Left Communism

[The Ben G]

What exactly is Left Communism? What is the defference between it and Anarchy or even regular Communism?

[StoneFrog]

Left Communists still believe in some centralization and the party, but also depends if you count Council Communism as apart of the left Communists. Left Communists also don't believe in the use of Unions, where Anarchists mainly use unions as a way to organize. The left Communists are also against any sort of state socialism, and where against the USSR's form of communism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://world.internationalism.org/

You should take a look at this (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) too. :)

[Niccolò Rossi]

Left-Wing Communism by Lenin, as recommended above by MyKittyHasABoner is worth reading. However, if you do so, you should also read the reply by Gorter: An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm)

MyKittyHasABoner also links to the website of the ICC. It should be noted though, the ICC is not the sole heir of the communist left. The ICT (http://www.leftcom.org/) (IBRP) is the other of the big two groups. As noted by With No.Mute there are also different tendency grouped under what is commonly called 'left communism', including the council communists and 'Bordigists'. Archives for both can be found here (http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm) and here (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/) respectively.

In response to Ben's original question, I would direct you towards the left communist user group. There are lots of useful threads on various topics to do with the communist left. I would also encourage you to search the forums for other similar threads (links to some of which can be found below).

If you have some more specific questions it would allow us to give some more specific answers. :)

[Dave B]

"LEFT-WING" COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDE Section VII (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1631023#c7).


SHOULD WE PARTICIPATE IN BOURGEOIS PARLIAMENTS?

For instance is interesting.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html)

The Anarchist Berkman was asked by Lenin to translate it and thus endorse it but refused.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Left Communism defined perhaps most simply is the "Marxist" rejection of Leninism that comes from a dogmatic standpoint. (Such folks often refer to themselves as "classical Marxists" for example). Such ultra-leftists (e.g. Bordigists, Luxemburgists (i.e. councilists), autonomists, situationists, etc.) to one degree or another reject the law of uneven development and hence also the necessity of vanguard communist parties and of revolutionary united fronts. Typical slogans they might advance include "no compromises" and the like, reflecting the sort of unyielding dogmatism that leads directly to sectarianism. It follows that these ultra-left groups tend to be very, very small, rarely growing beyond a dozen or two dozen members. For all practical purposes, (so-called) left communist organizations are merely debating societies, for they refuse to engage in any political activity that might expose them to the masses and thus "compromise" their position.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I would suggest reading "Leninism or Marxism" by Rosa Luxemburg

[Niccolò Rossi]

Red Dragon Rider, your post is so full of misinformation and outright lies that I feel compelled to respond to the allegations made within it.


Left Communism defined perhaps most simply is the "Marxist" rejection of Leninism that comes from a dogmatic standpoint.

Firstly, it should be clarified. Whilst Left Communists do reject 'Leninism', this does not mean for one moment it rejects the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism. Lenin was a revolutionary. The left communists in Russia, at the time of the October Revolution and in the years immediately following it, were Bolsheviks.

More than this, there is nothing 'dogmatic' about left communism. Assertions are met with assertions.


(Such folks often refer to themselves as "classical Marxists" for example)

No they don't. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.


Such ultra-leftists (e.g. Bordigists, Luxemburgists (i.e. councilists), autonomists, situationists, etc.) to one degree or another reject the law of uneven development and hence also the necessity of vanguard communist parties and of revolutionary united fronts.

The term 'Ultra-leftism' is one of slander. More than this, it is a completely useless and intentionally ambiguous, the typical Stalinist amalgamation tactic. Left Communists is not autonomists or situationists or 'Luxemburgists' (whatever they are). More than this, it is arguable as to whether 'councilism' and 'bordigism' really the authetic heirs of the communist left. I would argue that both were later degenerations of the clarity and revolutionary intrasigence of the communist left but still fall under it's umbrella (a very small umbrella, not including any and all 'ultra-leftists' that take your fancy).

Secondly, could you elaborate on what the 'Law of uneven development' is? If it is what I think it is, then again, this is incorrect. Rejection of this 'law' is in no way a feature of the communist left. Prove the assertion or retract the allegation.

Finally, whilst it is true that the communist left reject the tactic of the united front (contrary to your claim, there is nothing revolutionary about it), your claim regarding the rejection of a vanguard party is incorrect. The communist left do believe in the necessity of the organisation of revolutionaries. This must ultimately take the form of a communist party, centralised and international, which will act as the political vanguard of the working class. The later degeneration of the councilist current revised this historic position of the communist left, rejecting altogether the need for the organisation of revolutionaries. To generalise this position to the entirity of the communist left is absolutely false.


Typical slogans they might advance include "no compromises" and the like, reflecting the sort of unyielding dogmatism that leads directly to sectarianism.

I have never seen any left communist political organisation advance the slogan "no compromises". Again, I ask you to prove this assertion or retract your claim. Also, what are "the like" slogans raised by the communist left? I don't think you know any and this is merely a cover. Prove me wrong.

On the allegation of sectarianism, whilst sectarianism does exist within the left communist milieu and has been acknowledged by many of the parties that make it up, I don't think this is what you are referring to. The divisions that exist between Left Communists and leftists (Trotskyists, Maoists, Social Democrats, et al.) are real and fundamental. What divides us is a class line. If the communist left is ever accused of being sectarian for not aligning or liquidating themselves with Maoism (for this example) we must respond: We are not sectarians; Maoism does not belong to the revolutionary workers' movement.


It follows that these ultra-left groups tend to be very, very small, rarely growing beyond a dozen or two dozen members.

Yes, it is true that left communist organisations, both today and historically, only make up a very tiny minority of the working class. However, this is to be expected. Revolutionary minorities, in particular outside of revolutionary periods, will always make up a minority of the class. Regarding the size of these groups, the historic repression of the communist left, not only by the (democratic and fascist) state, but also principly by Stalinism.

What is not true here is your allegation that left communist groups "rarely [grow] beyond a dozen or two dozen members". The IBRP and ICC, the two largest and most significant left communist political organisations today are certainly made up of more than two dozen militants. More than this, if we look at the historic record of the communist left, this proves your statement to be even more of a farce. To take just one example, the left made up the majority of the Italian Communist Party in its founding years and held the leadership through the person of Amadeo Bordiga, changed only by forced expulsion from the party during so-called 'Bolshevisation'.


For all practical purposes, (so-called) left communist organizations are merely debating societies, for they refuse to engage in any political activity that might expose them to the masses and thus "compromise" their position.

More slander. The organisations which comprise the left communist milieu are most certainly engaged in real political activity. Today this primarily takes the form of intervention into all possible workers struggles with the aim of pushing the struggles forward by advancing communist tactics. You can read about the various activities and interventions of the communist left on the relevant organisations websites (see for example the most recent intervention of the ICC in the Royal Mail strikes in Britain), but then again, it's not like you actually care about the facts.

[Daz]

What exactly is Left Communism? What is the defference between it and Anarchy or even regular Communism?
In my mind Communism equals despotism. Communism is a perverted form of Socialism. Anarchism has nothing to do with totalitarian state Communism.

[Искра]

In my mind Communism equals despotism. Communism is a perverted form of Socialism. Anarchism has nothing to do with totalitarian state Communism.
??
You need serious reading.

Communism means classless and stateless society. Communist and anarchists goal is the same.

What's different are tactics and theory. We anarchists reject party and parliamentary "struggle" in favour of direct action. Anarchists also reject the state and transformational period (dictature of proletariat).

[Daz]

??
You need serious reading.

Communism means classless and stateless society. Communist and anarchists goal is the same.

What's different are tactics and theory. We anarchists reject party and parliamentary "struggle" in favour of direct action. Anarchists also reject the state and transformational period (dictature of proletariat).
The word Communism has been ruined by too many dictators ie. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc.

[Искра]

The word Communism has been ruined by too many dictators ie. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc.
Yes it has been... but that doesn't change its essential meaning.

[Daz]

Yes it has been... but that doesn't change its essential meaning.
True. That's why I said in my mind it equals despotism. I think Democratic Socialism is a better term.

[Искра]

True. That's why I said in my mind it equals despotism. I think Democratic Socialism is a better term.
Democratic Socialism reminds me of social-democracy :)
Communism is really nice term... you should be proud of it.

[Daz]

Democratic Socialism reminds me of social-democracy :)
Communism is really nice term... you should be proud of it.
Nah...social democrats are still capitalists. I would never call myself a communist.
I prefer the term Patriotic Socialist though people tend to confuse nationalism and patriotism so it can be a confusing term.

[core_1]

In my mind Communism equals despotism. Communism is a perverted form of Socialism. Anarchism has nothing to do with totalitarian state Communism.
Well left wing Anarchism holds Communism as its ultimate goal, it just avoids the statst tendencies within the right wing of the socialist movement. Don't worry about a word:)

[#FF0000]

Nah...social democrats are still capitalists.

But that's what Democratic Socialists are.


I would never call myself a communist.

Sounds like your aversion to the term stems from general ignorance of socialist politics, which is a-okay.


I prefer the term Patriotic Socialist though people tend to confuse nationalism and patriotism so it can be a confusing term.

What use does anybody of the working class have of patriotism?

[Daz]

What use does anybody of the working class have of patriotism?
Nothing wrong with being devoted to a particular place and a particular way of life, that is what I mean by patriotism. It's not about loving your government.

[#FF0000]

Nothing wrong with being devoted to a particular place and a particular way of life, that is what I mean by patriotism.

Of course there is. Putting emphasis on that kind of thing is divisive. I mean there's nothing wrong with, as an American citizen for example, preferring hamburgers and baseball over doenner kebab and soccer, but to focus on that to the point of calling yourself a "patriotic socialist" is ridiculous.

[Pogue]

The ICC website outlines their positions in short sentences. Thats a good outline tbh.

[#FF0000]

The ICC website outlines their positions in short sentences. Thats a good outline tbh.

Yeah I think it's well-presented. For those interested, the page Pogue's talking about is found right here. (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions)

[Daz]

Of course there is. Putting emphasis on that kind of thing is divisive. I mean there's nothing wrong with, as an American citizen for example, preferring hamburgers and baseball over doenner kebab and soccer, but to focus on that to the point of calling yourself a "patriotic socialist" is ridiculous.
Nah..it only becomes a problem when people get too cocky with it and disrespect other cultures or places.
We are all a product of our culture and country.
I can get along with a poor person from somewhere else but will most likely have more in common with my own countrymen.

[the last donut of the night]

Is the ICC active in the workers' movements? Or are they just a school of thought?

[Leo]

Is the ICC active in the workers' movements?

Yes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, no.


The term 'Ultra-leftism' is one of slander. More than this, it is a completely useless and intentionally ambiguous, the typical Stalinist amalgamation tactic.

Not at all. The term can be traced to the two-front polemic war conducted by the "Marxist Center" in the Second International against revisionists and worse elements on the right but also against "revolutionists at any price" on the left who fetishized debates with the right on the basis of Ideology (not analysis), but also strikes, direct action, and yes, "spontaneity" - all above building the organized party-movement of the working class and winning over majority political support from that class.

[Niccolò Rossi]

^^^ Um, no.

[...]

Not at all.

Jake, it's great to know that you know more about the activity of the ICC than ICC militants and more about the communist left than the communist left itself.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Jake, it's great to know that you know more about the activity of the ICC than ICC militants and more about the communist left than the communist left itself.

Indeed. I've worked personally with ICC comrades in organising.. and agitating.. and educating (like that JR? ;))

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Whereas Niccolo Rossi has taken the time on my profile to insist that I waste my breath replying to his "rebuttal" of my entry on page 1, here goes:


Whilst Left Communists do reject 'Leninism', this does not mean for one moment it rejects the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism.Later...


...could you elaborate on what the 'Law of uneven development' is? I believe most of us can see the obvious inconsistency demonstrated above. Anyhow, the law of uneven development is what Lenin developed in What is to Be Done?, the foundational work of Leninism. It is the understanding that capitalism has entered into its final stage of monopoly-capitalism, which takes an imperialist form that warps the spontaneous consciousness of the proletariat (e.g. through the creation of a labor aristocracy), thus leading to the necessity, for example, of a vanguard communist party to lead the way to and through the course of revolution (not merely to participate). A rejection of the law of uneven development, such as concentrated in a deference to spontaneity, is a rejection of "the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism".


On the allegation of sectarianism, whilst sectarianism does exist within the left communist milieu and has been acknowledged by many of the parties that make it up, I don't think this is what you are referring to.I explained perfectly what I referred to in the statement "It follows that these ultra-left groups tend to be very, very small, rarely growing beyond a dozen or two dozen members", to which you pitifully and dogmatically responded simply by blaming "Stalinism" and repression rather than in asserting any actual responsibility and thus exercising any critical thinking skills. As to historically-rooted claims about the falsehood of my statement, the statement in question was posed in the present tense.


More slander. The organisations which comprise the left communist milieu are most certainly engaged in real political activity. Today this primarily takes the form of intervention into all possible workers struggles with the aim of pushing the struggles forward by advancing communist tactics.The "slander" here is simply the assertion that merely "advancing communist tactics" (and among only one part of the working masses at that) doesn't constitute serious revolutionary or theoretical work. Left "communists" oppose the organizing of a revolutionary movement, oppose class alliances, and oppose smashing the bourgeois state apparatus in deference to "real democracy". These are not the stands of those dedicated to bringing forward a new world.


Left Communists is not autonomists or situationists or 'Luxemburgists' (whatever they are). More than this, it is arguable as to whether 'councilism' and 'bordigism' really the authetic heirs of the communist left. I would argue that both were later degenerations of the clarity and revolutionary intrasigence of the communist left but still fall under it's umbrella (a very small umbrella, not including any and all 'ultra-leftists' that take your fancy).It is self-evident that all the groupings mentioned above are "left communist". If you have a real explanation to the contrary, feel free to actually provide it rather than just resorting to random, bizarre claims.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed. I've worked personally with ICC comrades in organising.. and agitating.. and educating (like that JR? ;))

You've got the order wrong. :p


Jake, it's great to know that you know more about the activity of the ICC than ICC militants and more about the communist left than the communist left itself.

Why doesn't the ICC organize "alternative culture" bodies like food banks (as a means of becoming a mass organization with a coherent political program)? Because its unconscious organizational role model is not the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD, but the sectarian SPKPiL and, yes, the ultra-left KPD.

[Nwoye]

The "slander" here is simply the assertion that merely "advancing communist tactics" doesn't constitute serious revolutionary or theoretical work. Left "communists" oppose the organizing of a revolutionary movement, oppose class alliances, and oppose smashing the bourgeois state apparatus in deference to "real democracy".
I hardly see how opposing class collaboration techniques (such as with the local national bourgeoisie or peasantry in the case of Maoism) makes them not serious revolutionaries or communists. Quite the contrary.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Whereas Niccolo Rossi has taken the time on my profile to insist that I waste my breath replying to his "rebuttal" of my entry on page 1, here goes

When you are willing to write up a lengthy post slandering the communist left, you better be prepared to 'waste your breath' defendinf your position.

Also, please don't sarcastically refer to my post as a rebuttle in inverted commas. Given that you have only managed to respond to a handful of my points, I'll take it you concede the rest.



Whilst Left Communists do reject 'Leninism', this does not mean for one moment it rejects the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism.

Later...

What does this mean?


I believe most of us can see the obvious inconsistency demonstrated above. Anyhow, the law of uneven development is what Lenin developed in What is to Be Done?, the foundational work of Leninism. It is the understanding that capitalism has entered into its final stage of monopoly-capitalism, which takes an imperialist form that warps the spontaneous consciousness of the proletariat (e.g. through the creation of a labor aristocracy), thus leading to the necessity, for example, of a vanguard communist party to lead the way to and through the course of revolution (not merely to participate). A rejection of the law of uneven development, such as concentrated in a deference to spontaneity, is a rejection of "the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism".

Thanks for that, Red Dragon Rider. I ask because I thought you may have been refering to the 'law of uneven development' in terms of the development of individual nation states' productive capacities (ie. the Trotskyist notion of 'combined and uneven development). What you are referring to here, ie. the uneven development of class consciousness within the proletariat is something I have never heard refered to a 'the law of uneven development'.

On the 'law' itself though, this is not something left communists would disagree with. Consciousness does not develop uniformly across the entire working class. We also agree with the conclusions that follow from this, namely the organisation of the most class conscious elements of the working class to assist in the process of the generalisation of class consciousness.

You claim that the communist left are 'defenders of spontaneity'. Could you give evidance for this? I would argue that this is not our position at all.


I explained perfectly what I referred to in the statement "It follows that these ultra-left groups tend to be very, very small, rarely growing beyond a dozen or two dozen members", to which you pitifully and dogmatically responded simply by blaming "Stalinism" and repression rather than in asserting any actual responsibility and thus exercising any critical thinking skills. As to historically-rooted claims about the falsehood of my statement, the statement in question was posed in the present tense.

Clearly you have not even bothered to read what I have written. Not only in my post did I acknowledge the role of repression of the communist left by the forces of stalinism, fascism and democracy, I also pointed to the position occupied by revolutiones within the class, namely their inevitable minority at times when the balance of class forces rests in favour of the bourgeoisie. Linked in with this I should also make clear here the profound toll of the historic, international counter-revolution ushered in by the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and culminating in the Second World War, upon the communist left. For this reason, the communist left as it emerged from this period in many cases suffered from an organic break with the revolutionaries of the past. This is also the case today with new elements emerging around the world which itentify with left communism. These factors have to all be consdiered.

Your allegation of my lack of 'critical thinking skills' also goes against the very line you wrote this response to. I clearly acknowledged in my post the existance of sectarianism, amongst other failures, within the communist left. This is something a number of the organisations which today comprise it recognise and are working to overcome.


The "slander" here is simply the assertion that merely "advancing communist tactics" (and among only one part of the working masses at that) doesn't constitute serious revolutionary or theoretical work.

If intervention in the struggles of the working class with the purpose of advancing communist tactics for the struggle does not constitute 'serious revolutionary work', pray tell, what does!?

Of course the activity of the communist left today is not limited to intervention in workers struggles. To take the example of the ICC, in it's Basic Positions (which can be found online here (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions)) it defines it's activity of consisting of three main points (my emphasis added):

"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." (Basic Positions of the ICC)

As a final point, what do you mean by the statement "among only one part of the working masses at that"? The various organisations of the communist left intervene in the widest possible number of workers struggles.


Left "communists" oppose the organizing of a revolutionary movement

Not true.


oppose class alliances

The communist left stands for the independance of the working class. We opposed cross-class alliances which tie the working class to it's exploiters, who's interests are irreconcilable and fundamentally opposed to one another. By contrast, class collaboration is at the heart of Maoism.


oppose smashing the bourgeois state apparatus in deference to "real democracy"

A shameful lie. Contrary to your claim, it was the communist left at the outbreak of the Second World War which denounced all imperialist camps and refused to side with the forces of democracy against fascism, contrary to the Trotskyists, Stalinists and elements of the anarchist camp which lined up to be the recruiting sergants for the imperialist blood bath.


It is self-evident that all the groupings mentioned above are "left communist". If you have a real explanation to the contrary, feel free to actually provide it rather than just resorting to random, bizarre claims.

As I said to Jake above, obviously you know the communist left better than it knows itself. In reality all you're doing is the same old Stalinist amalgam tactic. By equating the communist left with the myriad of other 'ultra-leftist' currents, without any consideration of their historical development or political positions, you're simply beating up a straw man. You are welcome to read up on the history of the communist left, and I am happy to provide you with the resources with which to do so, of course I think we both know you aren't really interested in the facts.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Why doesn't the ICC organize "alternative culture" bodies like food banks (as a means of becoming a mass organization with a coherent political program)? Because its unconscious organizational role model is not the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD, but the sectarian SPKPiL and, yes, the ultra-left KPD.

Jake your original claim was that the ICC was not active in workers struggles. Now you claim that this is the case because the ICC does not organise 'alternative culture bodies'. If you think the only form of activity in support of workers struggles is the organisation of 'alternative culture bodies' I think you show how completely divorced you really are from the workers movement.

It should be noted though in accordance with their analysis of class consciousness and communist organisation, the ICC in no way seeks to become a mass organisation. This is not at all 'unconscious'. Whilst you may make-believe you are the next Karl Kautsky, the ICC luckily has no illusions or desires in becoming a new SPD.

Also, Jake, could you explain to us what 'alternative culture bodies' are? You only give the example of food banks. Maybe you could also give us some historical case studies on this subject.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jake your original claim was that the ICC was not active in workers struggles. Now you claim that this is the case because the ICC does not organise 'alternative culture bodies'. If you think the only form of activity in support of workers struggles is the organisation of 'alternative culture bodies' I think you show how completely divorced you really are from the workers movement.

My claim was that the ICC was taking too much of a back seat in worker struggles. "Alternative culture" bodies (again from the work I've sent you) include: food banks (not organized by the SPD historically), funeral homes, cultural societies, recreational clubs.


the ICC in no way seeks to become a mass organisation

Neither did the SDKPiL of Rosa Luxemburg, Felix Dzerzhinsky and co. Too afraid of bureaucracy?


This is not at all 'unconscious'

The intention not to be a mass organization may be quite conscious, but the ICC has not paid any sort of homage to the SDKPiL for identical organizational methods. Then again, the SDKPiL failed to make any sort of revolutionary headway in Poland and Lithuania, while the informal Russian revolutionary coalition (Bolsheviks, Left-SRs, anarchists, Menshevik-Internationalists) did and while the USPD ("an outstanding role model for left politics today," to re-quote Die Linke's Dietmar Bartsch) was close.

[Leo]

Why doesn't the ICC organize "alternative culture" bodies like food banks

Because the ICC is a political organization, not a charity foundation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the pre-war SPD was a mere collection of community service organizations? :lol:

My suggestion of food banks as a springboard to alternative culture is in the same vein as various posters' updating of Lenin's newspaper suggestion as a springboard for other traditional party activity.

[Leo]

So the pre-war SPD was a mere collection of community service organizations? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

No, but it was an organization of a different period.


My suggestion of food banks as a springboard to alternative culture is in the same vein as various posters' updating of Lenin's newspaper suggestion as a springboard for other traditional party activity.

Well, I suggest you get in touch with the liberals of Food Not Bombs then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I already commented on their problems in the Strategy forum. Please read my post there.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This Daz guy is an idiot.

[the last donut of the night]

No offence to the mentally challenged.

It's still offensive whether you precede it with "no offense".

[zimmerwald1915]

If you're interested in finding out for yourself, rather than being spoonfed information, you can visit the Left Communist Tendency Page on Revleft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=9) or the sites of the groups already mentioned.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

It continues to be insisted on my profile by Niccolò Rossi that I persist in responding to his posts on this thread. I'll have him (and all) know that I have better things to do than waste my energies on subject matter like this that's politically irrelevant in the world today and that, as such, this will be my final post here, like it or not.


Originally posted by Niccolo Rossi:
What does this mean? [Note: See context.]I was connecting two inconsistent statements of yours. In the first, you claimed to accept "the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism". In the second, you expressed having no knowledge of "the contributions he made to Marxism".


As a final point, what do you mean by the statement "among only one part of the working masses at that"? The various organisations of the communist left intervene in the widest possible number of workers struggles.I was saying that you fail to recognize the reality that the proletariat isn't the only class of working people. You regard the uniting of all the forces that can be united for revolution as "class collaboration", by which you refer to, of course, collaboration with the enemy. Implicitly then, you regard for example farmworkers, intellectuals, professionals, small capitalists, and so on as the enemy. It is not in the interests of the proletariat to cede its potential allies to the enemy (the real enemy). That's a defeatist position. In this way you promote the reification of class consciousness.

You have also explained that the organization you seem to support, the ICC, quote "in no way seeks to become a mass organisation". In other words, they seek to remain in the minority. That also is the kind of orientation to which I referred in claiming that ultra-leftists are opposed to organizing for revolution. The ICC opposes the whole idea of asserting a real leadership role in bringing forward a revolutionary situation, in leading revolutionary struggle, and in navigating the proverbial waters of socialism through to communism even as the masses increasingly take on a broadening role of their own to play in the process in accordance with the breaking down of the division of labor. In opposing real communist leadership in principle, you take up another defeatist position, ceding leadership in effect to the forces of the enemy. Surely by now you can see this theme of defeatism in your overall orientation.

I would also challenge your narrow, economist view of the communist movement as essentially a labor movement. The communist movement, correctly understood, is a revolutionary movement. As such, our efforts even at this point (previous to the seizure of power) should surely involve far more than just everyday "workers' struggles". They should namely involve broad, independent political resistance to the heavy oppression that comes down on people in this society because that, not simply the everyday grind, is what really inspires people to rebel.

The people who comment on this thread are just about the only ones who have ever implied that I was a sellout. That's not a compliment.


Thanks for that, Red Dragon Rider. I ask because I thought you may have been refering to the 'law of uneven development' in terms of the development of individual nation states' productive capacities (ie. the Trotskyist notion of 'combined and uneven development). What you are referring to here, ie. the uneven development of class consciousness within the proletariat is something I have never heard refered to a 'the law of uneven development'.1. You're certainly welcome!

2. Actually, Lenin's law of uneven development also yes encompasses the development of individual nations' productive capacities. It should be noted, however, that Trotsky's version of the uneven development law differs from Lenin's in key respects. They are not the same, contrary to the Trotskyist view. Whereas Lenin's version assesses that the lopsided state of the world implies that the process of world revolution will be protracted one, given that revolutionary consciousness doesn't develop evenly, and as such there is both the possibility and the necessity of it taking hold in individual countries as part of that process, the Trotskyist version by contrast concludes that production processes are so intertwined among nations that you can and must 1) simply "skip" whole historical stages of development, and 2) achieve world revolution overnight simply through sheer force of your determination (as expressed in a permanent war economy).

BONUS!

You asked for Luxemburgists earlier. Well I've managed to find some for you. Here is an American Luxemburgist organization (http://www.workersdemocracy.org/). Here is the international body with which they are apparently affiliated (http://www.luxemburgism.lautre.net/spip.php?article1). Here is another international network of Luxemburgists (http://democom.neuf.fr/communistdemocracy.htm). And there are also other self-identified Luxemburgist organizations. I, like the Trotskyists, also don't really differentiate between Luxemburgists and councilists (a.k.a. council communists). They kind of blur together in my mind. In my opinion it's also worth noting what the Wiki article on left communism has to say in regard to her influence, quote: "Although she lived before left communism became a distinct tendency, Rosa Luxemburg has been heavily influential for most left communists, both politically and theoretically". I will emphasize the word "most" there, as to imply the majority.

[black magick hustla]

than waste my energies on subject matter like this that's politically irrelevant in the world today and that, as such, this will be my final post here, like it or not.

Well you do invest a lot of text in slander of this "irrelevant" current, that one has roll eyes a bit. Remember, you and your politically "relevant" maoist vermont buddies have a lot of work waging the people's war in the appalachian mountains with and rallying around the vanguard of Bernie Sanders and Mr. Avakian.


I would also challenge your narrow, economist view of the communist movement as essentially a labor movement. The communist movement, correctly understood, is a revolutionary movement. As such, our efforts even at this point (previous to the seizure of power) should surely involve far more than just everyday "workers' struggles". They should namely involve broad, independent political resistance to the heavy oppression that comes down on people in this society because that, not simply the everyday grind, ii s what really inspires people to rebel.
Considering the fact that we are for the creation of an internationally centralized communist world party, this is of course, a lie.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It continues to be insisted on my profile by Niccolò Rossi that I persist in responding to his posts on this thread. I'll have him (and all) know that I have better things to do than waste my energies on subject matter like this that's politically irrelevant in the world today and that, as such, this will be my final post here, like it or not.

Red Dragon Rider, all I have done thus far is to invite you to defend your claims and retract your slander against the communist left. Given that this is your final post and you have failed to respond to the bulk of my previous post, I will take this to mean you conceed that you were wrong on thesebut don't have the spine to admit to it.


I was connecting two inconsistent statements of yours. In the first, you claimed to accept "the revolutionary life of Lenin and the contributions he made to Marxism". In the second, you expressed having no knowledge of "the contributions he made to Marxism".

On reviewing the posts I understand what you originally meant, sorry for the misunderstanding.

However, I don't think there is any inconsistency. The contributions of Lenin to the communist movement are not restricted to 'The Law of Uneven Development'.

Still on this topic though, I'm hard pressed to find anywhere in the writings of Lenin the expression 'The Law of Uneven Development [of Consciousness]'. Even though this was meant to be your last post in this thread, could you refer me to the appropriate works and/or passages (if you have too much pride, you are welcome to PM me on this).


I was saying that you fail to recognize the reality that the proletariat isn't the only class of working people. You regard the uniting of all the forces that can be united for revolution as "class collaboration", by which you refer to, of course, collaboration with the enemy. Implicitly then, you regard for example farmworkers, intellectuals, professionals, small capitalists, and so on as the enemy. It is not in the interests of the proletariat to cede its potential allies to the enemy (the real enemy). That's a defeatist position. In this way you promote the reification of class consciousness.

Ah ok, once again I now understand what you are saying here. Surely we can agree there are many peoples other than the proletariat that work, but this isn't at all interesting or significant. The proletariat is the only consistantly revolutionary class in modern day capitalist society. The fact that the petit-bourgeoisie, for example, also works does not make it a revolutionary class. Of course as a Maoist it is to be expected that the defence of the independance of the proletariat against class collaboration would be branded as false. As such, this criticism isn't at all concerning. If you wanted to get into a real debate on this topic it would be better suited to another thread.


You have also explained that the organization you seem to support, the ICC, quote "in no way seeks to become a mass organisation". In other words, they seek to remain in the minority. That also is the kind of orientation to which I referred in claiming that ultra-leftists are opposed to organizing for revolution. The ICC opposes the whole idea of asserting a real leadership role in bringing forward a revolutionary situation, in leading revolutionary struggle, and in navigating the proverbial waters of socialism through to communism even as the masses increasingly take on a broadening role of their own to play in the process in accordance with the breaking down of the division of labor. In opposing real communist leadership in principle, you take up another defeatist position, ceding leadership in effect to the forces of the enemy. Surely by now you can see this theme of defeatism in your overall orientation.

There are two major problems with this.

Firstly, inevitably remaining a minority within the class (something quite different from "seeking" to do so), i.e. remaining in the vanguard of the class, does not in any way contradict the task of asserting political leadership in the struggle for socialism.

Secondly, it has to be remembered that the ICC, as with the other major left communist political organisations, most notably the ICT (formerly IBRP), seek to establish an international, centralised communist party. Both the ICC and ICT recognise that they themselves are not this party or even its prefiguration.

Obviously it is not getting through to you, but I will repeat it once again: The communist left does not oppose the principle of proletarian political leadership! For the groups which comprise the mythical 'ultra-left', this is another story.


the Trotskyist version by contrast concludes that production processes are so intertwined among nations that you can and must 1) simply "skip" whole historical stages of development, and 2) achieve world revolution overnight simply through sheer force of your determination (as expressed in a permanent war economy).

I'm not a Trotskyist, but even I can say, once again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This is not their position at all.


You asked for Luxemburgists earlier. Well I've managed to find some for you. Here is an American Luxemburgist organization (http://www.workersdemocracy.org/). Here is the international body with which they are apparently affiliated (http://www.luxemburgism.lautre.net/spip.php?article1). Here is another international network of Luxemburgists (http://democom.neuf.fr/communistdemocracy.htm).

Despite the existance of these organisations (I am already familiar with the International Luxemburg Network), I still defend that I don't think 'Luxemburgism' really exists.


And there are also other self-identified Luxemburgist organizations. I, like the Trotskyists, also don't really differentiate between Luxemburgists and councilists (a.k.a. council communists). They kind of blur together in my mind.

Fortunately the discussion in this thread tells us that how thing appear in your mind is nothing to go by.


In my opinion it's also worth noting what the Wiki article on left communism has to say in regard to her influence, quote: "Although she lived before left communism became a distinct tendency, Rosa Luxemburg has been heavily influential for most left communists, both politically and theoretically". I will emphasize the word "most" there, as to imply the majority.

Despite the fact that you have chosen to use wikipedia as a source for your understanding (if it can be called that) of left communism, this is certainly not incorrect. Luxemburg was and is a major influence on the communist left. However this doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

[soyonstout]

Two things. I think Red Dragon Rider (and also JR somewhat) seem to be criticizing the left communists for not wanting to be a "mass party" and speaking of this as a rejection of Leninism, for example, the quote:
You have also explained that the organization you seem to support, the ICC, quote "in no way seeks to become a mass organisation". In other words, they seek to remain in the minority. That also is the kind of orientation to which I referred in claiming that ultra-leftists are opposed to organizing for revolution. The ICC opposes the whole idea of asserting a real leadership role in bringing forward a revolutionary situation, in leading revolutionary struggle, and in navigating the proverbial waters of socialism through to communism even as the masses increasingly take on a broadening role of their own to play in the process in accordance with the breaking down of the division of labor. In opposing real communist leadership in principle, you take up another defeatist position, ceding leadership in effect to the forces of the enemy. Surely by now you can see this theme of defeatism in your overall orientation.

It's interesting to look at the attitude of Lenin in his April Theses, and response to criticism thereof, "Letters on Tactics" and the reaction it provoked among Bolsheviks who all thought he was trying to reduce the party to a tiny propaganda group when they wanted it to be a mass party. For example:


"Comrade Kamenev counter poses to a "party of the masses" a "group of propagandists". But the "masses" have now succumbed to the craze of "revolutionary" defencism. Is it not more becoming for internationalists at this moment to show that they can resist "mass" intoxication rather than "wish to remain" with the masses, i.e. to succumb to the general epidemic? Have we not seen how in all the belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists tried to justify themselves on the grounds that they wished to "remain with the masses"? Must we not be able to remain for a time in a minority against the "mass" intoxication? Is it not the work of the propagandists at the present moment that forms the key point for disentangling the proletarian line from the defencist and petty bourgeois "mass" intoxication? It was this fusion of the masses, proletarian and non-proletarian, regardless of class difference, that formed one of the conditions for the defencist epidemic. To speak contemptuously of a "group of propagandists" advocating a proletarian line does not seem to be very becoming" (Letters on Tactics).

speaking of Lenin in 1917, Trotsky wrote:

‘We are not charlatans’, he said in reply to future objections and accusations, ‘We must base ourselves solely on the consciousness of the masses. But if, because of our positions, we have to remain in the minority, that’s fine!... The real government is the Soviet of workers’ deputies. In the Soviet, however, our party is in the minority… Nothing to be done about it!... There remains nothing for us to do but to explain patiently, perseveringly, and systematically the wrongness of their tactic. As long as we are in the minority we will carry out a labour of crit*icism, to separate the workers from this trickery. We don’t want the masses to take our word for it. We are not charlatans. We want the masses to detach themselves from their errors through their own experience.’” (Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. 2)

We can ask ourselves what happened to this minority party which refused any support whatsoever to the provisional government, refused to "demand" from it anything at all, but spent half-a-year "patiently explaining" the workers the necessity for them to seize political power through the councils. Did they lose membership to the more realistic Mensheviks? Were they able to win over anyone to their seemingly "Bakuninist" (it was called this by its opponents) position?

For a more detailed explanation of the importance of this understanding that the party is a political minority which tries to give political direction to the working class, to expose the lies of the bourgeoisie and the left of capital, etc., read the ICC's article about Lenin's April Theses called "April Theses of 1917: signpost to the proletarian revolution"
. . .

I think its important to note that one of the specific reasons for the split in the RSDLP was this question of committed comrades vs. a mass party for every worker who wanted to call him/herself a socialist. The KAPD used this example when arguing with Lenin over his "Left-Wing Communism" book, and against the formation of the VKPD. One of the major left communist groups, the ICC, also looks to this example of the Bolsheviks, especially their activity in the year 1917, when they gave political leadership to the only workers' revolution to have held power (for a while) on a national scale. I think the ideology called "Leninism" (by both the Bolshevik-Leninists and the Marxist-Leninists/Anti-Revisionists, etc.) comes mainly from two periods of Lenin's life's work: before the existence of workers' councils (What is to be Done?), and during the failed attempts of the ComIntern to internationalize the revolution (his life from 1920 onwards), whereas I think Lenin was at his clearest during and immediately after the war. This is another thing that left communist try to understand--how the rise and receding of the revolutionary activity of the working class contributes to the clarity of communist militants. When the revolutionary wave is at its peak, the theoretical understanding of the communists usually is too--as the movement recedes or is defeated, people look for all kinds of substitutes and artificial stimulants for the revolutionary movement and the theory often becomes clouded. This is how I understand left communists' attitudes towards the Bolsheviks in particular.

[Android]

Soyonstout - Good post. The perspective you outlined above is I feel correct. I find myself more and more as my politics develops and becomes clearer, moving towards this understanding of the role of a communist organisation.

[MilitantWorker]

This is another thing that left communist try to understand--how the rise and receding of the revolutionary activity of the working class contributes to the clarity of communist militants. When the revolutionary wave is at its peak, the theoretical understanding of the communists usually is too--as the movement recedes or is defeated, people look for all kinds of substitutes and artificial stimulants for the revolutionary movement and the theory often becomes clouded.I've thought about this a lot. Well said comrade.

I always come to the same question in my mind though. Theoretical clarity is an objective thing, is it not?

Let's speculate on this, though. If we consider it so, then we can say that communist groups and orgs today are either revolutionary and stand behind the workers, or are not (bourgeois). You can say that certain groups are in or out of the proletarian milieu. Yes? No?

When the class begins showing signs of movement (which it has) all communist groups, proletarian or otherwise, reflect, discuss and possibly even intervene in the class struggles in specific situations. Can the actions of the bourgeois parties hamper the class struggle?? I would say, as we have seen historically, yes. So how do we address this?? It seems to me that theoretical clarification among the communists is crucial to the success of a revolutionary movement. If everyone (all the marxists) were on the same page, and that page was agreed to be the right one objectively (thinking about the first International here), no doubt the ability for the communists to support the workers in their struggle will be much greater.

But when the actions of the working class become profound, and there is no doubt that the class is on the offensive against capitalism, will it really be clear to the bourgeois parties what needs to be done?? Or will it be too late?? This is where movement-ending mistakes have been made in the past, no?

So, I see a contradiction here that I can't get past. As the struggle widens and the wave of movement by the workers grows, consciousness among workers begins to rise-- sometimes exponentially. Clarity among the communists who are objectively on the proletarian side of theory also increases. But what about the bourgeois parties?

[Alf]

The bourgeoisie "becomes intelligent in times of crisis", put aside its differences (temporarily of course) and will tend to unite against the proletariat: Versailles and Prussia against the Commune; the Junkers and the SPD against the German revolution....this makes the communist minority even more vital, to warn against the sophisticated manoeuvres of the enemy, which can take the most radical forms and speak the language of the revolution. The extreme left parties would presuemably have a central role in all this. Portugal 1974 offers some more recent examples of this.