Two questions about left-communism.

[Lolshevik]

Pardon my ignorance here, everyone. : P

1. Left communists reject parliamentary politics and trade union work. So, what practical activities in the here-and-now do left communists accept & do?

2. What is the difference between the International Communist Current and the IBRP?

[JJM 777]

1. The real far left thinkers want a revolution and nothing less. In their opinion any attempts to make the current system more comfortable for people, eats away people's willingness to start revolution. In their opinion the ideal way to go would be letting the owning class behave as selfishly as they ever want in current politics, so that the society will slide into extreme tyranny of the owning class against the working class, so the great masses of people would finally get totally fed up with it and start a revolution.

This strategy has big practical problems, however. Capitalists are not dummies, they carefully give just enough concessions and carrots to the working class, to keep alive their faith in relative goodness and safety of the current social system. So the expected slide into total tyranny will never happen, because Capitalists carefully avoid it. They know that they can hit the mule only so much, to keep it tamely working without turning against its master.

So the Leftists are mainly discussing and studying Socialist theories, and hoping that some day all this knowledge will be used in real life for some purpose.

2. I have no idea, maybe look from Wikipedia.

[red cat]

In their opinion any attempts to make the current system more comfortable for people, eats away people's willingness to start revolution. In their opinion the ideal way to go would be letting the owning class behave as selfishly as they ever want in current politics, so that the society will slide into extreme tyranny of the owning class against the working class, so the great masses of people would finally get totally fed up with it and start a revolution.



This strategy can also be used to support the rise of fascism and then conveniently disappearing with bribes as the fascists take over.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Pardon my ignorance here, everyone. : P

No need to apologise. We are happy to answer these sort of questions. Thanks for asking them. :)


1. Left communists reject parliamentary politics and trade union work. So, what practical activities in the here-and-now do left communists accept & do?

Though I think one of the ICC comrades on the board can make a more thorough response to this question, I would direct you toward the Basic Positions of the ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions) (my emphasis added):

Our Activity:


Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions.



Organised intervention, united and centralised on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.



The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.


On this question you might also like to see the thread in the Left Communist uder group forum: Left Communist organizing (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=491)

EDIT:


2. What is the difference between the International Communist Current and the IBRP?

I don't have the capacity to provide a proper answer to this question, but to give you a bit on an idea; The IBRP summarised it's key differences with the ICC in the article Comments on the latest crisis of the ICC (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2002-08-01/comments-on-the-latest-crisis-of-the-icc) as: "analysis of the capitalist crisis, conception of historic periods, the transition period, the role and function of the party".

[Niccolò Rossi]

In their opinion any attempts to make the current system more comfortable for people, eats away people's willingness to start revolution. In their opinion the ideal way to go would be letting the owning class behave as selfishly as they ever want in current politics, so that the society will slide into extreme tyranny of the owning class against the working class, so the great masses of people would finally get totally fed up with it and start a revolution.

If 'they' are the communist left, then this is completely incorrect. This is not the position of the communist left in anyway, shape or form.

Without going into this at any length (others are more than welcome to), the position is somewhat the opposite. It is not the ability of the unions and social democracy to 'make the current system more comfortable', thus passifying the working class, that left communists oppose. It is on the contrary, the inability of real and meaningful reform today which dooms them to impotence and out-right counter-revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

A question I'd like to direct at Rex; You ask what work the communist left does, however, you pose the question in terms of their rejection of electoral and union participation.*

For me, this begs a question; It makes me wonder if you can conceive of political work, generally speaking, outside of electralism and the unions. So I ask; what practical activities in the here-and-now does the Socialist Alternative do?

*Something I didn't note before, the abstention from union membership is not a universal tactic. Militants of the ICC abstain from union membership (circumstancial exceptions made, eg. working in a closed shop), however the IBRP by contrast imposes no such requirement upon its militants and sees potential for militants being part of a union. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Lolshevik]

Well, of course, electoral work can't be the focus of a revolutionary party's activity. However, we do utilize it as a tool - not the American section so much, due to our particular circumstances, but other sections do. For example you have the Joe Higgins from the CWI in Ireland, who was in the Irish Parliament and is now an MEP. But the SP of Ireland was not at any point just an appendage of the Higgins campaign.

In our view, running for office does two things. First; it gives you a platform from which to spread socialist ideas amongst a wider-than-usual audience. Nobody wants to hear what Rex Marhiku, communist, has to say. But if I'm Rex Marhiku, candidate for Mayor of Cedar Rapids, suddenly I'm at least a little bit interesting. The second thing is that if one of us is actually elected, we STILL use our position as one of protest - making no compromises with the machines of bourgeois politics, keeping the public well-informed of our expenses and activities, as well as accepting no more of a wage than that of the average skilled worker in the country.

But in addition to electoral activity, I would say our other interventions include: holding of public meetings, solidarity work with striking / occupying workers, protests & street demonstrations, work within the trade unions to dislodge their bureaucratic misleadership & democratize them, and in the countries where we work inside of a mass party... to take basically the same steps we take in the trade unions.

Based on what I've said, how does that compare to the left communist standpoint? It just seems to me like denying parliament, denying the unions, robs you of two very important arenas of struggle. Basically; how do left communists intend to win the "battle of ideas" that Marx spoke about?

[Leo]

2. What is the difference between the International Communist Current and the IBRP?

First of all, there are differences on the organizational question. The ICC is an internationally centralized organization while the IBRP is a body of different sister organizations from different countries like the Internationalist Communist Party of Italy, Communist Workers' Organization in the UK and so forth, all with their different political platforms and so on. This I would say is the main difference.

There is a difference in regards to the analysis of the economics, specifically in regards to the economics of the decadence period. Other differences include the IBRP being slightly less firm on the parliamentary and trade-union position than the ICC (of course they share the basic position) and their attempts to organize factory groups in Italy. Also, while the ICC thinks that there is a proletarian political camp which includes genuinely internationalist and revolutionary organizations and individuals and that the communist party of the future will come from the regroupment of most of these forces while the IBRP sees itself in general as principally the only force capable of taking a central role in the formation of the future world communist party.


Well, of course, electoral work can't be the focus of a revolutionary party's activity. However, we do utilize it as a tool - not the American section so much, due to our particular circumstances, but other sections do. For example you have the Joe Higgins from the CWI in Ireland, who was in the Irish Parliament and is now an MEP. But the SP of Ireland was not at any point just an appendage of the Higgins campaign.

Looking briefly at their website, it seems like more than half of it is about Joe Higgins and parliamentary activity in general. The SP of Ireland could be a few other things also, but being an appendage of the Higgins campaign seems to be among the things it is.

Actually, there is a video there, of Higgins speaking in the European Parliament in the mostly empty parliament, which is an interesting illustration of what a ridiculous circus these institutions are today. Campaigning for and in these institutions does nothing but adds to the legitimacy of the ideology of bourgeois democracy, and a waste of the energies of militant elements who are genuinely disturbed by the capitalist world and do not at all intend to reinforce bourgeois ideology.


But in addition to electoral activity, I would say our other interventions include: holding of public meetings, solidarity work with striking / occupying workers, protests & street demonstrations, work within the trade unions to dislodge their bureaucratic misleadership & democratize them, and in the countries where we work inside of a mass party... to take basically the same steps we take in the trade unions.

Based on what I've said, how does that compare to the left communist standpoint? It just seems to me like denying parliament, denying the unions, robs you of two very important arenas of struggle. Basically; how do left communists intend to win the "battle of ideas" that Marx spoke about?Basically; how do left communists intend to win the "battle of ideas" that Marx spoke about?

By discussing, of course.

Communists using organs of the bourgeois state can bring no help and only harm to the communists being engaged in a principled, honest and effective discussion within their class. As communists, we know that we are not advocates of a grand ideal, but are an organic part of the proletariat that has grasped the historical interests of our class. Whether the rest of our class takes the communists positions seriously or not depends not on whether there is a "socialist MP" in our current epoch, but on the actual level of class struggle, on the current status of the balance of forces between different classes in the society. Hence, what we do is this: recognizing that the only bond we can form with our class, the only manner of being engaged in discussions within our class and participating and intervening in the struggles of our class has to be organic, we say one thing and one thing only: our activity, all our activity has to be based on where the proletariat is. To be able to do this, we have to be in the workplaces, not in the unions; we have to be in the schools, not in the student organizations; we have to be among our class, not in the parliament.

[Niccolò Rossi]

In our view, running for office does two things. First; it gives you a platform from which to spread socialist ideas amongst a wider-than-usual audience. Nobody wants to hear what Rex Marhiku, communist, has to say. But if I'm Rex Marhiku, candidate for Mayor of Cedar Rapids, suddenly I'm at least a little bit interesting. The second thing is that if one of us is actually elected, we STILL use our position as one of protest - making no compromises with the machines of bourgeois politics, keeping the public well-informed of our expenses and activities, as well as accepting no more of a wage than that of the average skilled worker in the country.

I am well aquanted with the arguments in favour of the tactic of 'revolutionary parliamentarism'. I also think they are fatally flawed.


But in addition to electoral activity, I would say our other interventions include: holding of public meetings, solidarity work with striking / occupying workers, protests & street demonstrations, work within the trade unions to dislodge their bureaucratic misleadership & democratize them, and in the countries where we work inside of a mass party... to take basically the same steps we take in the trade unions.

Much of this activity is also shared with the groups of the communist left.

I'm interested that you provide a paragraph long explanation and justification of the Socialist Alternative's electoral activity, yet not with their union participation and entryism. I would be genuinely interested if you could offer it, I've rarely seen Trotskyists which can actually agree on this point (in terms of the nature of the activity within the unions, the justification of it, and the end goal).


Based on what I've said, how does that compare to the left communist standpoint? It just seems to me like denying parliament, denying the unions, robs you of two very important arenas of struggle. Basically; how do left communists intend to win the "battle of ideas" that Marx spoke about?

Certainly parliament and the unions are arenas of struggle, but the question is, for whom? Union and parliamentary electoral struggles are not on the class terrain of the proletariat. Participation in them, whilst it may provide a platform for socialists, but it is not a platform of the working class, and any potential benefits in terms of publicity must be weighed against the profoundly mystifying ideological role they play (leaving aside the huge logistical problems of these campaigns).

[Lolshevik]

Well, with union participation our positions are pretty straight-forward. We participate in them, not just as regular militant trade unionists but also for the purpose of linking up with militant workers who are not socialists and attempting to convert them to socialism. We recognize the decadence of the unions, though you and I don't agree about it being systemic, and we also recognize the stifling (to say the least) role that the union bureaucracy plays in mitigating workers' struggles, feeding them collaborationist B.S., and giving them the very wrong impression that they are powerless.

The way we see it is; the unions are where militant workers are at, and also where workers with at least some level of class consciousness are at. That is a fact. So despite their shortcomings, which are largely due to their "leadership" and anti-participatory structures, there are good recruits in these organizations to be made to the cause of socialism - elements who, without communist intervention, may otherwise become disillusioned with the whole thing and drop out of active struggle. We see the unions like we see any other social mobilization - as a battleground between bourgeois and proletarian class influence.

Also, in times of very high class struggle, unions can become radicalized and greatly aid the cause of revolution, or their leadership can effectively shipwreck a revolution by preaching collaborationism, meekness and compromise. I point to France in '68 as a good example of that. So communists have to be there in those times to win - no, rather, to earn - leadership positions, official or otherwise, to help the movement forward. During times of low or medium-level open class struggle those opportunities may also arise, though obviously to a much lesser extent.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Also, while the ICC thinks that there is a proletarian political camp which includes genuinely internationalist and revolutionary organizations and individuals and that the communist party of the future will come from the regroupment of most of these forces while the IBRP sees itself in general as principally the only force capable of taking a central role in the formation of the future world communist party.

Whilst I won't go so far to say this characterisation is entirely incorrect, I don't think it is entirely correct either:

"We are for the revolutionary party but we are not that Party. Nor are we the only basis for that party which will emerge from the workers’ struggles of the future. Our aim is to be part of that process by participating in all the struggles of the class that we can with the aim of linking the immediate struggle of the class with its long term historic programme — communism." (CWO (http://www.ibrp.org/en/about-us))
(My emphasis added)


We participate in them, not just as regular militant trade unionists but also for the purpose of linking up with militant workers who are not socialists and attempting to convert them to socialism.


there are good recruits in these organizations to be made to the cause of socialism

So the ultimate aim of the Socialist Alternative's participation in the unions is to gain recruits? As I said, every time I ask a Trotskyist to clarify their position on and participation in trade unions I get a different line, this is confirmation of this. What I am slightly surpirsed by is how candidly you admit this to be your sole aim.


Also, in times of very high class struggle, unions can become radicalized and greatly aid the cause of revolution, or their leadership can effectively shipwreck a revolution by preaching collaborationism, meekness and compromise. I point to France in '68 as a good example of that. So communists have to be there in those times to win - no, rather, to earn - leadership positions, official or otherwise, to help the movement forward. During times of low or medium-level open class struggle those opportunities may also arise, though obviously to a much lesser extent.

I think this is the crux of the issue here and it really does boil down to a fundamental difference in conception.

As you note, the communist left does not see the possibility of radicalising the unions in a meaningul way. The unions, as permanent economic organisations of the working class during capitalism's ascedency, have been fundamentally transformed in the modern era of decadent, imperialist capitalism. The working class can no longer form permanent mass organisations for the defence of their economic interests; they can only be impotent and must ultimately be absorbed into the capitalist state machinery and act in the defence of current order against the interests of the working class.

[Leo]

Whilst I won't go so far to say this characterisation is entirely incorrect, I don't think it is entirely correct either:"We are for the revolutionary party but we are not that Party. Nor are we the only basis for that party which will emerge from the workers’ struggles of the future. Our aim is to be part of that process by participating in all the struggles of the class that we can with the aim of linking the immediate struggle of the class with its long term historic programme — communism." (CWO (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ibrp.org/en/about-us))It is based on the following article (emphasis mine):


The IBRP was formed as the only possible organisational form of coordination between the isolated operation of revolutionary organisations in different countries, and the existence of a real International Party, which as we have already stated is, for us, an indispensable tool for the victory of the revolution. It originates in the preliminary process of decantation and selection of political forces which opened with the First International Conference of the Communist Left in the now distant year of 1977. The proletarian political camp which we talked of then was made up of all the forces which looked back to the (non-trotskyist) revolutionary currents of the inter-war period and from which they were, directly or indirectly, descended. The recent dynamic of capitalism and its class relations has accelerated the process of decantation of the “proletarian political camp” excluding from it all those organisations which, in one way or another, have fallen into support for war and who have thus abandoned the principle of revolutionary defeatism.

Other political elements in this arena, although not falling into the tragic mistakes of supporting one of the warring parties have, in the name of a fake anti-imperialism or because of historically and economically impossible progressive visions, equally distanced themselves from the methods and perspectives of work which leads to regroupment in the future revolutionary party.

They are beyond saving and are the victims of their own idealistic or mechanistic frameworks, incapable of recognising the peculiarities of the explosion of the perennial economic contradictions of modern capitalism. They are more ready to wait messianically for the revolution or, in blind invariance, they cannot grasp the specifics of the present situation, whether in terms of the crisis and capitalism’s responses to it or in the changing relations between capital and labour over the intervening years.

In other words we think that, under present conditions, the category “proletarian political camp” is no longer valid. On the other hand it would be, at the very least, astonishing, if capitalist crisis, technological revolution, implosion of the imperialist soviet bloc and the totality of social and economic phenomena which the bourgeoisie summarises in the stupid term “globalisation”, left the framework of the real or assumed revolutionary vanguard unchanged and confined to that camp the only potential for building of the party. On the contrary what has been put “out of the game” are the greater part of the old constituents of the “proletarian political camp”, and at the same time the new situation has led to, and will lead to, still more new organisations emerging which — freed from schemas to explain current reality and projects for the future which are now old and ineffectual, are setting about the task of building the party on the basis of strict adherence to the critique of political economy, historical materialism and the principles of proletarian internationalism.

These organisations have the duty, which they are accepting, of taking up positions and growing on the basis of a body of theses, a platform and an organisational framework agreed between them and the Bureau, which in this sense acts as a reference point for the necessary homogenisation of the forces of the future party. http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/towards-the-new-international