Communist Anti-Bolshevism

[The Idler]

What are the best examples of Communist Anti-Bolshevism? What do Stalinists think of it?

[Black Sheep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

Main branches libertarian marxism (luxemburgism) & libertarian communism (anarchist,council, etc)

[DDR]

Luxemburguism, trotskism, and the Netherlandern left.

IMO Luxemburgism and the NL (they're very near in their thoughts) can haver very positive aspects to the Comunist theory. But trotskism...

[ZeroNowhere]

Trots aren't anti-Bolshevik. What the hell. Also, libcommunism isn't a branch of left communism, I'm sure there are some anarchists who support nat-lib struggles, and many SLP members aren't left commies, or so one would think from their position of support for Vietnam in the war (well, after the war, during it they were too split on it, after it it seems they got a Party line and many who didn't agree quit). Also, other than Luxemburgians, you also have SPGBers, De Leonites, the 'Open Marxists', perhaps council commies, and so on. The way you put it, it would appear the terms were synonymous, which is false, as not all lib\m/arxists have crappy economics.

What's the 'best kind'? Well, what criterion would you propose for deciding (so that people don't just name their own tendencies)?

[F9]

Trots aren't anti-Bolshevik. What the hell.

They are for stalinists.

This suits better in Learning as it seems, than theory, so moved

[Eat the Rich]

They are for stalinists.

Stalinists are not bolsheviks according to Trotskyists.

The main branches of anti-bolshevism are:

1) Anarchism with all its variations
2)Left-Communism
3)Reformism
4)Petit-bourgeois anti-capitalism, which can also be considered reformism in some cases. (NPA, SYRIZA, Die Linke etc)

Stalinism for me, as well as for most trotskyists is anti-bolshevism.
The tactic of popular fronts of the Comintern from 1935 onwards, the sectarianism of the early years of the Stalinist comintern, the dissolution of the comintern itself and also the bureaucratic crimes of the stalinist elites are few of the examples of stalinist treason to the ideas of Bolshevism.

[New Tet]

To me all Leninists look alike. As I've said elsewhere, Stalinism is Leninism come of age.

[Misanthrope]

Anarchism and Left Communism are the best examples.

[Искра]

I would just like to add that all anarchist "schools" are not communist.

You can say that anarchist communism/libertarian communism is anti-Bolshevik communism, but you can say that for anarchism in general. There are a lot of individualists craps connected with anarchism, and also we have primitivists, insurectionists, anarcho-capitalists etc.

But in general, only libertarian communism is perspective way to create anarchist/communist society. Other "schools" of anarchism are no use.

[8bit]

For the record, Anarchists/Council commies aren't Left Communists, as the left opposition was, and is, Marxist.

Speaking as a Trot myself (mostly), Trotskyism is very much anti-Bolshevik, and is the core, and the original spark, of the Left Opposition.

Yes, Trotsky was a member of the Bolshevik party, however, he changes his view on the transitional process to socialism after Stalin gains power in the USSR.

While I disagree with Trotsky's concept of the permanent revolution allowing a feudalistic nation to skip capitalism, Trotsky makes a point of stating the importance of permanent revolution, and it's major conflict with the nationalist concepts behind the Bolshevik party. The concepts behind Bolshevism posits that socialism is possible to be achieved within one nation, independent of the rest of the world, and later Bolshevism goes on to expand upon that concept with extra emphasis on nationalism.

[Nwoye]

For the record, Anarchists/Council commies aren't Left Communists, as the left opposition was, and is, Marxist.
council commies aren't Marxists?

[8bit]

council commies aren't Marxists?

It's arguable, though, I would say no, as, as I understand council communism, they don't believe the state should be utilized by the workers before it more or less shifts into a worker's representative democracy. (aka, socialism)

They teeter in between marxist and non-marxist schools of communism.

[Nwoye]

It's arguable, though, I would say no, as, as I understand council communism, they don't believe the state should be utilized by the workers before it more or less shifts into a worker's representative democracy. (aka, socialism)

They teeter in between marxist and non-marxist schools of communism.
As I understand it most council communists utilize the Marxist method of class analysis, they just have a fundamentally different understanding of what "workers control" and "workers democracy" should actually look like (from Leninists), and how state suppression of capital should be carried out.

Please correct me if I'm wrong however.

[8bit]

As I understand it most council communists utilize the Marxist method of class analysis, they just have a fundamentally different understanding of what "workers control" and "workers democracy" should actually look like (from Leninists), and how state suppression of capital should be carried out.

Please correct me if I'm wrong however.

I'm honestly not incredibly familiar with council communism, so I may very well be wrong, however, I believe that council communism centers around strong support for growth in trade unions, stating that this will lead to the eventual socialist state, controlled by the workers through the hands of trade unions. This seems to stand in opposition to Marxism as trade unions exist to create compromise between the collective workers and the employer.

[Invariance]

For the record, Anarchists/Council commies aren't Left Communists, as the left opposition was, and is, Marxist.Wrong.

Gorter, Pannekoek, Ruhle, Mattick were all Marxists and members of communist parties. Council communism is not anarchism.

Incidentally, its wrong to say that Left-Communists oppose Bolshevism, but that depends on how you define Bolshevism. Council communists, yes. Left-Communism as a whole, no. There were Left-Communists in the Bolshevik party, after all.

Bordiga and the Italian Left strongly supported the Bolsheviks.

Amadeo Bordiga wrote to Karl Korsch in 1926 saying:


For example I don't think the way you express yourself about Russia is correct. We can't say that the Russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The 1917 revolution was a proletarian revolution, even If generalising about the tactical lessons which can be derived from it is a mistake. The problem we are presented with now is this: What will become of the proletarian dictatorship in one country if revolutions don't follow elsewhere. There may be a counterrevolution, there may be an external intervention, or there may be a degenerative process in which case it would be a matter of uncovering the symptoms and reflexes within the communist party.

We can't simply say that Russia is a country where capitalism is expanding. The matter is much more complex; it is a question of new forms of class struggle, which have no historical precedents; it is a question of showing how the entire conception of the relations with the middle classes supported by the Stalinists is a renunciation of the communist programme. It would appear that you rule out the possibility of the Russian Communist Party engaging in any other politics than that which equates with the restoration of capitalism. This is tantamount to a justification of Stalin, or to support for the inadmissible politics of giving up power. Rather it is necessary to say that a correct and classist policy for Russia would have been possible if the whole of the Leninist old guard hadn't made a series of serious mistakes in international policy.



I'm honestly not incredibly familiar with council communism, so I may very well be wrong, however, I believe that council communism centers around strong support for growth in trade unionsNo, they completely rejected trade unions just like they rejected social-democratic parties, and favored workers councils.

Pannekoek wrote:


Trade unions, however, in war must stand upon the side of the capitalist. Its interests are bound up with national capitalism, the victory of which it must wish with all its heart. Hence it assists in arousing strong national feelings and national hatred. It helps the capitalist class to drive the workers into war and to beat down all opposition.

Trade unionism abhors communism. Communism takes away the very basis of its existence. In communism, in the absence of capitalist employers, there is no room for the trade union and labour leaders. It is true that in countries with a strong socialist movement, where the bulk of the workers are socialists, the labour leaders must be socialists too, by origin as well as by environment. But then they are right-wing socialists; and their socialism is restricted to the idea of a commonwealth where instead of greedy capitalists honest labour leaders will manage industrial production.

Trade unionism hates revolution. Revolution upsets all the ordinary relations between capitalists and workers. In its violent clashings, all those careful tariff regulations are swept away; in the strife of its gigantic forces the modest skill of the bargaining labour leaders loses its value. With all its power, trade unionism opposes the ideas of revolution and communism.

[Nwoye]

I'm honestly not incredibly familiar with council communism, so I may very well be wrong, however, I believe that council communism centers around strong support for growth in trade unions, stating that this will lead to the eventual socialist state, controlled by the workers through the hands of trade unions. This seems to stand in opposition to Marxism as trade unions exist to create compromise between the collective workers and the employer.
Council Communists and other Left Communists were actually, or usually at least, staunchly opposed to trade unions as revolutionary organizations. From Anton Pannekoek's Trade Unionism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm):

Trade unionism is an action of the workers, which does not go beyond the limit of capitalism. Its aim is not to replace capitalism by another form of production, but to secure good living conditions within capitalism. Its character is not revolutionary, but conservative.

...

Trade unionism hates revolution. Revolution upsets all the ordinary relations between capitalists and workers. In its violent clashings, all those careful tariff regulations are swept away; in the strife of its gigantic forces the modest skill of the bargaining labour leaders loses its value. With all its power, trade unionism opposes the ideas of revolution and communism.
etc etc

A good and very brief article on the most basic aspects of Council Communism can be found here (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction). If you want to understand the history and specific political positions of Council Communism and Left Communism, Marxists.org has a good introduction here (http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/).

[cb9's_unity]

I consider myself just a Marxist and oppose Bolshevism. I don't wish to argue Bolshevism here but I will lay out my beliefs. I think Marx was correct in saying that there would be an epoch of Capitalism before an epoch of Socialism. The Bolsheviks believed that socialism could occur without a full or mature epoch of capitalism. From my view this has been discredited in a handful of countries without one becoming a strong socialist democracy. Call me a Menshevik if you want but I just can't see a country becoming socialist anywhere but a first world democracy.

I tried to become a Marxist-Someoneist but so far I just can't find that someone. For the time being I consistently identify more with Marx than with any other future Marxist writer.

[Devrim]

For the record, Anarchists/Council commies aren't Left Communists, as the left opposition was, and is, Marxist.


People have already pointed out that the council communists were opposed to trade unions, but I would just like to add that actually left communists are also different from the 'left opposition'.

The 'left opposition' is the Trotskyist opposition whereas the left communists were those who opposed the Lenininst 'centre' at the Second Congress of the International.

Devrim

[RotStern]

Anarchism and Left Communism are the best critiques of Bolshevism.
I consider myself a Bolshevik but I will keep an open mind. ^.^

[BobKKKindle$]

A problem with this thread is that is assumes that there is such a concept as "Bolshevism". I would argue there is not. As an organization which played a major role in overthrowing capitalism in Russia and thereafter managing the Soviet state, initially with the support of other parties, the Bolsheviks underwent many changes in the way they functioned and the social forces they represented during the period 1917-1989. If you speak of "Bolshevism" you infer that there was a set of ideas that were advocated by the party, or at least its leadership, and implemented consistently for as long as the Bolsheviks exercised state power - in other words, you accept the continuity thesis as advocated by ruling-class historians, which assumes that Stalinism was the logical outcome of the legacy of October 1917, and that Stalinism was consistent with the vision of socialism that Lenin and Trotsky held.


The Bolsheviks believed that socialism could occur without a full or mature epoch of capitalism.The Trotskyist (i.e. Bolshevik, in my view) position on the relationship between capitalist development and socialist revolution is that by the time the Bolsheviks, acting as the vanguard of the Russian working class, had become strong enough to carry out the expropriation of the bourgeoisie for the first time in human history, in 1917, leading to the formation of the world's first socialist state, the world as a whole had already experienced a long period of capitalist development, and as such the material basis for socialism (i.e. an advanced productive apparatus, capable of providing for mankind's basic needs) already existed. In that sense the Bolsheviks did not believe it is/was possible to "skip" capitalism. The key thing here is that Russia did not possess the material basis for socialism within her own borders and neither did any other country, primarily due to the international division of labour, which leads to different kinds of industries and resources being located in different countries, to the extent that no single country can be independent from the world capitalist-system, no matter how hard they try. It was the absence of international revolution that led to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution but this was by no means inevitable, as the seizure of power in Russia led to an intensification of class antagonisms throughout the world, with workers in several countries - Germany in particular, and even countries that have historically been seen as having a gradualist political tradition, and as lacking an acute sense of class consciousness, such as Britain - coming close to replicating the example of Russia, only to be held back by the dominance of reformist leaders, and the inability of revolutionaries to attract a sufficiently large section of the working class. This is why Trotskyists place such emphasis on internationalism, and the goal of international revolution.


Speaking as a Trot myself (mostly), Trotskyism is very much anti-Bolshevik, and is the core, and the original spark, of the Left Opposition.Why do you think Trotskyism is "anti-Bolshevik", given that both Lenin and Trotsky were major leaders of the party, and shared the same analysis concerning the relationship between democratic and socialist revolutions from the months immediately prior to the October Revolution, when Lenin largely accepted Trotsky's views, until the end of Lenin's life?


Yes, Trotsky was a member of the Bolshevik party, however, he changes his view on the transitional process to socialism after Stalin gains power in the USSR.How so?

[Devrim]

A problem with this thread is that is assumes that there is such a concept as "Bolshevism". I would argue there is not.

But one must recognize that people did define themselves as being in opposition to it; See for example Mattick's 'Anti-Bolshevik Communism', or Rhule's 'The Struggle Against Fascism Begins With The Struggle Against Bolshevism.

I agree that it wasn't a single current, but people, especially coming from the German left did define themselves in opposition to it.

Devrim

[Искра]

Could we say that Leninism = Bolshevism?

[ZeroNowhere]

Could we say that Leninism = Bolshevism?
To be fair, he may be arguing that Lenin didn't originate (or develop) nearly enough ideas for a set of ideas that he held to be called 'Leninism', any more than they could be called 'Hilferdingism', 'Hobsonism', and so on.

[BobKKKindle$]

Could we say that Leninism = Bolshevism?

Not really, because "Leninism" isn't a term that carries much meaning either.

[cb9's_unity]

To bobkindles,

What I meant to say was that each nation had to go through an epoch of full capitalism. Marx understood that each country had developed at a different pace and thus when he talked of revolution he talked about the internal process of it. The internal revolution of Russia was far different than anything Marx had predicted. A small proletariat was toppling a tiny bourgeoisie in a largely peasant country. I still feel as though the more traditional Marxist line that a massive proletariat will topple a powerful bourgeoisie is the only formula that is really likely to succeed. The bolsheviks had a decent argument but the 0% success rate doesn't convince me. I know everyone hoped that Germany or Britain would revolt but even that may not have been able to change things in Russia. The only problem is that it was mainly internal party politics that took down the Russian's, not the economy. A flaw in party structure had been discovered that allowed a few men to gain massive power. Too many times the Bolsheviks dealt with problems by curbing democracy or expelling party members. In fact the USSR was able to become a major economic power by itself, yet it still devolved into a one man dictatorship.

[ZeroNowhere]

What I meant to say was that each nation had to go through an epoch of full capitalism.I do not believe that even, say, the SPGB and such uphold this, Marx certainly didn't. I believe it's called 'sadism'. A frequently suggested cure is to see a psychiatrist. That is called 'masochism'.

[BobKKKindle$]

What I meant to say was that each nation had to go through an epoch of full capitalismI don't know what you mean by "full capitalism". If you mean that a country has to become industrialized before it's possible for a socialist revolution to take place and lead to the successful attainment of a socialist society then there are two issues that present themselves. Firstly, I don't think it's possible for countries that entered onto the capitalist stage late to reach the same level of economic development as countries like Britain and the United States because, despite being politically independent, in the sense that they're no longer subject to direct territorial subjugation as they were during the 19th century, those countries are still dependent in terms of their position in the world economy, which means their economies are still orientated towards the production of primary goods, like raw materials and agricultural products, and their resources are frequently owned by multinational corporations, leading to an ongoing transfer of wealth away from those countries towards the countries where the corporations are based, i.e. the imperialist countries. In short, capitalism no longer offers anything progressive to the workers of those countries, and so if socialism depends on them being able to industrialize through capitalism, it would seem that socialism is impossible, or something that can only be enjoyed by advanced countries - not a happy conclusion. The second issue is whether, even if a country like Nepal did manage to industrialize, that would allow it to develop socialism, in isolation from the rest of the world. The answer that Trotsky gives to this issue in Results and Prospects is that the need for international revolution is not only applicable for underdeveloped countries like India but actually applies to every country, because even the most advanced countries are part of the international division of labour, which means that, even if their economies are more diverse than dependent countries, and even if their citizens generally enjoy a slightly higher standard of living, their economies are still specialized to some degree, and geographically speaking they do not contain every natural resource that man currently uses to produce goods and services, such that there is no individual country capable of satisfying the range of human needs that would need to be satisfied in order to prevent the resurgence of class divisions.

The lesson that we draw from these issues is that socialism will be international, or it will not be at all. As I mentioned in my previous post, talk of countries needing to undergo capitalist development overlooks the fact that capitalism can only be understood by grasping the dynamics that link countries together and make them dependent on each other, as well as overlooking the fact that, on an international scale, capitalism has already created the basis for socialism, and stopped being useful from that perspective a long time ago.


Marx understood that each country had developed at a different pace and thus when he talked of revolution he talked about the internal process of itI'm not sure what you mean. Marx was certainly aware that capitalism was an international system even in his own day. He wrote extensively on the British exploitation of India as well as the role of imperialism in shaping the political development of China, and, despite not having the same awareness as Trotsky of how capitalism would lead to the integration of the world into a single economic unit, was always a persistent advocate of world revolution, and internationalism, which led to him supporting the independence struggle in Ireland on the grounds that doing so was necessary to break the hold of English landowners, as well as to diminish the chauvinism of the English working class, putting Marx at odds with the societal attitudes of his day. Engels presented the first precise formulation of why socialism must be international from an economic standpoint, when, in The Principles of Communism, he noted that:


Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
This analysis, particularly the first paragraph, was itself derived from an observation that Marx made, as follows: “a development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise (of Communism), because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive.” The old crap that Marx is talking about here is primarily class divisions and all the problems we associate with capitalism, and from this statement it is clear that Marx did not believe it was possible to build socialism unless the forces of production had developed to a level that would allow man's basic needs to be addressed, given an equitable distribution of wealth, and the democratic management of the economy. In this respect Marx was distinguishing himself from other socialists who romanticized pre-capitalist societies and sought to restrict the speed of capitalist development in favour of retaining artisan production, which offered the labourer a limited degree of autonomy, by allowing him to organize his own workshop as he saw fit, in contrast to the discipline workers experienced in factories under advanced capitalism. If you acknowledge that capitalism's productive apparatus is international in nature then it is only a short step from Marx's observation to the principle that socialism must be international, which is exactly what Engels (and Trotsky) did.


I still feel as though the more traditional Marxist line that a massive proletariat will topple a powerful bourgeoisie is the only formula that is really likely to succeed.
Interestingly, Marx initially believed that socialism in Russia would come about through the traditional peasant commune, the mir. He explained this view in the Russian language preface to an edition of The Communist Manifesto if I remember correctly. He later changed his views and argued as a matter of general principle that only the working class has the power to overthrow capitalism and introduce a classless society due to its central role in capitalist production, and the collective interests that arise from workers labouring together in large units of production.


The only problem is that it was mainly internal party politics that took down the Russian's, not the economy.In what way do you see the Bolsheviks as being undemocratic, and at what point in history was this the case? Or do you think all of the Bolsheviks were always undemocratic?

[cameron222]

what do people in this thread think of the socialist party of great britain?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Trotsky was a Menshivist, after his split with Lenin, then a "non-factional social democrat" after some issues arose...but I'm not sure if he was anti-bolshevik because he stopepd supportign the mensheviks because they didn't want to reconcile with the bolsheviks and lenin

[KC]

Trotsky was a Menshivist, after his split with Lenin

The split wasn't consolidated into Bolshevik/Menshevik factions at this time so this weak attempt at slander doesn't hold.

[chebol]

Devrim wrote of Bolshevism:

"But one must recognize that people did define themselves as being in opposition to it;"

Yes, and there were (and are) people who called themselves "Marxists" who nevertheless misinterpreted, caricatured and distorted Marx's ideas in his name.

Going back on topic, I actually think peope should differentiate between "communist 'non-bolshevism'", and "'communist' anti-bolshevism", as there is a fair degree of difference between the two.

Under the first I place firmly council communists, christian communists, utopian socialists, etc. However, I'd argue that - at its heart, bolshevism was *essentially* Marxism as applied to Russia (and therefore not applicble elsewhere). Did aspects of bolshevism fail and get distorted in Russia? Certainly. But to no greater - nor lesser - degree than aspects of Marxism did.

The second is reserved for friendly groups such as the Stalinists (Stalin did a tidy job killing off as many of the original bolsheviks as he could get his bloodstained hands on), many Mensheviks, and a fair number of utopian socialists as well, amongst others.

[Lyev]

I guess, fundamentally, it boils down to one simple question; do you prefer the moustache of Stalin or the beard of Trotsky?

[Pogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

Main branches libertarian marxism (luxemburgism) & libertarian communism (anarchist,council, etc)

Libetarian marxism and libertarian communism are not branches of left communism.

[Pogue]

Could we say that Leninism = Bolshevism?

I would say so.

[Pogue]

And an example of communist anti-Bolshevism would be anarchism, luxemburgism, etc. Basically anyone whoa dvocated communist revolution and party organisation in a way opposed to the Bolshevik model.

[Devrim]

Devrim wrote of Bolshevism:

"But one must recognize that people did define themselves as being in opposition to it;"

Yes, and there were (and are) people who called themselves "Marxists" who nevertheless misinterpreted, caricatured and distorted Marx's ideas in his name.

It all depends on your political view point, who you think are the distorters though. I, for example, think that Stalinists and Maoists are, and that Mattick, who wrote the book 'Anti-Bolshevik Communism' was a genuine Marxist. Your view might be different.

However, I'd argue that - at its heart, bolshevism was *essentially* Marxism as applied to Russia (and therefore not applicble elsewhere). Did aspects of bolshevism fail and get distorted in Russia? Certainly. But to no greater - nor lesser - degree than aspects of Marxism did.[/QUOTE]

But surely the whole point of Lenin's 'Left-Wing communism...' was that the lessons of October were universal and the tactics of Bolshevism need to be universally applied.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Rosa Luxemburg wasn't an anti-Bolshevik, and in fact sided with Lenin's line in the key debates during the run-up to WWI. IIRC, she disagreed with Lenin when it came to imperialism and the national question, but it's far more viable to call her a "non-Bolshevik" than an "anti-Bolshevik" from everything I've seen. That being said, Luxemburg and the Bolsheviks were part of the same general camp in the Second International, and that should not be forgotten.

[Devrim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism)

Main branches libertarian marxism (luxemburgism) & libertarian communism (anarchist,council, etc) Libetarian marxism and libertarian communism are not branches of left communism.

With 'libertarian communism' you are certainly right. The term has a long pedigree of use in anarchist circles.

Libertarian Marxism to me seems like a term anarchists have invented to characterise Marxism they like, and doesn't really have a historical tradition within Marxism.

Council Communists are definitely left communists in the broader sense.

Devrim