On Left-Communism

[Tower of Bebel]

damn I was gonna thank that post

ICC's whole ideology is basically counter-revolutionary propaganda masquerading as a leftist politics. It always, always comes out with the line that most aids the bourgeois, imperialists and fascists in any given situation. It's basically- don't resist your oppressors (in any meaningful or effective way) because to resist is to recognise your oppressors and validate the system.
Your answer is as sectarian as your own conceptualized enemies.

Left-Communism historically had/has a reason d'etre because of the urgent need for class politics and forms of organization based on the actual class struggle. They're opposed to the bureaucratic organizations that have dominated the class struggle since the birth of the epoch of imperialism. Even though I think their theory of decadence - and especially the political or practical implications of it - is wrong, IMO, you cannot simply say that they are counterrevolutionary. Hands off them! They belong to the working class.

[Charles Xavier]

You're as sectarian as your own conceptualized enemies.

Left-Communism historically had/has a reason d'etre because of the urgent need for class politics and forms of organization based on the actual class struggle. They're opposed to the bureaucratic organizations that have dominated the class struggle since the birth of the epoch of imperialism. Even though I think their theory of decadence - and especially the political or practical implications of it - is wrong, IMO, you cannot simply say that they are counterrevolutionary. Hands off them! They belong to the working class.'

In any struggle, those who oppose the work of anti-fascism, or trade unions stand hand in hand with the class enemy. They tell workers not to vote on important issues such as sovereignty on the EU referendum in Ireland. In card counting in trade union ratification, to tell workers to not set up trade unions. When Israel invades Palestine or Lebanon, it tells Palestinians and Lebanese to lay down its arms. Its okay to have an opinion, but this is revolutionary politics, as revolutionaries we stand on the side of the revolution. Those who stand against it are represent the interests of the class enemy.

This is disruptive and counter-revolutionary.

You want to know what their website says?

According to the ICC we are left-factions of the bourgeioisie :

All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

[Tower of Bebel]

'

In any struggle, those who oppose the work of anti-fascism, or trade unions stand hand in hand with the class enemy. They tell workers not to vote on important issues such as sovereignty on the EU referendum in Ireland. In card counting in trade union ratification, to tell workers to not set up trade unions. When Israel invades Palestine or Lebanon, it tells Palestinians and Lebanese to lay down its arms. Its okay to have an opinion, but this is revolutionary politics, as revolutionaries we stand on the side of the revolution. Those who stand against it are represent the interests of the class enemy.

This is disruptive and counter-revolutionary.

You want to know what their website says?

According to the ICC we are left-factions of the bourgeioisie :

All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.
I know what they write. I have read it all. I think they're sectarian. But, explain to me why they oppose the workers' revolution (why they are counter-revolutionary). At least a part of their claims is true: many bureaucratic forms of workers' organizations, be it "communist" or "socialist", were against the proletarian revolution. They served the imperialist goal of controling the workers' movement. That's a fact.

[Invincible Summer]

What the hell are "official anarchists?"

[Devrim]

What the hell are "official anarchists?"

I think that it is a badly phrased, badly translated, and out of date term. What it refereed to when it was written, in French, was the IAF (the İnternational of Anarchist Federations), which supported its members sections taking the side of the Western Imperialists in the Second World War.

They were 'official' anarchists in that they were the main anarchist federations in their countries.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think that it is a badly phrased, badly translated, and out of date term. What it refereed to when it was written, in French, was the IAF (the İnternational of Anarchist Federations), which supported its members sections taking the side of the Western Imperialists in the Second World War.

They were 'official' anarchists in that they were the main anarchist federations in their countries.

Devrim

So do you think the soldiers of WW2 in say Britain should have avoided conscription and refused to fight Hitler, rather than fight for one of the 'Western Imperialists'? And how about the resistance movements.

[Devrim]

So do you think the soldiers of WW2 in say Britain should have avoided conscription and refused to fight Hitler, rather than fight for one of the 'Western Imperialists'?

Basically yes.


And how about the resistance movements.

They served to mobilise workers in defence of the nation and imperialist powers.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Basically yes.



They served to mobilise workers in defence of the nation and imperialist powers.

Devrim

So you'd condemn soldiers who felt a need to defend themselves and their friends from an invading army which wanted to wipe out all opponents?

You think the Jewish Partisans should not have fought back against the Nazis because they're defending the nation and imperialist powers?

They (soldiers in the respective Allied armies) should have just refused not to fight, and allowed Hitler to thus rampage unopposed throughout Europe, wiping out all the Jews, Communists, black people, etc?

I'm sorry, that position makes no sense. How do you justify it?

[BobKKKindle$]

So do you think the soldiers of WW2 in say Britain should have avoided conscription and refused to fight Hitler, rather than fight for one of the 'Western Imperialists'Of course, this was completely the right position to take. The Nazi regime represented the most extreme and violent manifestation of bourgeois political rule, and emerged as a result of the historic defeat of the working class in the early 1930s, but the other governments which participated in the war, including the UK, were fundamentally the same in terms of their class character and political orientation, despite their use of democratic and anti-fascist rhetoric to justify the war effort and secure the consent of the working populations. WW2 was ultimately an imperialist war - that is, a war in which the participants fought against each other (or, to be more precise, a war in which the working classes fought on behalf of their respective ruling classes, at tremendous human cost) in order to achieve a favorable redistribution of the world's markets and economic resources, something that was made necessary (from the viewpoint of individual sections of the international bourgeoisie) by the declining rates of profit suffered by capitalism during the Great Depression. Trotsky's flawed position of support for the war effort against Germany was based on the argument that the Soviet Union was a workers state, as he felt that it was in the interests of the world proletariat to defend the gains embodied in nationalized property relations, even if this defense involved benefiting the "democratic" imperialist powers. Of course, the basic flaw of this position was that the Soviet Union was not a workers state - it was an imperialist state-capitalist regime, and Left Communists correctly identified this. Anarchists were fortunately not under the illusion that the Soviet Union was in any way progressive, but still supported the war effort on the grounds that it was a war against fascism - failing to acknowledge the imperialist character of the war, and the fact that fascism simply represents one form of bourgeois dictatorship.


So you'd condemn soldiers who felt a need to defend themselves and their friends from an invading army which wanted to wipe out all opponents?On this basis, you would presumably have supported national defense during WW1 as well, since, according to you, it is sensible for workers to fight on behalf of their national governments, and socialists should support them in that endeavor. Lenin and other Marxists argued the complete opposite - we should not support "our own" countries in imperialist wars, and should instead actively hope for the defeat of the countries we inhabit, and call for the transformation of such wars into civil wars, involving workers of different nationalities, against the bourgeoisie.

It's also interesting that you support workers defending themselves, because this is exactly what Trotskyists such as myself argue in relation to Palestine - and yet you seemingly don't adopt the same position when it comes to that situation, perhaps because, in your eyes, an imperialist army offers a more progressive vehicle for resistance than Hamas? It seems that you're being inconsistent here. It's also worth pointing out that while Trotskyists support anti-imperialist struggles, in situations where a nation is being politically oppressed by an imperialist power, we adopt the revolutionary defeatist position described above in the case of inter-imperialist wars.

[BobKKKindle$]

You think the Jewish Partisans should not have fought back against the Nazis because they're defending the nation and imperialist powers?I don't know what position Left Communists would take on this, but there's a qualitative difference between workers fighting as members of an imperialist army, on behalf of an imperialist ruling class, in order to expand an imperialist state's control of the world, and Jewish Partisans conducting independent resistance against a fascist state. The latter, in fact, could be seen as exactly the kind of anti-imperialist resistance that Trotskyists support as progressive and justified.


They (soldiers in the respective Allied armies) should have just refused not to fight, and allowed Hitler to thus rampage unopposed throughout Europe, wiping out all the Jews, Communists, black people, etc?In an ideal situation, the soldiers (or workers who would otherwise have become soldiers) of all participating states would have overthrown the rule of the bourgeoisie throughout Europe and established workers states. Needless to say, this didn't happen, because Marxists in the "democratic" countries backed the war effort, and in the United States, Trotsky even went so far as to demand that the war effort be placed under the control of the trade unions. The basic flaw of your "argument" is that you see fascism as being qualitatively different from other forms of bourgeois rule, and as sufficiently terrible to warrant workers fighting in an inter-imperialist war, whereas, in reality, from the perspective of workers living in colonized nations, the effects of imperialism were always the same regardless of whether the imperialist power was German or British - underdevelopment, and mass human suffering.

[Idealism]

it was an imperialist, but i think your forgetting about that little holocaust thing, eh?

[Bilan]

it was an imperialist, but i think your forgetting about that little holocaust thing, eh?

No one has forgotten that.

[BobKKKindle$]

it was an imperialist, but i think your forgetting about that little holocaust thing, eh? The tragedy of the Holocaust does not automatically justify calling on workers to fight in an inter-imperialist war. In fact, it's frankly absurd to argue that any of the "democratic" participating countries entered the war because they were motivated by a genuine humanitarian concern for the suffering of Jewish people, and there's also no reason to assume that working-class participation was the most effective way to save the lives of European Jews - the only way the Holocaust could have been prevented was if the Nazi regime had been smashed through proletarian revolution, which depended on Marxists adopting a principled revolutionary-defeatist position in 1939, and opposing for the war for its duration.

[Devrim]

I agree with Bob's general argument. It is quite strange to find him arguing on the same side as me.

I would like to clarify on one point:
You think the Jewish Partisans should not have fought back against the Nazis because they're defending the nation and imperialist powers?


I don't know what position Left Communists would take on this, but there's a qualitative difference between workers fighting as members of an imperialist army, on behalf of an imperialist ruling class, in order to expand an imperialist state's control of the world, and Jewish Partisans conducting independent resistance against a fascist state.

Basically yes, but with many of the partisan groups in WWII it is not so clear. Many of them were funded and directed by the Western allies or the Soviets.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's also interesting that you support workers defending themselves, because this is exactly what Trotskyists such as myself argue in relation to Palestine - and yet you seemingly don't adopt the same position when it comes to that situation, perhaps because, in your eyes, an imperialist army offers a more progressive vehicle for resistance than Hamas? It seems that you're being inconsistent here. It's also worth pointing out that while Trotskyists support anti-imperialist struggles, in situations where a nation is being politically oppressed by an imperialist power, we adopt the revolutionary defeatist position described above in the case of inter-imperialist wars.

Also, Bob has a point here. The basic position is that communists oppose imperialist wars. The left communist position is consistent in that it sees national liberation struggles today as moments of inter imperialist conflict even if by proxy.

Bob's opinion is consistent, even if wrong in our opinion, in that they don't see these struggles as part of an inter imperialist war. It is quite bizarre in my opinion how they come to this conclusion. Never the less the logic is understandable.

You position is contradictory in that you would support the reactionary British state in its war against reactionary Germany, but you won't support the reactionary HAMAS in its war against reactionary Israel.

There may be some logic here, but I can't see it.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

More on the holocaust argument: the existence of imperialism is actually what allowed to holocaust to happen, and is what allows new holocausts and disasters to happen daily, today mainly in Africa, but also in Palestine and other places. It is truly incredible to see people argue for the victory of an imperialist country, then, as a way of preventing holocausts.

Some people try to hide their social-chauvinism behind arguments like "but there was a holocaust at the time, and you had to do something." Of course you did. Trotsky's Proletarian Military Policy was a successful way of appealing to the progressive sentiments of some of the soldiers while avoiding any sort of support for the imperialist states. But it is easy to show not only that Western imperialism was complicit in other holocausts at the time (for example, Britain in Bengal), but that it actually had no interest in stopping the holocaust, and avoided doing something to that end at every opportunity that presented itself.

[Devrim]

Trotsky's Proletarian Military Policy was a successful way of appealing to the progressive sentiments of some of the soldiers while avoiding any sort of support for the imperialist states.

I don't think that it was actually Trotsky's though I am not sure, but I am certain that it did support the imperialist states.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Sorry, its just I think the western liberal democracies were much more preferable to being throw into a gas chamber and killed for being a communist, jew, homosexual, etc and so wouldn't be one to stay at home and do nothing while Hitler set about exsterminating non-Aryans.

[Devrim]

lol

Well you can't really beat the platformists for top quality theoretical discussion, can you? There isn't a lot to say to that really.

Devrim

This referred to a post that has been deleted.

[Devrim]

Wow, that sort of makes the Platformist argument look logical and well thought out. Did you construct that yourself or buy it from the strawman factory?

Devrim

This referred to a post that has been deleted.

[Yehuda Stern]

Sorry, its just I think the western liberal democracies were much more preferable to being throw into a gas chamber and killed for being a communist, jew, homosexual, etc and so wouldn't be one to stay at home and do nothing while Hitler set about exsterminating non-Aryans.

So you're a social-chauvinist because of your solidarity with the oppressed! Oh no wait. You only solidarize with the oppressed if they're white Europeans, if that. Otherwise, you're more than happy to support the imperialist state that murders them (http://www.daily.pk/world/europe/9214-churchills-crimes-from-indian-holocaust-to-palestinian-genocide.html).


I don't think that it was actually Trotsky's though I am not sure, but I am certain that it did support the imperialist states.

We obviously won't agree on this - I hold that it is the American SWP's interpretation of Trotsky's PMP rather than the PMP itself that was supportive to imperialism. That is part of the degeneration of the FI which began probably even before Trotsky's death, and which Trotsky tried to combat.

[Random Precision]

I've trashed the one-liner by the Leveller's Standard and the substance-less post by Túpac Amaru II.

[Devrim]

I've trashed the one-liner by the Leveller's Standard and the substance-less post by Túpac Amaru II.

I don't see why. There are lots of one liners and substanceless posts on this board that don't get trashed.

Devrim

[Random Precision]

I don't see why. There are lots of one liners and substanceless posts on this board that don't get trashed.

I try to remember to trash them when I see them.

[StalinFanboy]

Are there any good publications (preferably free in zine/pamphlet form) on Left Communism? It's become fairly intriguing and I think a lot of it complements my insurrectionalist views.

[black magick hustla]

left communists are not insurrectionalists. we believe in the formation of a centralized world party.

[StalinFanboy]

left communists are not insurrectionalists. we believe in the formation of a centralized world party.
I didn't say you were. I mean that parts of the theory compliment what I believe, at least from what I've read on here I find I agree with some of the things Left Communists believe. But, uh, thanks for pointing me in the direction of some shit I can read.

[el_chavista]

According to the ICC:
All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.
I would like to know what the ICC proposes instead of all that.

[Oneironaut]

I didn't say you were. I mean that parts of the theory compliment what I believe, at least from what I've read on here I find I agree with some of the things Left Communists believe. But, uh, thanks for pointing me in the direction of some shit I can read.

www.internationalism.org

the ICC's website.

I think you can find everything you will need there.

[Kassad]

The Bolshevik victory in Russia overthrew the bourgeoisie class in Russia, in favor of public and common workers control of the means of production and resource development. Many revolutionary struggles that failed to produce results, such as the struggle for socialism in Germany and Hungary, could have proven to be strong allies for the newly formed Soviet Union. Regardless, each of these revolutionary upheavels failed for an obvious reason. Each of these struggles failed to organize behind a working class party with proper leadership and organization like the Bolsheviks achieved in Russia. Since revolutions began igniting across the globe, notably with the start of the Russian Revolution in 1917, each of these struggles was organized by a party. Unfortunately, due to the iron grip of imperialism that funded and supported reactionary counterrevolutions, as well as direct military intervention and aggression, most of these parties were forced to retain power through state bureaucracy. The problem was not Leninism or the vanguard party, but instead it was the imperialist aggression of the capitalist vultures. If one day I am proven wrong and some form of revolutionary organization like the International Communist Current manages to see an opportunity for ideological application, then hats off to them. Regardless, history has shown that this method is not efficient and I don't think it ever will be.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

You think the Jewish Partisans should not have fought back against the Nazis because they're defending the nation and imperialist powers?

They (soldiers in the respective Allied armies) should have just refused not to fight, and allowed Hitler to thus rampage unopposed throughout Europe, wiping out all the Jews, Communists, black people, etc?



I think this where the Internationalist Communist Current goes wrong. In my view there is an qualitative difference between the jewish (or French or Serb) partisans and the British, Amerikan and "Soviet" imperialist armies. Given the brutality of much of the "Allied" war effort I find it hard to believe that anyone would see it as a defensive action against Nazism and not a war to destory an economnic rival. Athol books published something very good on this subject that I read ages ago.

[BobKKKindle$]

Sorry, its just I think the western liberal democracies were much more preferable to being throw into a gas chamber and killed for being a communist, jew, homosexual, etc and so wouldn't be one to stay at home and do nothing while Hitler set about exsterminating non-Aryans. This is just a restatement of your position, it doesn't add anything to the debate. What you're basically arguing is that Marxists should throw away our principled objection to participation in imperialist wars and actually call on workers to fight and sacrifice their lives on behalf of their respective bourgeoisie because a genocide is taking place - this position is flawed not only because it ignores that fact that the "democratic" powers were also responsible for acts of terrible cruelty and human suffering, which, in terms of the number of people who died, were even worse than the Holocaust, but also because it neglects other ways in which the Holocaust could have been stopped or prevented - most importantly, by binding workers to the ruling class through nationalist ideology, your policy destroyed any possibility of a successful proletarian revolution. If we generalize your position, then it could actually have dangerous consequences and lead to a whole range of reactionary positions - would you also support western intervention in the Sudan, involving workers, given that some observers claim that a genocide is taking place in Darfur? In any humanitarian emergency, is it appropriate for Marxists to call on their governments to intervene, ostensibly because we care about the plight of the oppressed, even if intervention results in the strengthening of imperialist hegemony, and an even greater death toll?

On a related note, can you explain how your position on WW2 is consistent with your refusal to support resistance against the IDF in Palestine?

[Devrim]

The Bolshevik victory in Russia overthrew the bourgeoisie class in Russia, in favor of public and common workers control of the means of production and resource development. Many revolutionary struggles that failed to produce results, such as the struggle for socialism in Germany and Hungary, could have proven to be strong allies for the newly formed Soviet Union. Regardless, each of these revolutionary upheavels failed for an obvious reason. Each of these struggles failed to organize behind a working class party with proper leadership and organization like the Bolsheviks achieved in Russia. Since revolutions began igniting across the globe, notably with the start of the Russian Revolution in 1917, each of these struggles was organized by a party. Unfortunately, due to the iron grip of imperialism that funded and supported reactionary counterrevolutions, as well as direct military intervention and aggression, most of these parties were forced to retain power through state bureaucracy. The problem was not Leninism or the vanguard party, but instead it was the imperialist aggression of the capitalist vultures. If one day I am proven wrong and some form of revolutionary organization like the International Communist Current manages to see an opportunity for ideological application, then hats off to them. Regardless, history has shown that this method is not efficient and I don't think it ever will be.

I am not sure what the poster is talking about here. The ICC is in favour of an internationally centralised party.

Devrim

[Devrim]

According to the ICC:
All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.
I would like to know what the ICC proposes instead of all that.

www.internationalism.org (http://www.internationalism.org/)

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think this where the Internationalist Communist Current goes wrong. In my view there is an qualitative difference between the jewish (or French or Serb) partisans and the British, Amerikan and "Soviet" imperialist armies. Given the brutality of much of the "Allied" war effort I find it hard to believe that anyone would see it as a defensive action against Nazism and not a war to destory an economnic rival. Athol books published something very good on this subject that I read ages ago.

I think really that you have to draw a difference between things like the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and some of the partisan groups which were supllied and under the command and control of the imperialist powers, effectivly being merely auxillary wings of these powers armed forces.

Devrim

[benhur]

If people had taken LC position seriously at the time of WW2, most of us wouldn't be here (if you know what I mean). Bottom line, I find it repulsive that some people say one shouldn't have fought the nazis, because the guys fighting them were imperialists themselves. Does it mean we should sit down, and just wait for the nazis to gas us? At least with the allied victory, we're still here with our communist dreams. Had the nazis won, even this freedom would've been lost forever.

[LOLseph Stalin]

At least with the allied victory, we're still here with our communist dreams. Had the nazis won, even this freedom would've been lost forever.

If the Nazis would have won we would probably be dead right now. Communists were considered political opponants. Political opponants were sent to concentration camps... That is why we couldn't just sit there and watch them take Europe. Somebody had to fight them. Fascists aren't afraid to outlaw every ideology that opposes them.

[BobKKKindle$]

Bottom line, I find it repulsive that some people say one shouldn't have fought the nazis, because the guys fighting them were imperialists themselvesOnce again, you're making the mistake of equating anti-fascist resistance with supporting the war effort of the "democratic" states, and on that basis you assume that a failure to adopt the latter position means accepting fascism and the persecution of working-class militants. This is not the case - there were many brave Left Communists (sadly, Trotskyists were simply wrong during WW2) who did conduct independent resistance to fascism by refusing to side with either imperialist bloc, and instead called for socialist revolution as the only way to abolish fascism and all of its associated acts of cruelty once and for all. I'm sure Devrim will be more than happy to tell us about this, but this (http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_01.html) article seems to give a good overview. You also make the related mistake of assuming that the physical elimination of communists and other progressive forces such as trade unionists at the hands of the political agents of the bourgeoisie is a phenomenon that is unique to fascism - this is linked to the more general error of seeing fascism as fundamentally different from other manifestations of bourgeois political rule, including bourgeois democracy. This is wrong because there are numerous examples of communists being persecuted by ostensibly more progressive or liberal governments - the most obvious case being the murder of Trotsky by Ramón Mercader, who was not a fascist, but, to all intents and purposes, an agent sent by the Soviet government, not to mention all of the other Bolshevik militants who suffered the same fate. The bourgeois state - regardless of whether it uses socialist or democratic rhetoric to cover its class character - will always use violence to deal with communist activists when the threat of social unrest presents itself, however much the bourgeoisie may emphasize rights and freedom of expression in their ideological pronouncements to create the illusion of democracy.

[Devrim]

I'm sure Devrim will be more than happy to tell us about this, but this (http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_01.html) article seems to give a good overview.

Wiki says this:

1939–1945

Many small currents to the left of the mass Communist Parties collapsed at the beginning of the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War) and the Left Communists were initially silent too. Despite having foreseen the war more clearly than some other factions, when it began they were overwhelmed. Many were persecuted by either German Nazism or Italian fascism. Leading militants of the Communist Left like Mitchell, who was Jewish, were to die in the Buchenwald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald) concentration camp.
Meanwhile, in Germany the final council communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communist) groups had disappeared in the maelstrom and in the Netherlands the International Communist Group (GIK) was moribund. The former "centrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist)" group led by Henk Sneevliet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henk_Sneevliet) (the Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party, RSAP) transformed itself into the Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg_Front). But in April 1942 its leadership was arrested by the Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo) and killed. The remaining activists then split into two camps, on the one hand some turned to Trotskyism forming the Committee of Revolutionary Marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_of_Revolutionary_Marxist s&action=edit&redlink=1) (CRM) while the majority formed the CommunistenBond-Spartacus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CommunistenBond-Spartacus&action=edit&redlink=1). The latter group turned to council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism) and was joined by most members of the GIK.
In 1941, the Italian Fraction was reorganised in France and along with the new French Nucleus of the Communist Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Nucleus_of_the_Communist_Le ft&action=edit&redlink=1) came into conflict with the ideas which the Fraction had propagated from 1936: of the social disappearance of the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat) and localised wars, etc. These ideas continued to be defended by Vercesi in Brussels. Gradually the Left Fractions adopted positions drawn from German Left Communism. They abandoned the conception that the Russian state remained in some way proletarian and also dropped Vercesi's conception of localised wars in favour of ideas on imperialism inspired by Rosa Luxemburg. Vercesi's participation in a Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross) committee was also fiercely contested.
The strike at FIAT in October 1942 had a major impact on the Italian Fraction in France, which was deepened by the fall of Mussolini's regime in July 1943. The Italian Fraction now saw a pre-revolutionary situation opening in Italy and prepared to participate in the coming revolution. Revived by Marco in Marseilles, the Italian Fraction now worked closely with the new French Fraction, which was formally founded in Paris in December 1944. However in May 1945 the Italian Fraction, many of whose members had already returned to Italy, voted to dissolve itself so that it's militants could integrate themselves as individuals into the Internationalist Communist Party. The conference at which this decision was made also refused to recognise the French Fraction and expelled Marco from their group.
This led to a split in the French Fraction and the formation of the Gauche Communiste de France by the French Fraction led by Marco. The history of the GCF belongs to the post-war period. Meanwhile the former members of the French Fraction who sympathised with Vercesi and the Internationalist Communist party formed a new French Fraction, which published the journal L'Etincelle and was joined at the end of 1945 by the old minority of the Fraction who had joined L'Union Communiste in the 1930s.
One other development during the war years merits mention at this point. A small grouping of German and Austrian militants came close to Left Communist positions in these years. Best known, to those few who know of them, as the Revolutionary Communist Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_Organisati on_%28Austria%29&action=edit&redlink=1), these young militants were exiles from Nazism living in France at the start of World War II and were members of the Trotskyist movement but they had opposed the formation of the Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International) in 1938 on the grounds that it was premature. They were refused full delegates' credentials and only admitted to the founding conference of the Youth International on the following day. They then joined Hugo Oehler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Oehler)'s International Contact Commission for the Fourth (Communist) International (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Contact_Commission_f or_the_Fourth_%28Communist%29_International&action=edit&redlink=1) and in 1939 were publishing Der Marxist in Antwerp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp).
With the beginning of the war, they took the name Revolutionary Communists of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communists_of_German y&action=edit&redlink=1) (RKD) and came to define Russia as state capitalist, in agreement with Ante Ciliga's book The Russian Enigma. At this point they adopted a revolutionary defeatist position on the war and condemned Trotskyism for its critical defence of Russia (which was seen by Trotskyists as a degenerated workers' state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state)). After the fall of France, they renewed contact with militants in the Trotskyist milieu in Southern France and recruited some of them into the Communistes Revolutionnaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communistes_Revolutionnaires&action=edit&redlink=1) in 1942. This group became known as Fraternisation Proletarienne in 1943 and then L'Organisation Communiste Revolutionnaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27Organisation_Communiste_Revolu tionnaire&action=edit&redlink=1) in 1944 . The CR and RKD were autonomous, and clandestine, but worked closely together with shared politics. As the war ran its course, they evolved in a councilist direction, while also identifying more and more with Rosa Luxemburg's work. They also worked with the French Fraction of the Communist Left and seem to have disintegrated at the end of the war. This disintegration was speeded no doubt by the capture of a leading militant, Karl Fischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Fischer_%28leftist%29&action=edit&redlink=1), who was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp where he was to participate in writing the Declaration of the Internationalist Communists of Buchenwald when the camp was liberated.


There is actually a famous, prize winning even, French novel 'World Without Visa' by Jean Malaquais about the internationalists in France during the second World war, particularly concerning comrades who would later found the ICC.

On a more theoretical note these two articles on revolutionaries in the UK and the Second World war might be of interest:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/270_rev_against_war_03.html

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/271_rev_against_war_04.html

Devrim

[Samyasa]

If the Nazis would have won we would probably be dead right now. Communists were considered political opponants. Political opponants were sent to concentration camps... That is why we couldn't just sit there and watch them take Europe. Somebody had to fight them. Fascists aren't afraid to outlaw every ideology that opposes them.

Another point to remember is that it wasn't the Fascists who crushed the revolutionary movement in Germany. Rather, it was Social Democracy in the name of the workers who made alliances with the Army and the Freikorps (the nationalist paramilitaries that later spawned the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel) to smash the revolutionary working class and murdered Luxemburg, Liebknecht and many others.

Fascism arose in a historical situation where the working class had already been defeated by the left. Genuine revolutionaries were hounded by all the bourgeois political currents across Europe. This example is quite illuminating in showing how left-communists were threatened by both Stalinists and Fascists:

"With a comrade of the Italian Fraction in Belgium (who had fled the advance of the German troops because he was Jewish), Clara left Paris by bike to join up with Marc in Angouleme. When she arrived, Marc, along with other soldiers, had been imprisoned by the German army who, fortunately, had not yet found out that he was a Jew. By bringing him civilian clothes, Clara helped Marc, and another Jewish comrade, escape from the barracks where he was a prisoner.
...
During this period, Clara also participated in the activities of the Organisation de Secours des Enfants, which looked after and hid Jewish children in order to protect them from the Gestapo.
But it was at the moment of the ‘Liberation’ that Marc and Clara had their closest encounter with death. The Stalinist ‘Resistors’ of the Parti Communiste Francais arrested them in Marseille.
...
It was thanks to a Gaullist officer who was in charge of the prison (and whose wife knew Clara, having worked with her in the OSE), that Marc and Clara were able to escape the justice of the PCF killers. This officer had initially prevented the Stalinists from shooting Marc and Clara (they had said to Marc, “Stalin hasn’t got you but we will have your skin”). Surprised that Jews were accused of being ‘collaborators’, he wanted to ‘understand’ the political standpoint which had led Marc and Clara to put out propaganda in favour of fraternisation between French and German troops. The officer recognised that their attitude had nothing to do with some kind of ‘treason’ in favour of the Nazi regime. He thus helped them to escape from prison in his own car, advising them to leave Marseille as quickly as possible before the Stalinists could find them."

Unfortunately, the forum won't let me link directly to the article, but you can find it at the ICC's website if you search for "Clara".

[Kassad]

I am not sure what the poster is talking about here. The ICC is in favour of an internationally centralised party.

Devrim

I seriously doubt that a day will come when a party can be centralized internationally. Each nation has its own unique struggle for liberation; each has national characteristics that other nations do not have. The necessity is in finding common ground with international movements that can unite the workers parties across the globe. One party that has branches and movements internationally will never properly manage revolutionary struggle.

[Charles Xavier]

I seriously doubt that a day will come when a party can be centralized internationally. Each nation has its own unique struggle for liberation; each has national characteristics that other nations do not have. The necessity is in finding common ground with international movements that can unite the workers parties across the globe. One party that has branches and movements internationally will never properly manage revolutionary struggle.

I think it would be possible if we were bourgeoisie. ICC infiltrating other countries and telling them what to do. Of course there will be homegrown opposition but that homegrown opposition will be following our directives. We would work out of embassies and we would have people paid to do our bidding. Something like the CIA of Class struggle.

[benhur]

So you're a social-chauvinist because of your solidarity with the oppressed! Oh no wait. You only solidarize with the oppressed if they're white Europeans, if that. Otherwise, you're more than happy to support the imperialist state that murders them (http://www.daily.pk/world/europe/9214-churchills-crimes-from-indian-holocaust-to-palestinian-genocide.html).


Apples and oranges, you're comparing gas chambers with famines, how ridiculous! This was covered earlier, and your arguments were refuted when I pointed to an essay by Marx. Anyway, here it goes again. British imperialists were no different from the capitalists you see in the world today, in that they put profits before people. This is something that every nation on the planet is guilty of, so to focus on one particular nation or one particular even is quite puzzling.

Nazis, OTOH, weren't just imperialists interested in controlling land and labor. They were psychopaths with diabolical ideas regarding racial purity, Aryan ideals and all that nonsense. Imagine such whackos ruling the world! Besides, one has to understand the difference between Bengal famines and Holocaust in terms of motive. In the former, deaths were incidental, they were the result of policy failure, rather than a deliberate attempt to wipe out populations. In the latter, genocide was intentional, the nazis NEVER concealed the fact that their sole mission was to exterminate whom they considered inferior.

In view of this, it'd be foolish to compare the two, one of them was an imperialist nation alright, but a level-headed one at that. The other was a killing machine led by a maniac whose only mission was to exterminate huge populations. Therefore, supporting the lesser evil would be the humane thing to do.

Case closed.

[Yehuda Stern]

benhur, I think that anyone who knows anything about your track record or that actually tries to make sense of the mystic nonsense that is your post will have no difficulty in understanding that the case is indeed close - though not in your favor. You have again proven nothing but the reactionary nature of your politics and your own imperialist chauvinism. Which explains why to you, comparing the planned murder of Jews and Indians is like comparing "apples and oranges."

And yet again, some advice, just because I truly pity you - your condescending tone, instead of making you sound smarter or better than anyone else, just underscores how full of shit you actually are.

[Devrim]

I seriously doubt that a day will come when a party can be centralized internationally. Each nation has its own unique struggle for liberation; each has national characteristics that other nations do not have. The necessity is in finding common ground with international movements that can unite the workers parties across the globe. One party that has branches and movements internationally will never properly manage revolutionary struggle.

Generally in the history of the workers movement talk of national exceptions has been the way to introduce opportunism. The comintern was an attempt to build a centralised world party. Do you think it was wrong?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think it would be possible if we were bourgeoisie. ICC infiltrating other countries and telling them what to do. Of course there will be homegrown opposition but that homegrown opposition will be following our directives. We would work out of embassies and we would have people paid to do our bidding. Something like the CIA of Class struggle.

Congratulations, your posts get better, and better.

Devrim

[Charles Xavier]

Congratulations, your posts get better, and better.

Devrim


Either that or you guys want to be the Comintern minus the support of revolutionary parties and workers.

Or you think you can direct a revolution in India from your apartment in Ankara.

[black magick hustla]

Either that or you guys want to be the Comintern minus the support of revolutionary parties and workers.

Or you think you can direct a revolution in India from your apartment in Ankara.


the ICC has a section in india.

honestly i dont get why you get all worked up about us. we are too small for you to post all those dumb lines that seem the ramblings of someoene who is really socially impaired

[Devrim]

Either that or you guys want to be the Comintern minus the support of revolutionary parties and workers.

Or you think you can direct a revolution in India from your apartment in Ankara.

Actually, we have a section in India. We don't claim to be the party, let alone the Comintern, but we are for the building of such a party.

Devrim

[Leo]

Each nation has its own unique struggle for liberation

Yet the working class has only one struggle for liberation.


each has national characteristics that other nations do not have.

"Workers have no county". It is the ruling class that has national characteristics.


One party that has branches and movements internationally will never properly manage revolutionary struggle.

Yes, down with the Communist International!


I think it would be possible if we were bourgeoisie.

Quite the contrary. For marxists, the national organizing is typical bourgeois, it in fact is the way the bourgeoisie organizes. Of course national organizing and nationalism has always been compatible with the imperialist world system.


I think it would be possible if we were bourgeoisie. ICC infiltrating other countries and telling them what to do. Of course there will be homegrown opposition but that homegrown opposition will be following our directives. We would work out of embassies and we would have people paid to do our bidding. Something like the CIA of Class struggle.

Sounds like the USSR rather than the ICC.


I think this where the Internationalist Communist Current goes wrong. In my view there is an qualitative difference between the jewish (or French or Serb) partisans and the British, Amerikan and "Soviet" imperialist armies. Given the brutality of much of the "Allied" war effort I find it hard to believe that anyone would see it as a defensive action against Nazism and not a war to destory an economnic rival. Athol books published something very good on this subject that I read ages ago.

Back to the question: few articles on how the allies share the responsibility with the Nazis' war crimes, one also mentioning our analysis of the Warsaw ghetto uprising:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/120_holocaust.html

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/113_pianist.html

[benhur]

benhur, I think that anyone who knows anything about your track record or that actually tries to make sense of the mystic nonsense that is your post will have no difficulty in understanding that the case is indeed close - though not in your favor. You have again proven nothing but the reactionary nature of your politics and your own imperialist chauvinism. Which explains why to you, comparing the planned murder of Jews and Indians is like comparing "apples and oranges."

And yet again, some advice, just because I truly pity you - your condescending tone, instead of making you sound smarter or better than anyone else, just underscores how full of shit you actually are.

You're resorting to abuse, because you can't argue rationally. Any idiot can see the difference between planned, intentional genocide and famines that result from policy failure - any idiot, except you.

[ComradeOm]

Generally in the history of the workers movement talk of national exceptions has been the way to introduce opportunism. The comintern was an attempt to build a centralised world party. Do you think it was wrong?Two points. In the first place the ComIntern (as its name suggests) was never anything approaching a 'centralized international party'. It was instead, regardless of what their names suggest, a collection of nationally organised parties cooperating on an international level, all held together by a central apparatus in Moscow. The SFIC was always just the PCF with a different name, for example

Secondly, I think that there are very real dangers present even in such limited integration. The performance of the ComIntern Executive during the German Revolution, for example, is hardly something to willingly emulate. Aside from the maddening and rarely helpful influence of special envoys such as Radek or Bela Kun, there was the fundamental tendency of applying lessons learned in Russia to the very different circumstances of Germany. Simple distance and isolation from events on the ground presented a continual challenge and often made ComIntern 'assistance' more of a hindrance than a help

Edit:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/120_holocaust.htmlThat article continues to infuriate me beyond words. Luckily I already posted some here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350779&postcount=36). Disgraceful

[Leo]

Two points. In the first place the ComIntern (as its name suggests) was never anything approaching a 'centralized international party'. It was instead, regardless of what their names suggest, a collection of nationally organised parties cooperating on an international level, all held together by a central apparatus in Moscow. The SFIC was always just the PCF with a different name, for example

From the Platform of the Communist International:

So-called democracy, i.e. bourgeois democracy, is nothing but the veiled dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The much-vaunted ‘general win of the people’ is no more a reality than ‘the people’ or ‘the nation’. Classes exist and they have conflicting and incompatible aspirations. But as the bourgeoisie represents an insignificant minority it makes use of this illusion, this imaginary concept, in order to consolidate its rule over the working class. Behind this mask of eloquence it can impose its class will (...) Only an International, capable of subordinating so-called national interests to the interests of international revolution, will organise aid on an international scale, for without economic and other kinds of mutual support the proletariat is not in a position to build a new society (...) Long Live the International Republic of Proletarian Soviets!

http://www.marxistsfr.org/history/international/comintern/1st-congress/platform.htm

While it is true that the Communist International never managed to fulfill its attempt of being the centralized world party of the proletariat, I don't think making any comments on whether it was initially an attempt to reach it or not is even necessary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Communist Party of Italy rightfully tagged itself as a "Section of the Communist International" in its official name. Lenin also considered, before renaming the RSDLP(B) into the All-Russia Communist Party (Bolshevik), to have just a "Communist Party."


Secondly, I think that there are very real dangers present even in such limited integration. The performance of the ComIntern Executive during the German Revolution, for example, is hardly something to willingly emulate. Aside from the maddening and rarely helpful influence of special envoys such as Radek or Bela Kun, there was the fundamental tendency of applying lessons learned in Russia to the very different circumstances of Germany. Simple distance and isolation from events on the ground presented a continual challenge and often made ComIntern 'assistance' more of a hindrance than a help

Who said that transnational organization could occur only between the center and the national branches?


"Transnational" is a word used in the business world. "International" corporations are lower on the pecking order than multinationals and transnationals:

http://leeiwan.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/difference-between-a-global-transnational-international-and-multinational-company/



* International companies are importers and exporters, they have no investment outside of their home country.
* Multinational companies have investment in other countries, but do not have coordinated product offerings in each country. More focused on adapting their products and service to each individual local market.
* Global companies have invested and are present in many countries. They market their products through the use of the same coordinated image/brand in all markets. Generally one corporate office that is responsible for global strategy. Emphasis on volume, cost management and efficiency.
* Transnational companies are much more complex organizations. They have invested in foreign operations, have a central corporate facility but give decision-making, R&D and marketing powers to each individual foreign market.

Given my atypical educational background (not in sociology, polit-sci, or other humanities areas :rolleyes:) , my language is that of the business world: transnational, maximax and maximin (game theory) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximin_(decision_theory)), information asymmetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_information), etc.

[Yehuda Stern]

You're resorting to abuse, because you can't argue rationally.

Well, no one can argue rationally with you. Every single debate you have, your arguments get demolished, and then you disappear without trace only to bring up the same crap again. It's annoying, and it's basically trolling. Grow up and start giving as good as you expect to get.

[Kassad]

Wow, Leo. Is this really the delusional state you've fallen in to? The working struggle of the proletarian class has no borders, but each struggle has national characteristics. In a nation like China, liberation was attained through the united struggle of the proletarian and peasant classes. In other, more industrialized nations, the peasant class will likely have no ability to unite in struggle with the industrial proletariat. Much like in the United States. A peasant struggle in the United States has no means of attaining liberation, as the industrial proletariat will likely contribute most to revolutionary emancipation.

The rest of your post totally ignores my point. International tendencies and organizations can exist and attempt to unite workers struggles, but in truth, the individual party of each revolutionary state will manage its own affairs, as a group in China cannot properly manage affairs for Cuba. This is the same for all countries. Workers are united in common struggle, but each struggle has its own characteristics, values and means of struggle and liberation.

[Leo]

The working struggle of the proletarian class has no borders

Period.


but each struggle has national characteristics.

No it doesn't. Nations, by definition, has been actual beings only as much as the bourgeoisie and its ideology were/are actual beings. Beyond that, there are no national characteristics. The only characteristic of proletarian struggle is international, and whether the working class acknowledges it or not at the beginning is irrelevant since as Marx says people start going forward with an act and become conscious of it in the process, in order to conclude it.


In a nation like China

For an actual marxist, there is no "nation like China": there is the working class of China which is an inseparable part of the world working class, and there is the Chinese bourgeoisie which is an ossified part of world imperialism.


liberation was attained through the united struggle of the proletarian and peasant classes.

If you think any "liberation" was attained in China so far you are the one who is delusional.


In other, more industrialized nations, the peasant class will likely have no ability to unite in struggle with the industrial proletariat.

Peasantry only is a class in the sociological sense today, not the marxist sense since it is a category which includes numerous elements from different classes. The agricultural working class can be nothing but a part of the world working class struggle. The exploiting landowners can be nothing but a part of the bourgeoisie. The landless peasants, tenant farmers and smallest land owning peasants (those who live on family labor only) mostly have got only things to gain from proletarian power internationally. There is no "peasantry" which has any unified interest, thus there is no peasantry which is really capable of acting in a unified way independently.


The rest of your post totally ignores my point. International tendencies and organizations can exist and attempt to unite workers struggles, but in truth, the individual party of each revolutionary state will manage its own affairs, as a group in China cannot properly manage affairs for Cuba. This is the same for all countries.

This is a lamer justification of bourgeois conceptions such as nations as the ultimate reality and of bourgeois boundaries as the fundamental and unchallengeable truth than the one put forward by the mainstream bourgeoisie itself. Not surprising, coming from a liberal of course.

[Kassad]

How is it possible that this delusional fantasy has clouded your mind? Does the United States and Panama have the same working class, technological, economic or political conditions? No, of course not. The United States has achieved the highest stage of capitalistic hegemony through imperialist domination, whereas Panama is still developing. While the industrial proletariat is massive in the United States, that cannot be said for many other undeveloped nations. There are characteristics based on nations, thus national characteristics. Are you trying to tell me that these differences are irrelevant? That is the kind of ignorance that impedes revolutionary struggle.

Though I understand it to be favorable to view the working class of each nation as united, that isn't totally true. Most of the working class in the United States doesn't give a fuck about sweatshops in Taiwan or China. The bourgeoisie creates barriers between this unity in the form of propaganda, imperialism and manipulation. In the current state of affairs, nations exist. Borders and impediments may be a 'figment of our imagination' as you might say, but in the current state of affairs, national struggle will always exist. Don't even attempt to rationalize the surrealist delusion that the working class of the world will magically reject borders; together, united at the same moment, and rise in arms against oppression and exploitation. It's time to wake up and realize that this organization does not happen overnight, nor does it happen simultaneously.

Of course, more surrealist babble. Mao Tsetung and the People's Liberation Army attempted to combat the mass starvation and exploitation in the nation; giving access to education, healthcare and proper commodities to the working masses and properly suppressing the counterrevolutionary reactionaries and capitalists. Tsetung's military tactics made it possible for others struggling for liberation to comprehend a people's war and how to manage guerilla warfare to combat reactionaries. The shackles only returned with the face of revisionism under the veil of market socialism and 'socialism with Chinese characteristics.'

Of course, here comes the laughable 'you're a liberal' tactic. When all else fails; when your ideology has sunk so low that you subscribe to bourgeoisie propaganda and embrace revisionist tendencies, you can always claim that someone else is not a communist. It's infallible, really. I mean, when all else fails, choose ignorance. 'You may say I'm a dreamer,' right? Because borders will magically fall away once the united proletarian class skips hand in hand through the pastures. Atop their mighty white stallions, they will ride into the sunset and combat tyranny wherever they shall find it. But don't forget! I say you're a liberal, Leo. That means it must be true. Beat that!

[Samyasa]

Does the United States and Panama have the same working class, technological, economic or political conditions?

You can say the same thing about about workers within the United States too, though. Workers at a University will have rather different levels of education, working conditions, pay, technological training etc. than workers at McDonalds. As for political conditions, in some workplaces in Britain (mainly public sector) it's a sackable offence to distribute political material - in others, you can do it with few problems.

The most important point is that despite all the variations within it the working class exists as a global entity: it has the same interests in every country: smashing the state, destroying capitalism and fighting against the local bourgeoisie.

[Kassad]

You can say the same thing about about workers within the United States too, though. Workers at a University will have rather different levels of education, working conditions, pay, technological training etc. than workers at McDonalds. As for political conditions, in some workplaces in Britain (mainly public sector) it's a sackable offence to distribute political material - in others, you can do it with few problems.

The most important point is that despite all the variations within it the working class exists as a global entity: it has the same interests in every country: smashing the state, destroying capitalism and fighting against the local bourgeoisie.

Oh, of course. Trust me, I live in the United States. I completely comprehend what you're saying and you're dead-on. All I'm asking you to realize is that the united workers movement is a very serious thing. Though we realize that smashing the state and breaking from the shackles of capitalist exploitation are in the workers best interest, that doesn't mean that at the current time, they're going to do it. That's why, though united in struggle, there are bourgeoisie barriers between the workers movements. That's why revolutions did not happen like Dominos after the Bolshevik victory. We must realize that in the end, a united working class will win, but each national group must manage their own affairs for their own revolution. A revolution will never take root without seeds.

[Samyasa]

That's why, though united in struggle, there are bourgeoisie barriers between the workers movements.

Of course there are. No-one is disputing this. But the issue is not whether these barriers exist but the attitude of the proletariat towards them. One of the fundamental contradictions of decadent capitalism is the formation of a truly global economy that is still imprisoned within the confines of the nation state. The nation state is one of those "relations of production" that is in conflict with the "forces of production". The proletariat's "historical mission" is to split these constraints asunder and abolish nation states completely, root and branch. Workers in, say, France cannot serve their interests by fighting for a "communist France". They have to destroy "France" and set up a proletarian dictatorship which will grow to include other geographic areas as workers around the world join the revolt. It is perfectly possible that a proletarian bastion, at certain times, will include parts of other countries and cross borders. Even where there are bastions that are geographically isolated from each other they have to see themselves as part of the same whole and their actions must be guided by the interests of the whole, through the means of the council system. Lenin pointed out that he was, if necessary, prepared to sacrifice the Russian bastion if it was in the interests of the world revolution and this attitude was absolutely correct. Workers have no country and we don't have any respect whatsoever for the restrictions placed on us by the bourgeoisie!

Political organisation must reflect this requirement of struggle. Those revolutionaries who are on the ground in a particular area obviously have responsibilities, but they represent the interests of the global proletariat: "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Revolutionaries, no matter where they are always represent the interest of the whole proletariat. Why then should we find the idea of a global political organisation that speaks with one voice in all the countries where it is present bizarre?

[Pogue]

To Left Communists - how will the mass strike happen and acquire a revolutionary political nature without an anarcho-syndicalist union?

[Alf]

Like it did in Russia 1905 and 1917 for example - through the formation of soviets, or again in Poland in 1980, with the Inter-Factory Strike Committees.