Anti-Imperialism from the Left-Communist POV

[Raúl Duke]

Ok, I bet this question was asked before (perhaps)...

I know that the Left-Communists are against the usual forms of anti-imperialism in particular those types of perspectives that usually leads leftists to support a reactionary organization (such as the controversial support for Hamas and the surreal support for Ahmedinejad/Iran's Islamic Republic against the people of Iran).

But do Left-Communists have a more specific anti-imperialist view (they probably don't call it "anti-imperialism" but what's their take on imperialism and would they support a proletariat left movement in an area subjugated by imperialism that both fought against its native bourgeoisie [not with] and imperialism) at all?

Basically, I'm just asking for their thoughts and overview on this subject.

[MilitantWorker]

I'm in a rush so I'll just answer you in brief.

You're correct in thinking left-communists don't support "anti-imperialist" organizations because the international proletarian struggle against capitalism is by it's very nature a struggle against imperialism. "Anti-imperialist" organizations and activists are just "the left wing of capital" and the bourgeoisie esp. in countries like Venezuela.


imperialism dominates the entire planet in this epoch

read this if you're interested: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/019/on-imperialism

[Revy]

Well, take for example, the thread on the Lisbon Treaty. A left communist barged in, and demanded that communists tell the workers to not vote at all instead of voting No.

I can not entertain that kind of moralism but for some reason it emanates so strongly from left communism.

Left communists see themselves as the only true communists. They have taken everything revolutionary and molded it into a fundamentalist ideology, where all the socialist/communist parties and groups constitute the left wing of political capitalism. So I don't think they can lead anything.

[willdw79]

Groups have differing views. One groups says,"[We do] not take sides in bosses' battles. We support the human rights of Palestinians, for instance, but our line is that workers have no stake in some internecine ruling-class dogfight between Hamas, Fatah, and the Israeli government. Instead, working class Palestinians and Israelis need to unite in solidarity and smash all of these gangs of bosses. Same deal with Iraq. Many, many groups talk a great deal about supporting "the Iraqi resistance." What you never hear is about supporting the Iraqi working class who is undergoing wholesale slaughter not only by US and allied imperialists, but by various "resistance" factions and religious extremists."

I think the unpopularity of this type of line highlights a fault of the left which is that groups want to have a dog in every fight. However, in some fights everyone is a loser.

[Revy]

@Stancel: Left communists don't see themselves as the only "true communists". The fact is most of the left support one or the other bourgeois camp and very few actually do support the working class and so left communists reject "leftism" as such.

socialist, I know the ICC is not the only left communist group, but here (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions) is what they say:


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.Emphasis mine.

[MilitantWorker]

Left communists believe that in the current era, all capitalist states are imperialist.

I agree. It's not even an issue of isms/tendencies. I would add that all states in the capitalist era of human development have been imperialist.

Obviously, for nation-states certain resources are in many cases limited and you need to find markets to extract raw materials from and markets to sell exports to. This usually amounts to vulgar exploitation of certain less developed parts of the world where the workers haven't secured basic rights that Western workers have such as 8 hour work day, overtime pay, workers comp, social security, etc.

This all ties into the current crisis because what were seeing is the failure of capitalism to provide workers in third world countries with the concessions, thus bringing the working class and the bourgeoisie into direct confrontation on certain shop floors and industries.


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.I don't see why this is so shocking or controversial. I think that criticisms in general about this postition stem from fundamental misconceptions about the vanguard, the party, and what role the working class plays in the revolutionary process.

Marx said that the working class was the "living negation" to capital and the bourgeoisie, and that it was "the task of the workers themselves" to bring revolutionary change to society. He was very explicit about the role of communist in relation to the class struggle, and how revolutionaries should intervene in their own daily lives on apart of the interests of the workers.

It's not even a matter of who is a "true communist" or not, I'm sure everyone would be on the side of the workers in will. Certain organizations view the role of the revolutionary party as a monolithic social institution that assumes the role of the state after the revolution. The goal is to wither away the state and begin establishing communism. If the line between the party and the state is blurred, what social institution makes sure that certain opportunists (capitalist or otherwise) don't attempt to hijack the state?-- a la Stalin, Trotsky, Kim Jong-Il, Castro, or whoever the fuck else.

Understand and except that the revolutionary party is an international organization with the intent of spreading the struggle. If you except and understand that it's role is one of facilitation and coordination because the workers must lead themselves, than why are you shocked when certain left communist hold the position that the Bob Avakian's and the Prachanda's of the world are opportunist left factions of the bourgeoisie, and in relation to the workers, just wolves in sheeps clothing........?

[willdw79]

Quote:
Originally posted by Stancel
socialist, I know the ICC is not the only left communist group, but here is what they say:

I read their website. It appears that they believe they are not a faction. I can't help but wonder why so many leftist groups form artificial divides between each other over trivial things.

[revolution inaction]

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.

apart from the word "equally" and the thing about "official anarchists" whatever they are, i basically agree, although i dislike the way the icc phrase things, it makes capitalism sound like a conspiracy. Not that there aren't conspiracies by capitalist before they say anything.

[revolution inaction]

I read their website. It appears that they believe they are not a faction. I can't help but wonder why so many leftist groups form artificial divides between each other over trivial things.

what do you mean?

[willdw79]

what do you mean?
There are many more, but they say:

The conditions for becoming an ICC militant

The process of integrating new militants into a political organisation depends first of all on the class nature of this organisation. In bourgeois parties (for example the Stalinist parties), it is enough just to take your membership card and pay your dues to be member of the organisation. Militants of this type of organisation are not involved with developing the consciousness of the working class; on the contrary, their task is to derail the workers' awareness onto a bourgeois terrain, especially at election times.
For a revolutionary organisation, that is to say an organisation that really defends the perspective of the proletariat (the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a world communist society), the role of the militant is radically different. Their goal is not to make a career as a representative of this or that faction of capital, or to stick up posters for electoral campaigns, but to contribute to the development of consciousness in the working class. As Marx and Engels affirmed in the Communist Manifesto, "the communists have this advantage over the rest of the proletariat, that they have a clear understanding of the conditions, the line of march and the general results of the proletarian movement". This is why the militants of a revolutionary organisation have to be involved in a continuous process of raising their own level of consciousness.


AND


* 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 don't know how they came to these conclusions, but it seems like such a limited perspective that if there ever were some kind of communist revolution they would not only have all the answers, but they would also be hostile toward divergent thinkers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence i.e. "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". Kinda seems like they are doing the divisive work of COINTELPRO.

[Pogue]

They don't believe they are the only realc ommunists. I think they believe that what constitutes a true working class revolutionary is anyone who doesn't betray the working class through actions or words such as siding with one side of the bourgeoisie in inter-imperialist conflicts.

[MilitantWorker]

@WildW79:

The ICC and the IBRP are two "tendencies" or "fractions" within the left communist camp who have historical roots tracing back to the Third International and before, especially various Italian and Dutch/German sections of the communist left. Therefore to view them as petty groups not to be taken seriously is a mistake. I agree the ICC's rhetoric can get heavy sometimes, but if you were in contact with the group you would know that they are very serious and committed worker/revolutionaries doing serious political work on top of wage-earning. The goal is to have something akin to the first international in marx's time...

Left communism is just political workers opposition to Stalinism and state capitalism in general. We criticize the Bolsheviks and break with them altogether sometime between WWI and WWII. No one is saying that they are the only "true communists" lol. We're just suggesting that theres a correct path/process/movement to workers revolution and thats the one decided by the workers and dictated by crisis and necessesity-- but we have to learn from past mistakes and clarify political theory over and over because the bourgeoisie is constantly shit-slinging.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't find left-communists to be any more dogmatic than any other strain of self-proclaimed communists.

From Leninists pretending that the Trade Union bureaucrats can offer something progressive to the Maoists ignoring the plight of 'first world' workers. In fact looking around the left, between the 'We're all Hizbollah now!' placards and 'Viva Chavez' chants, I think the coherent analysis regarding anti-imperialism of the left-communists is a breath of fresh air!

[9]

Every "official" tendency thinks they're the "real communists".
Which is why official tendencies are obnoxious and increasingly counterproductive.

...I realize this doesn't address the OP's broader question, but I couldn't resist.

[mreyda]

"Anti-imperialism", also know as the right of nations to self detrmination, means that the people who live in a nation have the right to determine the future of their nation, without interference from foreign governments. It's really that simple.
Communists should not take sides in disputes between different factions of the bourgeosie in a foreign nation, such as the US and England are doing in Iran right now.
We support the working-class movements in those nations when one exists. And even when there is no working-class movement, we support the nationalists in so far as they fight for the right of self-determination for the nation. But our support ends there.
For example, a communist opposes the war in Iraq. Not because we supported the policies or actions of Saddam Hussein (in fact the communist was quite opposed to his government and would offer support to the Iraqi working class in opposition to his regime), but because we believe that the nation of Iraq has the right to make their own decisions without English and American guns at their heads.
In Iran, the communist takes no sides in the disputre between two factions of the ruling class there. (Although lots of people who call themselves communists or socialists have taken sides, often different ones.) However, we adamantly oppose any and all intervention by the imperialist powers in the internal affaits of Iran. Meanwhile, we offer support where possible to the working class movements in Iran in their fight against the ruling class there.

[JimmyJazz]

This might be helpful:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/299/what-is-imperialism

I think that essay has some interesting things to say, but I could never get past the ridiculousness of this overstatement:


it is impossible to make a distinction between oppressor and oppressed states.

[Q]

^ I don't see it anywhere saying "We're the only true communists"?
A simple matter of deduction. If you exclude every other communist tendency as being the "leftwing of the bourgeoisie" then you remain as the only "true communists".

[Niccolò Rossi]

Before I reply to the actual substance of the thread and the OP, some clarifications:


Well, take for example, the thread on the Lisbon Treaty. A left communist barged in, and demanded that communists tell the workers to not vote at all instead of voting No.

That 'left communist' has a username.

Also, I did not 'barge' into the thread. Last time I checked this was a public forum for individuals who identify with the revolutionary left, used to discuss and debate practical and theoretical matters of political importance, not a circle of leftists advocating the 'No' Vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If you want to pat each other on the back with inane comments of mutual agreement, make a user group. Until then I will continue to intervene as I see it fit.

More importantly though, what does this even have to do with the OP?


I can not entertain that kind of moralism but for some reason it emanates so strongly from left communism.


Not moralism; communism.


Left communists see themselves as the only true communists. They have taken everything revolutionary and molded it into a fundamentalist ideology, where all the socialist/communist parties and groups constitute the left wing of political capitalism. So I don't think they can lead anything.

I don't think the best way to describe the role that left communists see themselves as having is 'as the only true communists', though I think there is a kernel of truth to the statement. On this matter it's important to remember that the ICC upholds the conception of a 'proletarian political milieu' which includes other groups of the communist left aswell as others, including certain anarchists.

Also, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. And once again, what does this have to do with the OP?


Left communists believe that in the current era, all capitalist states are imperialist.

I think we need to be a bit more careful in saying this. Whilst this may be a more-or-less accurate description of the conception of the ICC and it's immediate political heritage, other groups within the communist left do not hold this view. The IBRP for example, along with the various Bordigists, continue to uphold Lenin's analysis of imperialism (minus the political conclusions which followed from it).


apart from the word "equally" and the thing about "official anarchists" whatever they are, i basically agree, although i dislike the way the icc phrase things, it makes capitalism sound like a conspiracy. Not that there aren't conspiracies by capitalist before they say anything.

On 'Official Anarchists', it is a term used to refer to those anarchists who went over to the side of the bourgeoisie and 'defense of the fatherland' during the world wars. On conspiratorial language, yes, I actually agree (though this is another matter entirely). As some have mentioned, I think there are always problems with the use of language, these are just things which always need to be worked on.


I don't know how they came to these conclusions, but it seems like such a limited perspective that if there ever were some kind of communist revolution they would not only have all the answers, but they would also be hostile toward divergent thinkers.

If this is the impression, I think this is a false one. The ICC does not have 'all the answers'. Contrary to various Bordigist groups which do uphold such dogmatic notions (ie. the 'invariance' of the communist programme), I think it is fair to say that the ICC sees it as a living entity and acknowledges the importance of it's clarification and the deepening of class consciousness.

Also, the hostility toward stalinism and other ideologies of capital's political left wing, does not mean a hostility toward divergances or disagreements of opinion.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence i.e. "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".

The Basic Positions of the ICC (the document where you sourced the quote from) does not provide the medium for elaborating this position. For this purpose I would point you towards International Review (Quarterly Theoretical Journal of the ICC), most issues of which is archived on the website. Use the google search function on the right hand side or the site map link on the left hand side to help find your way around.


Kinda seems like they are doing the divisive work of COINTELPRO.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

EDIT: Tommorow afternoon I will get back to the OP and other related material. Right now I have to run to work and tommorow morning got to be out of the house early. Watch this space!

[willdw79]

Quote:
Originally Posted by willdw79
Kinda seems like they are doing the divisive work of COINTELPRO.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

When I say kinda seems like, I think I am not making an extraordinary claim. However, one of the aims of COINTELPRO was to factionalize the left. The things that I read on their site that I cited above support the position that I have that they are, at least in their rhetoric divisive. I believe in constructive criticism, but mal-aligning so many groups with the bourgoisie is an attempt to cause fissures amongst Marxists. I agree with almost all of what I read there, except where the analysis leads them, that is to dysphemisms and name-calling. The evidence I believe, is clearly posted on their website.

[Tower of Bebel]

I see the whole imperialism debate (at least the tactical implications of it) more or less as a theoretical justification, and also as a response to the failure of (official) Communism to solve the problem of bureaucratization.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I'm not worried about leftist tendencies who regularly manifest their bourgeois nature.
As we can see, left communists finally showed their true nature.

[Leo]

There was nothing hidden about our approach anyway. We always said what we thought about bourgeois leftist tendencies, such as the Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, bourgeois anarchists, social democrats and so forth and we will continue to do so. This does not mean that we do not engage in discussion with open elements adhering to these ideologies but we never hid and will never hide our criticisms.

This being said, the ICC does not see itself as the only revolutionary, the only "true communist" organization and has never done so also. There are numerous other organizations which we regard as revolutionaries, communists and militants of which we regard as comrades. Some of these organizations are left communist, some are anarchists, some are councilists, some do not specifically claim heritage from a specific tradition and so forth. There is something in common in our opinion among all these different organizations which we regard as revolutionary: that they are genuine internationalists, that they are against participation in organs of the bourgeois state, that they do not support bourgeois states and factions, that they are for genuine working class emancipation.

Organizations of the bourgeois left, in our opinion, do not fall into this category due to their political and ideological positions. To leftists whining about us considering ourself to be the only communists: just because we consider your politics to be bourgeois does not mean that we consider that of all existing groups to be as such.

Internationalist positions are irreconcilable with bourgeois positions. One can not reconcile what is irreconcilable.

[red cat]

From Leninists pretending that the Trade Union bureaucrats can offer something progressive to the Maoists ignoring the plight of 'first world' workers. In fact looking around the left, between the 'We're all Hizbollah now!' placards and 'Viva Chavez' chants, I think the coherent analysis regarding anti-imperialism of the left-communists is a breath of fresh air!

The claim concerning Maoists is false.

[superiority]

The claim concerning Maoists is false.

Maoists are of course not a monolith, but it is certainly not unheard-of for Maoist groups to assert that the 'working class' in first-world countries is in fact a 'labour aristocracy' that has been bought off (with high wages, social benefits, cheap consumer products, etc.) by the national bourgeoisie using superprofits gained in the hyper-exploitation of the third-world working class. The theory goes that the so-called working class of developed countries therefore has in interest in maintaining the hyper-exploitation and therefore an interest in maintaining the imperialist capitalist system. Thus, the working class of first-world countries is not a revolutionary class. This was one of the central tenets of the (bizarre, hilarious, and, I would hazard, not representative) Maoist Internationalist Movement, sadly now defunct. This weblog (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/) adheres to this theory, and links to a bunch of other organisations and blogs that agree with it on that and other points.

[Luís Henrique]

I think at least some left-communists confuse two different things.

One is the fact that imperialism is a world system.

Other is the idea that since imperialism is a world system, all the different national bourgeoisies cooperate within the frame of this system.

The first thing is a material fact that has to be understood by anyone attempting a Marxist analysis of capitalism. The second is a false idea (the Kautskyite notion of "superimperialism") that is incompatible with Marxism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

To point out, this isn't a Left Communist thesis.
No it isn't, nor I said it was.

In arguing, however, some left-communists seem to forget this when debating other positions, and put forward the idea that the reason there are no longer progressist bourgeois factions is that they "are all the same". This commonly is substituted for concrete, material analysis.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Moralism is [whatever whomever else does].

Moralism is believing that a movement by reactionary students has "inscribed itself in the struggle of the working class".

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

, all the different national bourgeoisies cooperate within the frame of this system.



On the contrary, the reason why imperialism can throw humanity into a catastrophic state is because the tendency of the bourgeois class to go to war. While in the current epoch, war between big imperialist blocs is not the trend, civil war, whether between the state and the narcos or between two african guerrillas is.

[Luís Henrique]

Nope, that's just an incorrect analysis (AFAIK, one which neither Leo nor Devrim agreed with?), and one which was recognized as such. Name any tendency and I will name a dozen mistakes, problems and criticisms. Thankfully, we can learn from our mistakes, since otherwise Marxism would be dogma and not a method of analysis. Nevertheless, I think that Left Communists generally avoid proscribing a revolutionary view to non-revolutionary organization x, merely because x organization opposes y 'enemy.' At the very least, they have a better record than most Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and anarchists.

As far as I know, devrim didn't agree with it; Leo did. I have never seen any recognition of this "incorrectness", though I have seen a reafirmation of it.

Evidently, there is a difference between "mistake" and "treason". But it is a quantitative difference for starters; "treason" is nothing else than the accumulation and systematisation of "mistakes".

I don't know whether left-communists generally avoid such mistakes or not. I have read the bordiguist critique of this ICC "mistake", and, besides being devastating, it seems to point that that was not an exceptional event.

Left-communists may have a better record than most Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and anarchists. But since the accusation made by left-communists isn't that those other tendencies are proletarian tendencies that make mistakes, but that they are "the left wing of capital", having a better record than them means nothing.

The overall arrogance is incompatible with an organisation that mistakes a petty-bourgeois movement openly calling for an "anti-crime" crackdown on the slums for something progressive. Heck, it isn't compatible with an organisation made up from common mortals.

The central problem, to me, seems to be here:


Actually, I tend to agree with this and I have raised this with several Left Communists myself - that 'decadence' slogans replace real concrete analysis and political judgments of whatever situation.

This is no longer a "mistake", but a system to make mistakes. Materialism pressuposes concrete analysis; baseless generalisations are the "terrain" of the idealist.

I have seen that many Trotskyist tendencies do substitute the "general crisis of capitalism in the epoch of its decadence" for a real analysis of capitalist economy, and, more problematicly, for a materialist analysis of streght correlations.

I fear left-communists aren't much different. Capitalism is in agony since 1914 (which contradicts any material analysis of the 1945-1973 period); thence a proletarian revolution is at hand; so, if it doesn't happen, it is the fault of the leadership, which "betrayed" the revolution. Sorry but this isn't appealing at all.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

On the contrary, the reason why imperialism can throw humanity into a catastrophic state is because the tendency of the bourgeois class to go to war. While in the current epoch, war between big imperialist blocs is not the trend, civil war, whether between the state and the narcos or between two african guerrillas is.

Don't quote me the way you did - I never argued what you are criticising.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

I fear left-communists aren't much different. Capitalism is in agony since 1914 (which contradicts any material analysis of the 1945-1973 period); thence a proletarian revolution is at hand; so, if it doesn't happen, it is the fault of the leadership, which "betrayed" the revolution. Sorry but this isn't appealing at all.

Luís Henrique

Decadence does not mean that at all. Our slogan is socialism or barbarism, not socialism or socialism. There is a big possibility there wont be a workers revolution at all. What decadence signals is the idea that capitalism is not progressive any more and it makes very little sense to work through its organs, like the parliament or the trade union.

[black magick hustla]

Don't quote me the way you did - I never argued what you are criticising.

Luís Henrique

Yeah but you were saying us left communists have that analysis, which we don´t.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah but you were saying us left communists have that analysis, which we don´t.

Then show us how you don't have such analysis, don't criticise it as if it was my analysis.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

There is a big possibility there wont be a workers revolution at all.

And what is the base of such possibility?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

Then show us how you don't have such analysis, don't criticise it as if it was my analysis.

Luís Henrique

I already showed you what is oour analysis - that is why I "quoted you". You are burning a huge strawman at the stake. We do not think there is some sort of super imperialism. We survived two world wars, why would we think otherwise? In fact, today, after the fall of the USSR, a lot of divisions have been exarberated because there has been an inability for boss factions to form super imperialist blocs.

[black magick hustla]

And what is the base of such possibility?

Luís Henrique

Human history is not teleological. To speak of this utopia that awaits us is just St. Agustin talking.

[Luís Henrique]

Human history is not teleological. To speak of this utopia that awaits us is just St. Agustin talking.
But you do agree that the material conditions for a proletarian revolution are laid out, don't you?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

What does that even mean? Capitalism globalized the world and created two big important classes. In that sense, it is the "age of proletarian revolutions or imperialist war". The failure of revolutions has very little to do whether the leadership was maoist or not. It has to do with both the nature of the movement and the state of the world at that particular period. The working class in China was defeated in 1927 when Chiang Kai sheck, with the approval of Mao, liquidated the shanghai commune leadership.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/china-march-1927

[Leo]

Moralism is [whatever whomever else does]. Moralism is believing that a movement by reactionary students has "inscribed itself in the struggle of the working class".Except you are making a biased distortion. Calling people reactionary without basing it on an analysis does not make those people reactionary. Claiming that people supported reactionaries does not make it the case either. There was an analysis, based on what comrades on the ground saw. Among the things they saw was also principled communist intervention as well as anarchist intervention against both factions of the bourgeoisie in student assemblies, and those arguing that the students should move towards the proletariat and so forth. In any case for people interested in the analysis in question:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/student-protests-venezuela
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/students-may-2007

Saying all the students in Venezuela who tried to distance themselves from both the Chavez government and the opposition - whether entirely succesful or not - are all reactionaries is not that different from saying all the demonstrators in Iran were reactionaries and lackeys of liberal and Western imperialist forces.


I don't know whether left-communists generally avoid such mistakes or not. I have read the bordiguist critique of this ICC "mistake", and, besides being devastating, it seems to point that that was not an exceptional event.Actually the main argument the Bordigist piece was making was that all students were children of the rich and so forth. Yes, the Bordigists tend to accuse the ICC of supporting student movements in general, all of which they see as petty-bourgeoisie. One significant criticism as such came in relation to ICC's support of the May 68 also, I think there was one regarding the Anti-CPE events also and if Bordigists have published since the December of 2008, I'd expect there to be about the Greek events.


Left-communists may have a better record than most Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and anarchists. But since the accusation made by left-communists isn't that those other tendencies are proletarian tendencies that make mistakes, but that they are "the left wing of capital", having a better record than them means nothing.Actually, despite our general criticism of anarchism, we think that some of the anarchists are genuinely internationalist and revolutionary and see them as comrades. We also think that, while Trotskyism as a general ideology is in our opinion bourgeois, the left opposition started off as a proletarian, if opportunist and sectarian still, opposition to Stalinism and elements that split from it over the question WW2 and took an internationalist position, like FOR led by Grandizo Munis, Aghis Stinas' Internationalist Communist Union in Greece, Zheng Chaolin's internationalist organization in China, the Johnson-Forrest tendency in the US and so forth were/(most) remnants of which still are, despite having aspects of their thought which we critize, internationalist and proletarian tendencies.

As for Stalinism and Maoism - to the devil with them.


which contradicts any material analysis of the 1945-1973 periodYet how can you say this while you are aware of an extensive and detailed discussion going exactly on that topic without bothering to actually trying to refute the numerous explanations produced by militants in our organization?

[Luís Henrique]

What does that even mean? Capitalism globalized the world and created two big important classes. In that sense, it is the "age of proletarian revolutions or imperialist war". The failure of revolutions has very little to do whether the leadership was maoist or not. It has to do with both the nature of the movement and the state of the world at that particular period. The working class in China was defeated in 1927 when Chiang Kai sheck, with the approval of Mao, liquidated the shanghai commune leadership.
So?

Either there are material conditions for a proletarian revolution, or there are not. If there are, failure of revolution cannot be blamed on material conditions. Somebody did something wrong. Who?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Except you are making a biased distortion. Calling people reactionary without basing it on an analysis does not make those people reactionary. Claiming that people supported reactionaries does not make it the case either. There was an analysis, based on what comrades on the ground saw. Among the things they saw was also principled communist intervention as well as anarchist intervention against both factions of the bourgeoisie in student assemblies, and those arguing that the students should move towards the proletariat and so forth.

Yeah. What I am saying is simple:

The analysis was wrong. Either because "what comrades on the ground saw" wasn't actually happening, or because what they saw was analysed in a wrong way - probably because the method and instruments of analysis were inadequate.


Saying all the students in Venezuela who tried to distance themselves from both the Chavez government and the opposition - whether entirely succesful or not - are all reactionaries is not that different from saying all the demonstrators in Iran were reactionaries and lackeys of liberal and Western imperialist forces.

That's why I never said that all students in Venezuela who took part in the movement are reactionaries. What I said was completely different: the movement was reactionary. Regardless of subjective commitments, of course.


Actually the main argument the Bordigist piece was making was that all students were children of the rich and so forth. Yes, the Bordigists tend to accuse the ICC of supporting student movements in general, all of which they see as petty-bourgeoisie. One significant criticism as such came in relation to ICC's support of the May 68 also, I think there was one regarding the Anti-CPE events also and if Bordigists have published since the December of 2008, I'd expect there to be about the Greek events.


This is of course a caricature of the Bordigist analysis, which relies much more in the actual content of the movement's actual demands.

But hey, caricaturing the position of others is OK. It's only our own positions that must never be misrepresented.


Yet how can you say this while you are aware of an extensive and detailed discussion going exactly on that topic without bothering to actually trying to refute the numerous explanations produced by militants in our organization?
Why should I be aware of this extensive and detailed discussion?

To me, any earnest material analysis of the 1945-1973 period directly contradicts any claim that capitalism has lost its ability to foster the development of productive forces in 1914 - or 1938 for that matter.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Yeah. What I am saying is simple:

The analysis was wrong. Either because "what comrades on the ground saw" wasn't actually happening, or because what they saw was analysed in a wrong way - probably because the method and instruments of analysis were inadequate.You are, of course, entitled to think what you wish - doesn't make what you think right though.


This is of course a caricature of the Bordigist analysis, which relies much more in the actual content of the movement's actual demands.Well, what you are referring to was relying on some things some dubious so-called "prominent leaders" said about what was going on. It is not a caricature either, this was really the basis on which the Bordigist movements criticized the ICC (or organizations that were to become parts of the ICC) ever since May 68.


Why should I be aware of this extensive and detailed discussion?Because the issue came up a quite a short time ago, I gave you the links and you thanked me for them saying you will read the articles?

[black magick hustla]

So?

Either there are material conditions for a proletarian revolution, or there are not. If there are, failure of revolution cannot be blamed on material conditions. Somebody did something wrong. Who?

Luís Henrique

Again, what does it mean "there are material condition s for a proletarian revolution"? Proletarian revolution is both possible (for the simple fact there is an international working class), and perhaps, necessary if we want to avoid a global catastrophe. You are trying to pidgeonhole me in the silly philosophical talk of free will and determinism. What do I know about maoism, stalinism, social democracy,etc is that they presented themselves as the counterrevolution. Beyond that, I don't blame. I won't blame atoms. nor movements. I'll leave that to vulgar materialists and christians.

[Luís Henrique]

You are, of course, entitled to think what you wish - doesn't make what you think right though.

Yes. This is the case for everybody.


Well, what you are referring to was relying on some things some dubious so-called "prominent leaders" said about what was going on. It is not a caricature either, this was really the basis on which the Bordigist movements criticized the ICC (or organizations that were to become parts of the ICC) ever since May 68.

The following quote seems to me the kernel of the critique of the Bordigists; it is centered on the actual demands of the movement, not in its social compostion (rather it seems to deduct the social composition from the demands):


En Venezuela, la decisión del 27 de mayo contra RCTV provocaba al día siguiente movilizaciones estudiantiles en protestas que se extenderán a todo el país. Lanzadas al comienzo por estudiantes de las universidades privadas (católicas) y autónomas más prestigiosas, apoyadas por sus profesores y dirigentes, el movimiento iba a durar hasta que terminaran las clases y llegaran las vacaciones... Además de la defensa de la autonomía universitaria [en realidad esta «autodeterminación» o autonomía es sólo una ficción que disimula muy mal el hecho de que ella es «determinada» por las subvenciones y diversas ayudas financieras aportadas por las empresas privadas y/o estatales], para este movimiento la cuestión se centraba en las reivindicaciones democráticas típicas de este género de movimiento pequeño-burgués: por la libertad de expresión, la reconciliación nacional, el bien de la patria, llorando inconsolablemente por la democracia, clamando por la paz (no es por azar si uno de los símbolos del movimiento son las manos blancas). Ubicada entre las dos clases opuestas por excelencia (proletariado-burguesía, capital-trabajo), y cuyo conflicto amenaza en todo momento con barrerla, la pequeña burguesía aspira a la paz social, a la reconciliación de los intereses de clases antagónicas en nombre del «interés general», del interés supremo de la nación, cosa común a todos ? y en tal caso se cuadran con la gran burguesía. «No se puede continuar aceptando la concepción miope de que la pequeña burguesía tiene por principio hacer triunfar un interés egoista de clase, escribe Marx en «El Dieciocho Brumario de Luis Bonaparte» (...) Al contrario, ella cree que sus particulares condiciones de liberación representan las condiciones de liberación de todos, fuera de las cuales la sociedad moderna no podrá ser salvada ni la lucha de clases evitada» Movilizándose por la defensa de la RCTV y la democracia, los estudiantes afirmaban querer «salvar a Venezuela», precisando que ellos no hacían política: «¡No somos socialistas, somos seres sociales; no somos neo liberales, sino seres libres; no hacemos oposición, sino proposiciones!», etc., etc.


Because the issue came up a quite a short time ago, I gave you the links and you thanked me for them saying you will read the articles?
Oh, sorry, I have completely forgotten this. I will take a look at the discussion, and post my comments on it asap.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Again, what does it mean "there are material condition s for a proletarian revolution"?

In short, it means that the productive level attained by capitalism is sufficiently high to allow for a considerable reduction of work hours, which in turn is an absolute necessity if the working class is going to become the ruling class.


You are trying to pidgeonhole me in the silly philosophical talk of free will and determinism.

Wow. Sorry, but this isn't even remotely relevant to this discussion.

Luís Henrique

[zimmerwald1915]

Left communists see themselves as the only true communists. They have taken everything revolutionary and molded it into a fundamentalist ideology, where all the socialist/communist parties and groups constitute the left wing of political capitalism. So I don't think they can lead anything.
The basis on which the ICC - as pointed out already, the summary whence comes the quote upon which you're basing your claim is an ICC document and has no bearing on what the IBRP or the PCIs think - substantiates the position of excluding "All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists)" from the proletariat's politics lies rather far back in time. It can be traced to a 1947 conference the Communistenbond "Spartacus" called and in which Gauche Communiste de France, an organization to which the ICC traces its roots, participated. Specifically, it can be traced to the criteria the GCF put forward in determining who should and should not be allowed to take part. They demanded:

The exclusion of the Trotskyist current because of its support for the Russian state and its participation in the imperialist war of 1939-45 on the same side as the democratic and Stalinist imperialist powers.
The exclusion of those anarchists (in particular the French Anarchist Federation) who had taken part in the "Frente Popular" and the capitalist republican government in Spain during 1936-38, as well as the Resistance during 1939-45 under the banner of anti-fascism.
The exclusion of all those groups who, under whatever pretext, had taken part in World War II.
Recognition of the necessity of the "violent destruction of the capitalist state", and so of the historic importance of the 1917 October revolution.
In other words, those groups which supported one imperialism or another, which supported the war, which collaborated with the bourgeoisies in fighting the war, and which therefore abandoned internationalism and the principles of the workers' movement, should no longer be treated as if they hadn't.

The criteria on which the ICC denounces as bourgeois various groups are essentially the same: they support (albeit "critically" in some instances) various imperialist wars, or they attempt to participate in the management of the capitalist state.

[/response to old post]