I wrote a couple days back about how leftists are prone to sectarianism because of their diverse intellectual tapestry. I came across a thread on Reddit that made me reconsider my thoughts to an extent. I think that how we view ourselves in relation to others is a logical corollary of our diverse tapestry. This is the underlying reason behind why we possess a higher propensity to internal fracture compared to Political conservatives. I also believe I have found a favorable approach to address potential infighting.

This articulate contributor wrote:

Please excuse my following brevity, and let me say that this is an incredibly critical question that I am both glad was asked and am happy is generating this level of discussion.

First of all, I’m inclined to take the position that those who simply characterize the current debate and fracture of ‘the Left’ in United States as attributable to nothing more than rank sectarianism and ‘pissing contests’ and that ‘everyone on the Left should stop fighting and form a united left’ are either consciously hostile to the basic notion of the necessity for the political independence of the working class from capitalist parties and organizations in order to struggle for socialism, or haven’t taken the question as seriously as it actually deserves.

Yes, the historical development of capitalism as a world system has resulted in the present reality in the United States, which consists of a capitalist ruling class with complete monopoly on the bourgeois democratic government and its political process, the media, education, and violence with all the organs and resources of the military to enforce its class interests. 

All of these antagonisms exist while this same class savagely attacks the concrete socioeconomic welfare and basic democratic rights of the vast majority of the US and the world’s population in order to inject small shots of life into the death agony of the failed system they solely benefit from at the expense of everyone else. Yes, it is bad. Really bad. So bad that, as everyone here hopefully agrees, warrants a genuine socialist solution. Like other posters have described the political realities of America and the domination of ruling capitalist class in greater detail, it is precisely because of these realities, and how truly daunting and critical the task is, that necessarily makes the question of how and on what basis socialism can actually be achieved so serious.

Giving this question any honest and serious consideration would necessarily require a review of the historical lessons of the socialist movements and politics of the twentieth century in order to understand what it subsequently would require politically in order to build a struggle for socialism. There are posters in this thread and countless self-identified leftists who have indicated that the political character and medium of achieving socialism should be based on everything from liquidating into the Democratic Party and re-electing Obama to individualist anarchism and outright opposition to Marxist political theory and practice. So to those who crudely write off the situation as a ‘sectarian pissing contest’, answer me this concretely: 

What exactly qualifies as ‘Left’? Exactly on what basis do you determine this theoretically and politically, and exactly what range of views and political program would be included in this unified Left’? People who say we should support Obama and the Democratic Party? Green Party supporters? Can you really not conceive of any real consequences to the effective ability to fight for and achieve socialism if every position, no matter how actually hostile to the political independence of the working class and actual socialism, is included? Also, please seriously consider the political question of ‘the how’ and the ‘through what means’. Entering the Democratic Party? The trade unions? Identity and racial politics? The answers to these questions are, and historically have been, nothing less than a make or break when it comes actually fight for socialism, which namely, and please explain if you disagree, rests on these questions. 

So it follows that different stances on these questions by different parties and groups are not simply petty or sectarian differences. Those who think otherwise, consider the danger and tragedy, which has been realized and repeated historically, of leading the immense and unmatched social force that is the international working class into a political graveyard. In 1914, the biggest socialist political party in Europe, the German Social Democrats, supported entry into world war I, betraying the socialist movement of the working class and led German workers to slaughter and be slaughtered by their fellow workers in the allied countries, all in the interest of the European imperialist powers. 

The ‘popular front’ class collaborationism advanced by social democratic and Stalinist parties in the late 20s and 30s subordinated the struggle for socialism to the bourgeoisie, who in China decided to turn on the communists and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them, and in France and Spain paved the way for fascism to come to power. More recently in America, ‘leftists’ four years ago supported the election of Obama and continued to serve as his apologist while he has carried out the most savage attacks on the working class and democratic rights. During the Wisconsin struggle, certain certain leftist milleus urged workers to fight Walker’s policies through the trade union apparatus, who then systematically stifled the genuine radicalism away from a general strike into a recall Walker campaign and supported a Democrat who was just as savage.

In other words, political positions and political leadership matter in their consequences, many of which both historically and quite recently, have served to undermine and destroy the ability to fight for socialism in key objective conditions. When something essentially amounts to allying oneself with those who are politically hostile to socialism and effectively subordinating the American working class to the parties, organizations, and class forces that seek to render them incapable of fighting, it is antithetical to talk about an all-inclusive Left that includes political expression and constituencies for such anti-socialist politics. 

I get the impression from popular comments that these are considered practically non-issues that are dwarfed by the primary wish to simply build a bigger party or voice in American politics. Trotsky described opportunism as partially derivative of ‘impatience’, ie the practice of betraying political principle in order to both achieve more short team gains and/or appeal to a wider sociopolitical demographic to do so. Read the posts. People are essentially saying that because, at this point in time, ‘the Left’ as they perceive it is too small and too divided to hold sway within the current political structure of the two-party system. Therefore, they suggest that people need to simply drop the critical question of what political basis socialism should be fought for in order to build a numerically larger political organization that nearer in the future will have a louder voice within the current political system in America. 

I would ask you to consider honestly your own frustration in how you perceive the situation today. Consider then, what likely is your underlying skepticism about the ability of the American working class act politically independent of the two party system and struggle on a class basis for socialism. If you think this is not possible, perhaps that is why you look to other political channels which are ultimately hostile to this movement. It is also perhaps why you are inclined to think that differences in political positions among socialist parties are negligent and inconsequential to the actual future of the fight for socialism. I suggest you reconsider.

There are several points he raises that I think are worth discussing in further detail. But I address one point in particular: self-identified liberals threaten the integrity of a unified left because they support capitalism.

I wrote in response:

If determining the future character of the left is a prime task towards developing socialism, as I believe it is, it is equally important that we consider its historical character as a comparative template for what political positions should be included. The left historically is decidedly egalitarian. This is to varying degrees between numerous self-identified movements, owing in part to the historical conditions in which each formed. In contrast, conservatives regard inequality as inevitable and tend not to be as interested to democratize power relations between groups, at least to the extent leftists wish to. 

One's position toward economics has always been a prime factor in determining whether he leaned left or right. But it would be short-sighted to assume that support for capitalism is anathema to the political character of an all inclusive left, as I believe you're doing. 

As a contemporary political goal, it takes precedence because capitalism perpetuates and maintains economic hierarchy, as did feudalism before it. Historically speaking, though, it invites careful consideration into the exact assumptions we make about what the future leftist character should encompass. Relations of power take precedent when we discuss the chiseling of a future egalitarian ethos. In the lefts' genesis as a political concept in the French revolution, it was common to see self-identified left politicians side with the rising bourgeoisie because they were ranked lower on the political totem pole than the traditional aristocracy. As the latter was an older institution, it was naturally supported by self-identified conservatives of the time. 

It's not explicitly stated within the Wikipedia article I'm basing this off of, but I presume that Capitalism at the time, given its more flexible method of individual wealth creation, was seen as a democratizing force within the historical political structure since it meant that commoners had greater control (relative to their previous conditions) over the wealth they possessed. Nonetheless, leftist politicians flocked to support it. 

Outside parliamentary politics, it was seen as conservative by the laborers because they believed that capitalist policies did not represent their interests. However, both were opposed to the aristocracy and so found themselves allied on common ground albeit with tension. From the aristocratic point of view, it challenged their hold on power and so was seen as leftist. 

The point I attempt to illustrate here is perception of democratic potential in novel political movements. If it's seen that a rising movement will democratize power-relations relative to its historical context, the egalitarian minded will tend to support it, even if clear demarcated hierarchical structures are retained. They simply morph into new social relationships in response to the shifts which necessitated their adaptation. This is necessarily because hierarchal structures are not merely horizontal, but overlap, intersect, and cross each other to form a kyiarchy (fascinating concept, I recommend you look it up). 

Egalitarian solutions don't extend in a linear direction. They could be seen as democratic because they afford the disenfranchised opportunities they could not obtain before relative to their intersected positions in society (again, kyiarchy). A poor laborer under feudalism is necessarily a poor laborer under capitalism, but retains greater personal wealth. Both economic systems have arbitrary coercive effects which limit individual freedom. But a case can be made in which one is better in some respects to the other. It's in this sense that Liberal proposals to 'reform' capitalism are seen as democratic. 

From this perspective, it's perhaps understandable why a passive observer would classify contemporary Democrats as leftist: they seek to democratize (relative to a multitude of historical conditions) current power-relations in a given direction. Whether or not they understand that relations of power are multifarious and overlapping is irrelevant. All that matters is that they see themselves as changing relations in a particular direction so as to benefit the disenfranchised entwined within those particular relations. 

To state again, from a socialist perspective, capitalism is undesirable because of its hierarchical nature, and as such is deemed anathema to the conception of a truly democratic society. It's partly because of this that I see your thought process -- though articulate, critical and certainly valid in several important respects -- as somewhat insular. It's true that identity politics will play an important role in reshaping the leftist project, but we shouldn't forsake the naive Liberals for unwittingly serving as apologists for capitalism. 

If our goal is to democratize economic relations, we must engage in an understanding yet critical dialog with those who would best benefit from socialism, but for one reason or another, reject it. Remember, the great majority of American constituents are either Democrat or Republican, but are also working class. The people we are fighting for. 

It would be short-sighted to alienate the disenfranchised --our fellow workers -- for the sake of expediting our socialist program merely because they favor capitalism. Especially since the answers we rebut to our questions, if not considered carefully, could inadvertently doom us to a sort of self-imposed exile in the name of ideological puritanism. We should reject notions leading us down that path whilst considering options that could help us engage in a critical dialogue with those who seek positive change in some direction. And yet, we'll maintain our integrity as a socialist movement. If we can exercise this with diplomatic diligence, we may just win a few liberals (and even conservatives!) on our side. 

I think that this tactic's a preferable alternative to participating in bourgeois electoral politics where genuine radicals are priced out of the system. I think that in order to scheme a genuine inclusive politic, we must abandon the naive preconception that a socialist program is by necessity monological, subsistent on a static identity. This attitude encourages a naive inclusivism of the syncretist type to dominate our political consciousness whereupon all competing systems are denounced as illogical or reduced to epiphenomena of itself. We must instead formulate a political mosaic which focuses on solidarity as opposed to syncretism, whilst retaining an inclusive character. It's from this where we can dialog critically with the Liberal whilst greatly eliminating our propensity to sectarianism.

I am waiting for the person's response, at which point I will update this post. In summation, my position is that a genuine inclusive politic is mosaic rather than syncretist. This approach appreciates the intellectual diversity of the left, by inviting each to a critical dialogue from unique perspectives. Yet, this approach is also inclusive because it actively solicits a dialectic rather than rejecting liberal capitalists for not fitting into a pre-approved scheme. I hope the discussion between us will bear delicious fruit.