the main danger is sectarianism and a refusal to work with people and organizations who are less Left wing. Some of pltaform three feel that basic tenets of marxism need thoroughly revising - the revolution may be gradual, must be based on universal suffrage etc.

Platform four is an alliance of people who think that "missed opportunities" sums up the last year's work of the LCR. These people are optimistic about wider alliances for struggles, and feel that the LCR has made a mistake in not taking bolder initiatives to draw people in to a new anticapitalist force which is needed.

It has to be emphasized that each of the platforms is an alliance, not a structured and theorized current.

There exist relatively coherent currents in the LCR, most of them quite small.

For example there is Débat Militant - from platform two; Socialisme par en bas - recently arrived and [Socialisme International http://www.revue-socialisme.org] Its recent congress voted to abandon use of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to describe its political aims.

[edit] "As it's name suggests"

I have cut this form of words, which was also in the cut above. The section I have removed is: As its name "Ligue" suggests, the LCR includes members with rather different positions on a number of key theoretical and practical issues. As a general rule, the tradition in the LCR is to work to find a compromise between different positions rather than to debate and then take a single binding position.

• - The name 'Ligue' itself does not suggest different positions: some leagues do not have different positions. The general taxonomy does something like this: Group [propagandist]; League [able to agitate]; Party [contentds for leadership.
• - Just because a final position is consensual, that does not mean it is not "a single binding position"
• - I'd like to see several references, from different decades, before we speak of a consensual tradition in the LCR. It's an organisation in which differences are clearly and openly debated; it's not clear if agreements in situations when there are not large majorities are 'lowest common denominators' or if they are compromises [which involve trade-offs].--Duncan 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hello Duncan Well, for example

- the National Committee of the LCR is formed by representatives of currents. That is to say that unlike many revolutionary parties, where if you get the majority you have general control, in the LCR if you get 30% of the votes for your strategic document, you get thirty per cent of the seats on the national committee, on the other committees etc.

- When Le Pen got through to the second round of the presidential elections, the position "let's beat Le Pen in the streets and in the ballot boxes" seems to me to be a very clear lowest common denominator position. The spokespeople of the lCr refused to say "Yes, vote Chirac" or "No, refuse to choose between the right and the far right". The position was to repear the slogan chosen as a way out of a crisis in the national committee.

- On the burning question of banning muslim girls from wearing headscarves in school, the debate was extremely tense. The resulting 'official position' was "against the ban, and against the headscarf". This one is more complex, because it really allowed locally the LCr branches to do what they wanted (absolutely nothing in 99% of cases)

- Finally, it seems to me that the positive side of a culture of compromise is that the LCR has avoided major splits for many years. But I think this has been theorized by Mandel. As I recall his position was that since the Fourth International, unlike the third and second, has not been tested by having won state power, it is too soon to reject it and set up something new, despite all the defects it might have.

I do feel that the FEDERAL nature of the league (each town do a lot of what they want) and the FACTION COMPROMISE method are fundamental - this is what people who first get involved in politics in France notice. Surely there is a way of referring to this ? Johncmullen1960 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. [1] In itself, there's nothing consensual about the idea of tendencies getting proportions on the CC; many organisations would give the majority control either by giving them a PC majority or by enjoining members of smaller tendencies to further the line of the conference. There's not a contraciction between the majority having majority control and the minority getting a minority. [2] In the liternature of decision-making, there's sharp difference between lowest common denomimators (which are not compromises, since no-one trade offs) and compromises (in which someone trades off). For example: I love peanuts and like chocolates; you love chocolate and like peanuts... LCD would be a 50:50 split, a compromise would give me more peanuts and you more chocolates. The LCR method, it seems to be, aims to identify that position around which the largest majority of members agree on; not just the lowest common denominator, but a position in which active consent is mobilised. I think the terms for that are pluralist and hegemonic. --Duncan 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)