Left communism

[Mälli]

Can somebody just explain this to me; what is left communism? And who are famous left communists?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Firstly, just to let you know, if you have more specific questions about left communism you are welcome to direct them towards the Left Communist user group forum (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=9). In there you will also find lots of other threads which may help answer some of your questions. Membership is open to anyone willing to discuss left communism not just left communists.


what is left communism?

The Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm) summarises the Communist Left as "those Marxists who supported the 1917 Russian Revolution, but differed with Lenin and Trotsky over a number of issues including the formation of the Soviet government in the U.S.S.R., the tactics of the Comintern in Europe and America, the role to be given to autonomous and spontaneous organisations of the working class as opposed to the working class political parties, participation in Parliament, the relationship with the trade unions and the trade union leadership". In the space of a paragraph, that's a fairly decent overview. The essential element missing from this description that I would add is the position of left communists on the national question; Left Communists are internationalists, this means they oppose all imperialist war and do not support so-called national liberation or anti-imperialist struggles.

The Basic Positions of the ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions) is a good summary of the basic political positions held by most of the communist left. For a good, short summary and history of the communist left you can also see 'The communist left and the continuity of marxism (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left)' by the ICC.

Today the most significant groups of the communist left are the International Communist Current (ICC) (http://en.internationalism.org/) and the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP) (http://www.ibrp.org/).


who are famous left communists?

Some of the most prominent include: Nikolai Bukharin, Gavril Myasnikov, Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Jan Appel, Paul Mattick, Amadeo Bordiga, Onorato Damen and Sylvia Pankhurst.

[Mälli]

So this is more like autonomic marxism type of communism, am i wrong? And does it mean it is leftist communism in a libertarian way? Like opposite to stalinism.

[Devrim]

So this is more like autonomic marxism type of communism, am i wrong?
The 'autonomous Marxism' thing is a more recent development based on ideas that came out of Italy in the late 60s and 70s amongst others.

And does it mean it is leftist communism in a libertarian way?
'Libertarian' is not really a term in the Marxist discourse, but more one that comes from anarchism. I suppose you could describe it like that.

Like opposite to stalinism.
Yes, definitely.

Devrim

[chebol]

Nikolai Bukharin

Bukharin? Hero of the "Bolshevik" Right-Wing? Have you taken your pills today?


The essential element missing from this description that I would add is the position of left communists on the national question; Left Communists are internationalists, this means they oppose all imperialist war and do not support so-called national liberation or anti-imperialist struggles.

No. Being an internationalist does not mean you oppose national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles.

What you advocate is actually an "anti-nationalist" position, not an "internationalist" one, and it is essentially an idealist (and un-Marxist) position, ignoring the dynamics through which the working class can be organised and inspired to action.

[Devrim]

Bukharin? Hero of the "Bolshevik" Right-Wing? Have you taken your pills today?

Bukharin was a left communist in 1917 and the period immediatly after the revolution. Later, as the revolutionary movement weakened, he moved to the right.

Devrim

[Искра]

I'm interested in one thing regarding "left communism": what's is relation between left communism and anarchism? What are the biggest differences and what are things that connect us? I don't know a lot about left communism, so I would like some left communists to explain me this relations.

[Leo]

No. Being an internationalist does not mean you oppose national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles.Being an internationalist in the imperialist epoch of capitalism, in an epoch when world revolution is a possibility, means calling for the workers to struggle irreconcilably against the bourgeois classes in all nations including the nationalist ideologies (all of which are nothing but a product of the mystifications spread by these classes for their interests) and calling for the united revolutionary struggle of all workers to abolish capitalism, borders and all states.


What you advocate is actually an "anti-nationalist" position, not an "internationalist" one, and it is essentially an idealist (and un-Marxist) positionMarxist internationalism sees the nation as a product of capitalism, and one which is obsolete in the era of decay of capitalism and thus one which will be sent to the dustbin of history along with capitalism. The internationalists of today, like the internationalists throughout history, are not blind to national oppression - but for us the only way to abolish national oppression is to abolish the general system which it is an ossified part of. Marxism is and has always been at the core of proletarian internationalism which we defend, expressed by the phrases such as "Workers have no country" and "Workers of the world, unite!".

What you are advocating, on the other hand, has got nothing to do with internationalism, but is merely a call for solidarity among nationalists, and expresses a bourgeois point of view in our opinion.


I'm interested in one thing regarding "left communism": what's is relation between left communism and anarchism? What are the biggest differences and what are things that connect us? I don't know a lot about left communism, so I would like some left communists to explain me this relations. The communist left has, throughout long years been in solidarity with those who were revolutionary and internationalist anarchists, and opposed the "official" anarchists as they used to be called, that is anarchists who gave their support to various bourgeois states and movements.

When it comes to differences, it is more the differences between the (genuine rather than Stalinist or Trotskyist) marxist method and anarchism rather than left communism and anarchism. While marxists by definition uphold a historical method, anarchists either don't hold anything as such or even if they have some sort of an understanding of a historical method, they do not use it on theoretical/practical questions, disregard it etc. While this might seem to be a more or less minor aspect, it is in my opinion the key one. Using the historical method, marxists managed to form and maintain a dynamic, always drawing lessons from the past, always seeing things not only in what they are but in what they were and what they will or can become. It became a living dynamic, an ever-developing one. Anarchism, on the other hand, due to this lack of method, has always been a more or less static ideology in all its forms, unable to draw historical lessons, unable to prevent the momentary, daily conditions determining the line of thought and action, unable to develop as an ideology, unable to improve itself through series of self-criticisms. All this makes anarchism a very confused ideology. This is the principle difference in my opinion between genuine marxism and all sorts of anarchism. This of course doesn't in any way negate the fact anarchists can be revolutionary internationalists in which case we would work with them, be in the fullest solidarity with them as we are in several different countries. It does on the other hand mean that revolutionary internationalist anarchists walk a thinner line due to all the weaknesses and confusions of anarchism, which are what inherently makes anarchism what it is.

[Искра]

Thanx Leo for your big post, I appreciate that but still I do have some questions and stuff.

I'm interested in what's Left Communist opinion on vanguard party, on "Workers state" etc. Also, I'm interested in what did Left Communist support concerning the Bolshevik's in 1917? Soviets, Cheka, party, Kronstadnt, Ukraine? Is that only 1917, or that period (until 1921)?

Also, could you give me some text concerning Left Communist vision of post-revolutionary society, revolution itself and authority. Just tell me what's in your opinion (other Left Commies ;) are welcome also) the most important text/book concerning Left Communism.


When it comes to differences, it is more the differences between the (genuine rather than Stalinist or Trotskyist) marxist method and anarchism rather than left communism and anarchism. While marxists by definition uphold a historical method, anarchists either don't hold anything as such or even if they have some sort of an understanding of a historical method, they do not use it on theoretical/practical questions, disregard it etc. While this might seem to be a more or less minor aspect, it is in my opinion the key one. Using the historical method, marxists managed to form and maintain a dynamic, always drawing lessons from the past, always seeing things not only in what they are but in what they were and what they will or can become. It became a living dynamic, an ever-developing one. Anarchism, on the other hand, due to this lack of method, has always been a more or less static ideology in all its forms, unable to draw historical lessons, unable to prevent the momentary, daily conditions determining the line of thought and action, unable to develop as an ideology, unable to improve itself through series of self-criticisms. All this makes anarchism a very confused ideology. This is the principle difference in my opinion between genuine marxism and all sorts of anarchism. This of course doesn't in any way negate the fact anarchists can be revolutionary internationalists in which case we would work with them, be in the fullest solidarity with them as we are in several different countries.
Anarchist-communist (the biggest part of revolutionary class struggle anarchist, never mind if they are syndicalist or something other) don't have anything against Marx. I could say that we accept Marx and his theory, but we don't accept some authoritarian elements.
Anarchism is confusing ideology I agree, but communism (Marxism) is also. You have such a big scale of sub-ideologies than this is really confusing, but when we talk about their political power then its really pathetic.


It does on the other hand mean that revolutionary internationalist anarchists walk a thinner line due to all the weaknesses and confusions of anarchism, which are what inherently makes anarchism what it is.
And that is?

[Nwoye]

I thought this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm) might be of use in this thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bukharin was a left communist in 1917 and the period immediatly after the revolution. Later, as the revolutionary movement weakened, he moved to the right.

Devrim

Actually, on the programmatic level Bukharin was still on the left. He co-wrote the Programme of the Communist International:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm

[the last donut of the night]

But what about the Left Communist position that all non-Left parties (i.e. Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc.) are bourgeois? That's just absurd.

[Искра]

But what about the Left Communist position that all non-Left parties (i.e. Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc.) are bourgeois? That's just absurd.
I don't think that they say that they AREbourgeois.
They could say that the ARE LIKE bourgeois and I would agree on that.

[Devrim]

Bukharin was a left communist in 1917 and the period immediatly after the revolution. Later, as the revolutionary movement weakened, he moved to the right.Actually, on the programmatic level Bukharin was still on the left. He co-wrote the Programme of the Communist International:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm

Jacob, the programme of the sixth congress is in no way a document of the left. All of the left communist groups had been expelled from the international by them. Bukharin did also draft the platform of the 1st congress, which many on the left agreed with, but that was in 1919.

Devrim

[Devrim]

But what about the Left Communist position that all non-Left parties (i.e. Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc.) are bourgeois? That's just absurd.I don't think that they say that they AREbourgeois.
They could say that the ARE LIKE bourgeois and I would agree on that.

What we say is not that these organisations are sociologically made up of members of the bourgeoisie. Of course, the majority of members of most political parties, including fascist parties, are mostly workers. We say that their politics are bourgeois in that all of these types of parties have consistently through history, mobilised workers on behalf of different factions in imperialist wars.

Devrim

[Искра]

What we say is not that these organisations are sociologically made up of members of the bourgeoisie. Of course, the majority of members of most political parties, including fascist parties, are mostly workers. We say that their politics are bourgeois in that all of these types of parties have consistently through history, mobilised workers on behalf of different factions in imperialist wars.

Devrim
Yup, that is what I wanted to say :) You just said it better :)

[Devrim]

Jurko, I will try to answer some of your question. I of course only speak for the organisation that I am in, the ICC, and not for other left communist organisations.


I'm interested in what's Left Communist opinion on vanguard party, on "Workers state" etc.

We believe that the working class needs a vanguard party. However, we don't see it as the task of this party to intergrate itself into the state as happened in Russia, and which was one of the reasons that the revolution degenerated in the manner that it did.

We don't believe that a workers' starte can exist. The state is never a progressive instiution.


Also, I'm interested in what did Left Communist support concerning the Bolshevik's in 1917? Soviets, Cheka, party, Kronstadnt, Ukraine? Is that only 1917, or that period (until 1921)?

It is easier to look back now (though not so easy) and decide that this was the point that the revolution degenerated at. At the time for revolutionary militants caught up in the events it was not so clear. Left communists in Russia refused to support the suppresion of the Kronstadt uprising and were active in workers strikes in petrograd at the time. Today the vast majority of left communists recognise that the party at Krondstadt acted on behalf of capital and the state against the working class.


Also, could you give me some text concerning Left Communist vision of post-revolutionary society, revolution itself and authority.

This pamphlet on the period of transition expresses our views;
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition


Just tell me what's in your opinion (other Left Commies ;) are welcome also) the most important text/book concerning Left Communism.

I think that Gorter's pamphlet 'An open letter to comrade Lenin' is a good introduction as it clarifies the main differences. Maybe it should be read alongside Gorter's last letter to Lenin;
http://libcom.org/library/open-letter-to-comrade-lenin-gorter
http://libcom.org/library/lessons-march-action


Anarchism is confusing ideology I agree, but communism (Marxism) is also. You have such a big scale of sub-ideologies than this is really confusing, but when we talk about their political power then its really pathetic.

Yes, of course, but lots of what passes itself off for anarchism is merely hippy/liberal nonsense. That doesn't mean that there aren't serious anarchist organisations.


And that is?

In my opinion often confused and incoherent. There are people in anarchist organisations who I think we share a lot in common politically, and then people who are in the same organisations with whom we share very little.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What is a worker's state? I don't think we need to complex the issue. It simply is the equivalent of saying the dictatorship of the proletariat; i.e. the working class has monopolized all power into its hands. Soviets and workers councils in the ordinary sense of the word are states because they have a monopoly of political power over a particular area and wield that in the name of a class - workers. Hence I completely disagree with Devrim that there can be no such thing as a worker's state and that such an institution cannot be progressive.

We see the dictatorship of the proletariat as being something separate from the state. Of course we advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, which wields the power of the class.

We see the state as something different. Something that can only exist within a class society, and the period of transition will be a class society still. It is not possible to abolish classes overnight. For us, the state would be an organ that represents all non-exploiting classes, which goes beyond the proletariat itself. One can not completely disenfranchise, for example, the peasantry.

We believe that the dictatorship must be exercised independently of, and if necessary against the state.

Maybe we theorise too much. :)


You say that it was a fault of the Bolsheviks to integrate themselves into the state. But I see the role of a communist party as leading that struggle and winning that struggle. What were the Bolsheviks to do, after they have fought against all the treachery of the Mensheviks and others, were they supposed to give up political power because they didn't want to be integrated with the state? Should they have given up power after the had succeeded and simply advise from the side-lines? Well then who else was going to take up that task if not a working class party? It just seems idealistic.

To argue for communist policies within the organs of the class e.g. factory committees and soviets. As the left communists in Russia put it at the time:


We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism

By the way, I can't see your you tube video as it is banned in this country. What is it?

Devrim

[Искра]

Thank you Devrim. I'm quite interested in Left communism right now.


Jurko, I will try to answer some of your question. I of course only speak for the organisation that I am in, the ICC, and not for other left communist organisations.
Little digression: which are Left commie organisations?
I know for ICC just because of you and Left Communist group here.
Do you have some kind of international?


We believe that the working class needs a vanguard party. However, we don't see it as the task of this party to intergrate itself into the state as happened in Russia, and which was one of the reasons that the revolution degenerated in the manner that it did.
But don't you think that party and people in it are "above" working class? You are familiar with Bakunin's critics of pre-vanguard party as: assembly of intellectuals which will are above working class, which lead working class and they will use their "achievements" and intellect to rule the working class. How do Left Communist answer on that? Do you have, on theoretical and/or practical level, any kind of mechanism that working class can use to control vanguard party? Or everything depends on "moral" of comrade from vanguard party?


We don't believe that a workers' starte can exist. The state is never a progressive instiution.
This is quite anarchistic :)
I like it :)


It is easier to look back now (though not so easy) and decide that this was the point that the revolution degenerated at. At the time for revolutionary militants caught up in the events it was not so clear. Left communists in Russia refused to support the suppresion of the Kronstadt uprising and were active in workers strikes in petrograd at the time. Today the vast majority of left communists recognise that the party at Krondstadt acted on behalf of capital and the state against the working class.

And what about Ukrainian revolution? Or about Spanish revolution from 30's?
I'm interested in these examples because this was battle against authoritarian (Leninist) and libertarian (anarchist) communism.


This pamphlet on the period of transition expresses our views;
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition

Thank you.


I think that Gorter's pamphlet 'An open letter to comrade Lenin' is a good introduction as it clarifies the main differences. Maybe it should be read alongside Gorter's last letter to Lenin;
http://libcom.org/library/open-letter-to-comrade-lenin-gorter
http://libcom.org/library/lessons-march-action
Thank you. I'll read this also, and maybe I'll translate this on Croatian if I found this useful :)


Yes, of course, but lots of what passes itself off for anarchism is merely hippy/liberal nonsense. That doesn't mean that there aren't serious anarchist organisations.

Ok, but those hippies/liberals never made or participate in any kind of revolution, we anarchists despise them, so when you are making critics of anarchism I would like to hear critics of class anarchists and our organisations, such as IWA and IAF.


In my opinion often confused and incoherent. There are people in anarchist organisations who I think we share a lot in common politically, and then people who are in the same organisations with whom we share very little.
Ok, I agree but this is not a critics of anarchism.
For example I'm anarcho-syndicalist. I can only work with anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists. I don't think that organisation I'm in could ever work with lifestyle individualists, primitivists, pacifists and the whole bunch of other idiotic stuff which is called - anarchism.
So, I'm now in position from which you are looking on anarchism.
We don't have to talk about those idiotic "genres" of anarchism, since we both don't approve that. I would like to hear critic, as I said, of class anarchism. If you look closely anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndcialism etc are not so confused and incoherent. They are quite coherent ideologies with quite realistic demands, methods and vision of future society.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The user 'RebelGrrrl' was banned and her posts have (unfortunately/wrongly) been removed from this thread. You can, however, still see them here (from the trashcan): 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1572477&postcount=2), 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1572489&postcount=3), 3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1572523&postcount=4).

[Durruti's Ghost]

What divides DeLeonism and left-communism?

[ls]

What divides DeLeonism and left-communism?

Well for starters, leftcoms are not syndicalists of any kind, DeLeonists also like participating at the polls which is a big-no for leftcoms.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Could anybody fill me in on the organisational strategy of Left Communists in moving towards revolution?

[Devrim]

Little digression: which are Left commie organisations?
I know for ICC just because of you and Left Communist group here.
Do you have some kind of international?

The ICC is an international organisation with members in 16 countries, France, Great Britain, Mexico, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Venezuela, Brazil, Sweden, India, Italy, USA, Switzerland, Philippines and Turkey.

There is also another organisation called the IBRP, and many smaller groups.


But don't you think that party and people in it are "above" working class? You are familiar with Bakunin's critics of pre-vanguard party as: assembly of intellectuals which will are above working class, which lead working class and they will use their "achievements" and intellect to rule the working class. How do Left Communist answer on that? Do you have, on theoretical and/or practical level, any kind of mechanism that working class can use to control vanguard party? Or everything depends on "moral" of comrade from vanguard party?

You are correct. We don't think that the party is above the working class, but a part of it. I am very wary of Bakunin's critique of the 'pre-vanguard party'. Look at his ideas about the 'invisible dictatorship':


It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers.
...
The number of these individuals should not, therefore be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.


[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle.
...
this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character.

I think that the roots of the worst aspects of Leninism can be found in Bakunin, not Marx.


And what about Ukrainian revolution? Or about Spanish revolution from 30's?
I'm interested in these examples because this was battle against authoritarian (Leninist) and libertarian (anarchist) communism.

I don't really want to comment on the Ukraine. I don't know that much about it. I read Arshinovs book on Makhno over two decades ago, and it isn't really my field. I can ask someone else to comment if you want.

On the Spanish question, we believe that although there was a workers' uprising, the working class never took power in Spain, and as such there wasn't a revolution. Betrayal came from both the CNT, which joined the bourgeois government, and the Stalinists who murdered and imprisoned workers.

In the July days on 1937, it was the CNT who called on workers to disamr and stop there strikes before the Stalinists sent in their police to murder workers.

In our opinion the Soviet state and party of this period were not 'communist', of authoritiarin or any other type, but capitalist.


Ok, but those hippies/liberals never made or participate in any kind of revolution, we anarchists despise them, so when you are making critics of anarchism I would like to hear critics of class anarchists and our organisations, such as IWA and IAF.

Yes, sure. I was addressing your point that there is a lot of rubbish that passes itself of as Marxism. The same applies to anarchism to.

On the IWA, which I personally used to be a member of, I think that a lot of what some of them say is very good, but I don't think that the clarity goes through the entire organisation at the same level.

I don't think that the IAF is really an organisation. It is more like an occasional meeting of different groups.


For example I'm anarcho-syndicalist. I can only work with anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists.
... I would like to hear critic, as I said, of class anarchism. If you look closely anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndcialism etc are not so confused and incoherent. They are quite coherent ideologies with quite realistic demands, methods and vision of future society.

I think that there are large differences within anarcho-syndicalism for example. The ideas that come out of the KRAS and the FORA are very different from those who advocate building old style anarchosyndicalist unions. That is what I meant by 'incoherence'.

I presume you are an IWA member. If you or any of your comrades write to Rata, please pass on my personal best wishes and solidarity to him.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Could anybody fill me in on the organisational strategy of Left Communists in moving towards revolution?

It is a bit of a big question. Can you be a little more specific, please.

Devrim

[Искра]

I have to be quick now, since I'm running on my class (political system of Croatia :laugh:)...


The ICC is an international organisation with members in 16 countries, France, Great Britain, Mexico, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Venezuela, Brazil, Sweden, India, Italy, USA, Switzerland, Philippines and Turkey.
Is it large organisation (in your opinion - I don't want numbers since I think that it's not clever to put numbers here) or is it small?
I'm asking cause Left Communism to me is still kind of "exotic" communism :)


You are correct. We don't think that the party is above the working class, but a part of it. I am very wary of Bakunin's critique of the 'pre-vanguard party'. Look at his ideas about the 'invisible dictatorship':

I think that the roots of the worst aspects of Leninism can be found in Bakunin, not Marx.Ok, but you know what I mean with that Bakunin's critique. His critique was that intellectuals will wanted to size the power, because party could say that "workers are to stupid and uneducated to achieve communism".
I wasn't referring much more on Bakunin. He was an "incoherent" :)

Also, you haven't answered to my question regarding vanguard party: what mechanism does working class have to control party? You can't just say "party is part of working class". All deviations of communism use that argument.



I don't really want to comment on the Ukraine. I don't know that much about it. I read Arshinovs book on Makhno over two decades ago, and it isn't really my field. I can ask someone else to comment if you want.I would like to hear that.
Btw. Archinov's book is nothing but lousy propaganda in Bolshevik style.


On the Spanish question, we believe that although there was a workers' uprising, the working class never took power in Spain, and as such there wasn't a revolution. Betrayal came from both the CNT, which joined the bourgeois government, and the Stalinists who murdered and imprisoned workers.

In the July days on 1937, it was the CNT who called on workers to disamr and stop there strikes before the Stalinists sent in their police to murder workers.I agree on that. Even I have little more "soft" feelings about CNT. But, yes I'm completely against their joining the government.


In our opinion the Soviet state and party of this period were not 'communist', of authoritiarin or any other type, but capitalist.
Watch out for revleft Stalinists.
Now serious: I agree with that. Although I don't care was Soviet state authoritarian or not, it was always (state) capitalist, and all authority goes from state and capitalism.


I think that there are large differences within anarcho-syndicalism for example. The ideas that come out of the KRAS and the FORA are very different from those who advocate building old style anarchosyndicalist unions. That is what I meant by 'incoherence'.
I accept that. When I heard about what KRAS and FORA are doing I was: WTF? I don't think that this is good or right way. But their way of functioning (for the rest: they are syndicate for anarchists, not anarchist syndicate. In other words you can be member of KRAS and FORA only if you are an anarcho-syndicalist) is clearly mistake. I don't think that the rest of anarcho-syndicalists support that.
But that's "incoherence", which I can find in any other ideology. It's not just an anarchist issue. I think that if I study more about Left Communism I could find few "incoherences" in it also.


I presume you are an IWA member. If you or any of your comrades write to Rata, please pass on my personal best wishes and solidarity to him.

I'm not IWA member. My organisation is not in IWA. Don't worry I will, but he need to get out the prison first. You know about that?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is a bit of a big question. Can you be a little more specific, please.

Devrim

Ok so as an Anarcho-Syndicalist I want to create a mass movement based around revolutionary unionism and syndicates eventually becoming organs of working class power and becoming workers councils when they control the means of production. I want to know how Left Communists want to organise before revolution.

[Leo]

Here's a good article which in my opinion covers lots of issues raised here:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

[MilitantWorker]

Bukharin? Hero of the "Bolshevik" Right-Wing? Have you taken your pills today?



No. Being an internationalist does not mean you oppose national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles.

What you advocate is actually an "anti-nationalist" position, not an "internationalist" one, and it is essentially an idealist (and un-Marxist) position, ignoring the dynamics through which the working class can be organised and inspired to action.

How are you clarifying anything for the comrade by saying shit like this? Not the time or place. If you want to formally call the communist left out and start a thread about how left communsits aren't really internationalists, I'd be glad to prove you wrong.

[Devrim]

Is it large organisation (in your opinion - I don't want numbers since I think that it's not clever to put numbers here) or is it small?


Absolutely tiny, as are all revolutionary organisations today.


Also, you haven't answered to my question regarding vanguard party: what mechanism does working class have to control party? You can't just say "party is part of working class". All deviations of communism use that argument.

The class as a whole can not control political organisations, whether anarchist or Marxist. The important thing is that power lies in the hands of the mass organs of workers, not that of political parties. This is what left communists advocate. There are no gaurantees though.


I would like to hear that.
Btw. Archinov's book is nothing but lousy propaganda in Bolshevik style.

I will ask someone to reply. I think Arshinov was an anarchist though. Voline states that he was, and the book seemed quite sympathetic to me.

Searching very quickly on our website for Makhno, I found this comment, which suggest that the Makhnovishina was a proletarian movement:


The first frontal victories obtained by the Bolsheviks (Makhno, Kronstadt) over groups acting within the proletariat were realised at the expense of the proletarian essence of the state organisation.


I accept that. When I heard about what KRAS and FORA are doing I was: WTF? I don't think that this is good or right way. But their way of functioning (for the rest: they are syndicate for anarchists, not anarchist syndicate. In other words you can be member of KRAS and FORA only if you are an anarcho-syndicalist) is clearly mistake. I don't think that the rest of anarcho-syndicalists support that.

Actually, I have more sympathy for the positions put forward by KRAS and FORA.


Don't worry I will, but he need to get out the prison first. You know about that?

Yes, I know. That is why I said 'write'. If you have an address, I will write myself.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Ok so as an Anarcho-Syndicalist I want to create a mass movement based around revolutionary unionism and syndicates eventually becoming organs of working class power and becoming workers councils when they control the means of production. I want to know how Left Communists want to organise before revolution.

We think that the working class must organise through councils, and that the workers are capable of organising themselves without needing anarchists or communists to organise these bodies for them. History shows us that the working class has managed to organise itself in councils time and time again. The task of revolutionaries is to argue for communist politics within these bodies.

Devrim

[Искра]

The class as a whole can not control political organisations, whether anarchist or Marxist. The important thing is that power lies in the hands of the mass organs of workers, not that of political parties. This is what left communists advocate. There are no gaurantees though.
Which kind of organs are you referring on?


I will ask someone to reply. I think Arshinov was an anarchist though. Voline states that he was, and the book seemed quite sympathetic to me.
Arshinov was anarchist (he came from bolsheviks to anarchists), but his work caused many anarchists to call him Bolshevik, you know as a curse.
Regarding his book about Makhnovsthina I found it to much "propaganda" and to little facts. I like book by Alexandre Skidra much more.


Searching very quickly on our website for Makhno, I found this comment, which suggest that the Makhnovishina was a proletarian movement:
Who said i wasn't? No one can say that it was only anarchist movement. It was large scale movement.


Actually, I have more sympathy for the positions put forward by KRAS and FORA.
Why? Isn't that against anarcho-syndicalism?


Yes, I know. That is why I said 'write'. If you have an address, I will write myself.
I told comrade from ASI to tell him that "left commie from Turkey send him best wishes and solidarity" :)

[Invincible Summer]

We think that the working class must organise through councils, and that the workers are capable of organising themselves without needing anarchists or communists to organise these bodies for them. History shows us that the working class has managed to organise itself in councils time and time again. The task of revolutionaries is to argue for communist politics within these bodies.

Devrim

Could you give some examples of this worker organizing into "councils," O Bringer of Left-Communism Knowledge? :D (Not trying to be snarky, just appreciate all your replies to this thread)

[Devrim]

Which kind of organs are you referring on?

Workers Councils.


Could you give some examples of this worker organizing into "councils," O Bringer of Left-Communism Knowledge? :D (Not trying to be snarky, just appreciate all your replies to this thread)

Russia 1905, 1917, 1921, Germany 1919, Hungry 1919, Italy 1919...Hungry 1956, Iran 1979, Poland 1980.

Devrim

[Искра]

Workers Councils.
I would like if you could give me some good texts on this issue.

And correct me if I'm wrong:
Workers Councils (or Soviets?) are direct democratic assemblies of workers?

[bricolage]

We think that the working class must organise through councils, and that the workers are capable of organising themselves without needing anarchists or communists to organise these bodies for them. History shows us that the working class has managed to organise itself in councils time and time again. The task of revolutionaries is to argue for communist politics within these bodies.

Surely anarchists would argue that same thing you just have, the self-organisation of the working class?

[Devrim]

Surely anarchists would argue that same thing you just have, the self-organisation of the working class?

I think some of them would. Others though seem to have an obsession with organising workers. It is not the task of revolutionaries to organise the class. I think that some anarchists don't realise that.

Devrim

[Искра]

I think some of them would. Others though seem to have an obsession with organising workers. It is not the task of revolutionaries to organise the class. I think that some anarchists don't realise that.
I don't think that any anarchist think that our task is to organise workers. If they think like that, then they are not anarchists. Anarchists follow principle that working class should organise themselves and we are here to help not to ORGANISE!

Revolution is only possible if it's revolution of working class not some party or group.

And then comes, since Devrim is from Turkey: kara fırtınalar sarsıyor göğü, kara bulutlar kör eder gözleri, ölüm ve acı beklese de bizleri, onları yenmek için yürümeliyiz ve en değerli varlığımız özgürlük, cesaret ve inançla savunmalıyız, haydi barikata haydi barikata, ekmek, adalet ve özgürlük için, kalplerimizde, kardeşlerimizle, tüm dünyada büyüyor direniş, haydi barikata haydi barikata, ekmek, adalet ve özgürlük için!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaGIA8okcHA

[bricolage]

I think some of them would. Others though seem to have an obsession with organising workers. It is not the task of revolutionaries to organise the class. I think that some anarchists don't realise that.

Devrim

Oh right, I've never met any anarchists that think like that, I'd be quite disappointed if I did.

[Искра]

Oh right, I've never met any anarchists that think like that, I'd be quite disappointed if I did.
Me too.
And I'll slap him/her.

[Devrim]

I don't think that any anarchist think that our task is to organise workers. If they think like that, then they are not anarchists. Anarchists follow principle that working class should organise themselves and we are here to help not to ORGANISE!

Revolution is only possible if it's revolution of working class not some party or group.

I don't know. I think that most anarchosyndicalists today when they are talking about setting up unions are advocating organising the working class.

I think that the mass organs of the class must be set up by the class in struggle itself, and they can't be artifically set up by political militants. To believe that you can do this is voluntarism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaGIA8okcHA

Youtube is nanned in Turkey.:)

Devrim

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

You are correct. We don't think that the party is above the working class, but a part of it. I am very wary of Bakunin's critique of the 'pre-vanguard party'. Look at his ideas about the 'invisible dictatorship':
The 'invisible dictatorship' is a very confusing term on Bakunin's writings and a very misjudged one too.He also dismissed it as an idea later on his life just as the anarchist movement did with propaganda by deed.What Baky really meant as I see it was the need of a group of people who,without rising above the rest and claiming some official power would guide the working class's path on the correct direction similar to what you say at
The task of revolutionaries is to argue for communist politics within these bodies.


We think that the working class must organise through councils, and that the workers are capable of organising themselves without needing anarchists or communists to organise these bodies for them. History shows us that the working class has managed to organise itself in councils time and time again. The task of revolutionaries is to argue for communist politics within these bodies.

Welcome to anarco-communism :)Where the people lead themselves


Using the historical method, marxists managed to form and maintain a dynamic, always drawing lessons from the past, always seeing things not only in what they are but in what they were and what they will or can become. It became a living dynamic, an ever-developing one. Anarchism, on the other hand, due to this lack of method, has always been a more or less static ideology in all its forms, unable to draw historical lessons, unable to prevent the momentary, daily conditions determining the line of thought and action, unable to develop as an ideology, unable to improve itself through series of self-criticisms. All this makes anarchism a very confused ideology.
This is a big generalisation to claim but unfortunately you have a point.I'm positive though that we are learning from our mistakes even in slow pace.Most of the anarchists I know in fact do not even dismiss historical (dialectical) materialism but rather argue about the point we can grasp our fate at our own hands,as in consciously leading the change instead of being led by deterministic forces outside of us.

Generally you left communist folk look like good people and most importantly people we anarchists could work together :)