Topik za prave levicare

The Latest: Gabbard re-elected to US House
The Associated Press
The Latest on the U.S. House races in Hawaii (all times local):
9 p.m.
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been re-elected to her seat in the U. S. House of Representatives.
Gabbard defeated Angela Aulani Kaaihue (KY'-hoo-ee), who ran as a Republican in the race in Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District.
Gabbard was elected to the U.S. House in 2012. She was one of the first female combat veterans to serve in Congress, after deploying to Iraq and Kuwait.
Gabbard served in the Hawaii state Legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army National Guard a year later.
Gabbard resigned as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to support U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders during his presidential campaign.

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle class. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working-man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years’ time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible – the really disquieting – prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist and feminist in England.

The fact is that Socialism, _in the form in which it is now presented_,
appeals chiefly to unsatisfactory or even inhuman types. On the one hand
you have the warm-hearted un-thinking Socialist, the typical
working-class Socialist, who only wants to abolish poverty and does not
always grasp what this implies. On the other hand, you have the
intellectual, book-trained Socialist, who understands that it is
necessary to throw our present civilization down the sink and is quite
willing to do so. And this type is drawn, to begin with, entirely from
the middle class, and from a rootless town-bred section of the middle
class at that. Still more unfortunately, it includes--so much so that to
an outsider it even appears to be composed of--the kind of people I have
been discussing; the foaming denouncers of the bourgeoisie, and the
more-water-in-your-beer reformers of whom Shaw is the prototype, and the
astute young social-literary climbers who are Communists now, as they
will be Fascists five years hence, because it is all the go, and all
that dreary tribe of high-minded' women and sandal-wearers and bearded
fruit-juice drinkers who come nocking towards the smell of 'progress'
like bluebottles to a dead cat. The ordinary decent person, who is in
sympathy with the _essential_ aims of Socialism, is given the impression
that there is no room for his kind in any Socialist party that means
business. Worse, he is driven to the cynical conclusion that Socialism
is a kind of doom which is probably coming but must be staved off as
long as possible. Of course, as I have suggested already, it is not
strictly fair to judge a movement by its adherents; but the point is
that people invariably do so, and that the popular conception of
Socialism is coloured by the conception of a Socialist as a dull or
disagreeable person. 'Socialism' is pictured as a state of affairs in
which our more vocal Socialists would feel thoroughly at home. This does
great harm to the cause. The ordinary man may not flinch from a
dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it tactfully; offer him a
dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight.

It is therefore understandable why the attacks made by the German Lefts against the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany for entertaining the idea of a bloc with the Independents (the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany—the Kautskyites) are absolutely inane, in our opinion, and clear proof that the “Lefts” are in the wrong. In Russia, too, there were Right Mensheviks (participants in the Kerensky government), who corresponded to the German Scheidemanns, and Left Mensheviks (Martov), corresponding to the German Kautskyites and standing in opposition to the Right Mensheviks. A gradual shift of the worker masses from the Mensheviks over to the Bolsheviks was to be clearly seen in 1917. At the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, held in June 1917, we had only 13 per cent of the votes; the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks had a majority. At the Second Congress of Soviets (October 25, 1917, old style) we had 51 per cent of the votes. Why is it that in Germany the same and absolutely identical shift of the workers from Right to Left did not immediately strengthen the Communists, but first strengthened the midway Independent Party, although the latter never had independent political ideas or an independent policy, but merely wavered between the Scheidemanns and the Communists?
One of the evident reasons was the erroneous tactics of the German Communists, who must fearlessly and honestly admit this error and learn to rectify it. The error consisted in their denial of the need to take part in the reactionary bourgeois parliaments and in the reactionary trade unions; the error consisted in numerous manifestations of that “Left-wing” infantile disorder which has now come to the surface and will consequently be cured the more thoroughly, the more rapidly and with greater advantage to the organism.
The German Independent Social-Democratic Party is obviously not a homogeneous body. Alongside the old opportunist leaders (Kautsky, Hilferding and apparently, to a considerable extent, Crispien, Ledebour and others)—these have revealed their inability to understand the significance of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and their inability to lead the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle—there has emerged in this party a Left and proletarian wing, which is growing most rapidly. Hundreds of thousands of members of this party (which has, I think, a membership of some three-quarters of a million) are proletarians who are abandoning Scheidemann and are rapidly going over to communism. This proletarian wing has already proposed—at the Leipzig Congress of the Independents (1919)—immediate and unconditional affiliation to the Third International. To fear a “compromise” with this wing of the party is positively ridiculous. On the contrary, it is the duty of Communists to seek and find a suitable form of compromise with them, a compromise which, on the one hand, will facilitate and accelerate the necessary complete fusion with this wing and, on the other, will in no way hamper the Communists in their ideological and political struggle against the opportunist Right wing of the Independents. It will probably be no easy matter to devise a suitable form of compromise—but only a charlatan could promise the German workers and the German Communists an “easy” road to victory.