Left-communist critique of Leninism

[Lyev]

I was wondering what the left-com -- or Luxemburgist, council-communist etc. -- critique of Leninism is. Beyond that it's just "authoritarian"; I think some folks see the Stalinist deformation of the Soviet Union as a natural continuation of Leninist policy. To add, I mean criticism of Leninism (and therefore Trotskyism and Maoism) in theory; not a criticism of Lenin's or Leninist's actions. Anyway, all answers are appreciated, thanks comrades.

(By the way, please could we try and keep sectarianism out of this, as to not derail the thread, thanks.)

[Zanthorus]

Where in the hell did you get the idea that Left-Communists think Leninism is "authoritarian"? From what I've seen the communist left is just as disdainful of libertarian socialism as many Leninists.

Anyway I think the main issue is over the definition of Imperialism (Left-Coms tend to hold to Luxemburg over Lenin) and participation in bourgeois governments, trade unions, national liberation etc (Left-Communists oppose them while Leninists tend to be supportive).

[Palingenisis]

Actually the Italian Left Communists were far from critical of Lenin.

Amadeo Bordiga has been described as more Leninist than Lenin himself. Given the fact that even though I disagree with him he was an extremely principled man who actually contributed a lot to Marxist thought (Im thinking of his critque of democracy mainly here) I find it weird that so many people have flocked to Trotsky's banner and not his who were in search of a "non-Stalinist" Leninism.

[The Ben G]

I can see Leninism and Left Communism being compatible. Left communism and Trotskyism are very similar in their theories of revolution and post revolution tactics.

[Palingenisis]

Anyway I think the main issue is over the definition of Imperialism (Left-Coms tend to hold to Luxemburg over Lenin) and participation in bourgeois governments, trade unions, national liberation etc (Left-Communists oppose them while Leninists tend to be supportive).

Lenin's views on Trade Unions were a lot more nuanced than those of modern revisionists who claim his legacy.

[Lyev]

Where in the hell did you get the idea that Left-Communists think Leninism is "authoritarian"? From what I've seen the communist left is just as disdainful of libertarian socialism as many Leninists.
I'm not sure where I got this idea from; I thought Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks, but criticizing some of their methods, i.e. she thought they were too authoritarian. I'll try and find a quote.

[Palingenisis]

I'm not sure where I got this idea from; I thought Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks, but criticizing some of their methods, i.e. she thought they were too authoritarian. I'll try and find a quote.

The Left-Communists also supported the Bolsheviks.

[Lyev]

From libcom, to be found here (http://libcom.org/library/leninism-or-marxism-rosa-luxemburg):

Leninism or Marxism was published as an article in 1904 under the title "Organisational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy" in Iskra and Neue Zeit, and later reprinted in pamphlet form titled Marxism vs. Leninism in 1935 by the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.

Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's concept of revolutionary organisation, show the disagreements within the Marxist movements in Europe in the years preceding 1917; her comparisons with Blanquism and chillingly accurate predictions of the consequences of such organisation in a successful revolution are incredibly important to an understanding of the differing interpretations of Marx at that time in relation to the State.

[Lyev]

I suppose then it's a mainly a qualm with some sort of elitist vanguard, comprised mainly of intelligentsia, where the revolution "comes from above".

The question is; why did the Bolsheviks fail? Was it from external sources (f.e. isolation, revolution didn't spread, famine, capitalist intervention, civil war etc.) or was it internal sources in the actual theory (f.e. vanguardism, Leninism, democratic centralism, War Communism, socialism in one country etc.). It's most likely a mixture of all of these.

[Zanthorus]

From libcom, to be found here (http://libcom.org/library/leninism-or-marxism-rosa-luxemburg):

That position is certainly not universal to Left-Communists. I reccomend looking up Bordiga (Who Palingenesis mentioned earlier), he was highly supportive of Lenin's concept of the party and he has an incredibly clear and consistent writing stye.

Also I don't know wether I'd really include Luxemburg under the "left-communist" banner, she died before the communist left really became a proper movement. And she was in favour of participating in capitalist elections. She was certainly influential though.

From what I understand Left-Communists support the Bolshevik revolution along with the stuff passed at the first two congresses of the comintern but oppose most of the stuff after that for being the result of some kind of beuracratic degeneration in the USSR which also effected the Comintern.

Most of them tend to see their position as a consistent application of the principles of Marxism including historical materialism and not really anything to do with libertarianism although some anarchists like to include some of the more anti-organisational types like Pannekoek under the banner of "libertarian Marxism" although they probably would've rejected that term.

[gorillafuck]

I can see Leninism and Left Communism being compatible. Left communism and Trotskyism are very similar in their theories of revolution and post revolution tactics.
Left Coms disagree with Trotskyists on national liberation (Trotskyists support it, Left Coms don't), "identity politics" such as feminism (Left Coms reject feminism as bourgeois), anti-fascism (Trotskyists support anti-fascism, Left Coms see it as class collaborationism), ideass about imperialism is (Trotskyists believe in Lenins ideas on imperialism, Left Coms believe in Luxembourgs ideas), and Orthodox Trotskyists see the USSR and the states molded after it as having been a "degenerate workers state" which Left Coms disagree with (though a lot of modern Trotskyists don't accept the degenerate workers state idea).

So yeah, Trotskyism and Left Communism aren't "very similiar".

[Palingenisis]

Left Coms disagree with Trotskyists on national liberation (Trotskyists support it, Left Coms don't), "identity politics" such as feminism (Left Coms reject feminism as bourgeois), anti-fascism (Trotskyists support anti-fascism, Left Coms see it as class collaborationism), ideass about imperialism is (Trotskyists believe in Lenins ideas on imperialism, Left Coms believe in Luxembourgs ideas), and Orthodox Trotskyists see the USSR and the states molded after it as having been a "degenerate workers state" which Left Coms disagree with (though a lot of modern Trotskyists don't accept the degenerate workers state idea).

So yeah, Trotskyism and Left Communism aren't "very similiar".

I saw somewhere that at least some Bordigists support national liberation struggles, I know that some for instance supported the struggle to defend Yugoslavia from Imperialist drive to rip it apart (the whole question of the Yugoslav war is something Im going to have to do more research on though in general) and the Internationalist Communist Group have a much more down to earth and nuanced approach to national liberation struggles than the Internationalist Communist Current.

I think the problemn here is that only members of the Internationalist Communist Current and not other Left Com groups post here (which isnt of course the fault of the ICC).

[danyboy27]

i criticize its elitism.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think the problemn here is that only members of the Internationalist Communist Current and not other Left Com groups post here (which isnt of course the fault of the ICC).
No, don't you see, Marc's Gestapo goes to the homes of militants of the International Communist Tendency, Internationalist Perspectives, and other groups and confiscates their computers if they try to post on RevLeft! Down with the ICC! Or something.

Will edit to be more substantive in a moment...editing...

First off, let's be very clear about who and what "left communists" and "leninists" are. Only the OP can say who and what was meant by those terms, so I'll refrain from providing my own definitions and ask instead that the OP do so. One thing we can be sure of is that "left communists" does not mean "Rosa Luxemburg" or "Amadeo Bordiga" as individuals. Luxemburg is excluded because she was murdered before left communism ever existed. While her thought did influence the German Left Communists and the Italian Left in exile, and while the SDKPiL and KPD were on the left of the Second and Third Internationals respectively, the Freikorps prevented her from actually taking part in any self-declared left communist organization. Bordiga, of course, polemicized against treating politics as the work of indivuduals, in favor of treating it as the work of organizations, a position which all the left communists I can think of defend. Similarly, "leninism" does not mean "Vladimir Lenin".

[Palingenisis]

Well we need to define Left Communism.

Wasnt the term used originally to mean the Left of the Third International and the groups that came out of it?

Obviously also Lenin wouldnt have called himself a Leninist and nor would Lenin Im sure have approved of people quoting his writings as if they were some sacred text. Maybe using terms like "Leninism" or "Marxism" is wrong. Maybe using the term Communist or Revolutionary Communist would be better in general.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well we need to define Left Communism.

Wasnt the term used originally to mean the Left of the Third International and the groups that came out of it?
Indeed, it still is, though the chain of descent is rather longer now, and groups that developed in the sixties and seventies are tacked onto it. What I was getting at was that only the OP knows what he meant by "Left Communists". Expropriate might be asking about a specific group or set of groups, and the answer one gives might be correct only in terms of another group or set of groups. Or it might be that the whole left communist tradition was meant, in which case any answer given is going to be...long and complex.

Sorry to derail, will come back when Expropriate elaborates on definitions.

[Palingenisis]

Well didnt some of the German and Dutch Left end up becoming anarchists in all but name? Could situationists be called Left Communists seeing as they have their idealogical roots in the KAPD or elements of it?

But the KAPD applied for some sort of half membership of the Third International so they were not Bolshevik even though they were critical of the Bolsheviks...Is that fair to say?

[zimmerwald1915]

But the KAPD applied for some sort of half membership of the Third International so they were not Bolshevik even though they were critical of the Bolsheviks...Is that fair to say?
The KAPD was expelled from the KPD at the Heidelberg Congress, but still considered themselves part of the Third International until they were expelled from that as well at the Third World Congress.

*Zimmerwald1915 promises himself that he will post no more in this thread until the conditions outlined in his last post are fulfilled. No temptation of Palingenesis can sway him!

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

From libcom, to be found here (http://libcom.org/library/leninism-or-marxism-rosa-luxemburg):


Leninism or Marxism was published as an article in 1904 under the title "Organisational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy" in Iskra and Neue Zeit, and later reprinted in pamphlet form titled Marxism vs. Leninism in 1935 by the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.

Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's concept of revolutionary organisation, show the disagreements within the Marxist movements in Europe in the years preceding 1917; her comparisons with Blanquism and chillingly accurate predictions of the consequences of such organisation in a successful revolution are incredibly important to an understanding of the differing interpretations of Marx at that time in relation to the State.Rosa ended up coming to Lenin's defense against accusations of Blanquism by people like Plekhanov.

Two years later she said:


It is possible that there were hints of them in the organisational draft that comrade Lenin drew up in 1902, but that belongs to the past – a distant past, since today life is proceeding at a dizzying speed. These errors have been corrected by life itself and there is no danger they might recur.

Libcom is being pretty dishonest by not mentioning that.

[AK]

By the way, please could we try and keep this as sectarian as possible, and try not to derail the thread, thanks.)
You what? :confused:

[red cat]

(By the way, please could we try and keep this as sectarian as possible, and try not to derail the thread, thanks.)

Most definitely ! :thumbup1:


I was wondering what the left-com -- or Luxemburgist, council-communist etc. -- critique of Leninism is.

That it is not an infantile disorder. :D

[Bilan]

Red Cat...Do I really have to get up in your grill about this? Come on now.

[Lyev]

You what? :confused:
I honestly mean "as least sectarian" as possible. Genuine typing error. I'll change that now.

[Devrim]

Libcom is being pretty dishonest by not mentioning that.

I think that is pretty unfair really. Libcom here is just republishing the article, one of eleven they have by Luxemburg on their site. I am sure that if you wanted to put up any different articles by here, they would be happy for you to do so. I can't see any dishonesty here.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Where in the hell did you get the idea that Left-Communists think Leninism is "authoritarian"? From what I've seen the communist left is just as disdainful of libertarian socialism as many Leninists.


It is not that we are 'disdainful of libertarian socialism'. It is just that we, like Luxemburg, don't really see the libertarian/authoritarian thing as a key point.

Devrim

[Lyev]

First off, let's be very clear about who and what "left communists" and "leninists" are. Only the OP can say who and what was meant by those terms, so I'll refrain from providing my own definitions and ask instead that the OP do so. One thing we can be sure of is that "left communists" does not mean "Rosa Luxemburg" or "Amadeo Bordiga" as individuals. Luxemburg is excluded because she was murdered before left communism ever existed. While her thought did influence the German Left Communists and the Italian Left in exile, and while the SDKPiL and KPD were on the left of the Second and Third Internationals respectively, the Freikorps prevented her from actually taking part in any self-declared left communist organization. Bordiga, of course, polemicized against treating politics as the work of indivuduals, in favor of treating it as the work of organizations, a position which all the left communists I can think of defend. Similarly, "leninism" does not mean "Vladimir Lenin".
Yes this is exactly what I mean. I want to clarify: Luxemburgism, council-communism and left-communism, libertarian communism etc. are all similar trends, right? I realise that Luxemburg was killed before left-communism "officially" came about, but as you said zimmerwald, left-communism nods a head at Luxemburg. And what I mean by Leninism, is not necessarily the actions of the man V.I Lenin himself, but the actions of Leninist organisations and also Leninist theory, as espoused in his writings. Same goes for left-communism and every other tendency.

[Devrim]

Actually the Italian Left Communists were far from critical of Lenin.

Amadeo Bordiga has been described as more Leninist than Lenin himself.

Yes, this is true. You should see the ICP's take on 'Left Wing Communism...':

«'LEFT-WING' COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER» - CONDEMNATION OF THE RENEGADES TO COME (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/ren/renegadeae.html) The most exploited and counterfeited text for over forty years by all opportunist swines, each swine being characterised and defined by the barefaced invocation of it (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/ren/renegadeae.html)



Given the fact that even though I disagree with him he was an extremely principled man who actually contributed a lot to Marxist thought (Im thinking of his critque of democracy mainly here) I find it weird that so many people have flocked to Trotsky's banner and not his who were in search of a "non-Stalinist" Leninism.

I think that a lot of it would be to do with the prestige of Trotsky after the revolution, and on the other side Bordiga coming from one of the smaller European countries, which didn't use a language known by that many people.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Left-Communists also supported the Bolsheviks.

Yes, in fact in Russia left communism was a current within the party, and at times the biggest single one.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I saw somewhere that at least some Bordigists support national liberation struggles, I know that some for instance supported the struggle to defend Yugoslavia from Imperialist drive to rip it apart (the whole question of the Yugoslav war is something Im going to have to do more research on though in general) and the Internationalist Communist Group have a much more down to earth and nuanced approach to national liberation struggles than the Internationalist Communist Current.

I think that you are right about some of the Bordigists. I am not really an expert on them, but I do know that it was a central question in the splits in the ICP at the start of the 1980s, which emerged from the Arab sections.

I think that it is fair to say that most left communists who draw on the traditions of the German left, in which I would include Battaglia Comunista and the ICT, hold a similar position to the ICC though. The GCI are the exception here.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

As a Leninist, one of my biggest beefs with "Left Communists" is on the national question. Us Leninists support the right of all nations to self-determination, and we see the struggle of oppressed nationalities as progressive and helpful for the cause of the entire world proletariet. Personally, for me, I might have a slightly different take on the national question than most Leninists. I'm an Internationalist but I treat internationalism as a political movement that embraces multi-culturalism. I have respect for every national culture on the planet and I see no reason why different cultures can't thrive peacefully side by side. I take a lot of my inspiration on national-culture and internationalism from the way Frida and Diego put it out there. People like Luxembourg and the others on the communist left have this sort of pseudo-imperialist idea that imperialism on the part of industrialized nations is good because it creates more proletarians (never mind brutal oppression and chauvanism) and some even advocate a world proletcult, which is something that Lenin denounced again and again after 1921. I view proletcult as imperialistic and chauvanist because basically it says "your culture is wrong, backwards and reactionary. But mine is revolutionary, so therefore everyone should follow my cultural line."

[Devrim]

Well we need to define Left Communism.

Wasnt the term used originally to mean the Left of the Third International and the groups that came out of it?

Yes, it did though not all of them. Generally it is used to categorise the groups attacked in Lenin's pamphlet, of which there were two main currents, the 'German' and 'Italian' left.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Well didnt some of the German and Dutch Left end up becoming anarchists in all but name?

I think that they wouldn't have referred to themselves in that way, which is maybe your point.;)


Could situationists be called Left Communists seeing as they have their idealogical roots in the KAPD or elements of it?

I think their political roots are more in SouB and Castoriadis' ideas.


But the KAPD applied for some sort of half membership of the Third International so they were not Bolshevik even though they were critical of the Bolsheviks...Is that fair to say?

I think they considered themselves to be 'full members', but were only given 'some sort of half membership'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

People like Luxembourg and the others on the communist left have this sort of pseudo-imperialist idea that imperialism on the part of industrialized nations is good because it creates more proletarians (never mind brutal oppression and chauvanism) and some even advocate a world proletcult, which is something that Lenin denounced again and again after 1921. I view proletcult as imperialistic and chauvanist because basically it says "your culture is wrong, backwards and reactionary. But mine is revolutionary, so therefore everyone should follow my cultural line."

I think this isn't a very good explanation. 'Prolekult' was the movement of a Russian called Alexander Bogdanov who wasn't a left communist, and it wasn't an idea taken up by left communists.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

I think this isn't a very good explanation. 'Prolekult' was the movement of a Russian called Alexander Bogdanov who wasn't a left communist, and it wasn't an idea taken up by left communists.

Devrim

No, "Proletcult" in the traditional sense wasn't upheld by Left Communists at its conception, but Left Communists still have assimilationist, "one-culture" views of internationalism that I don't agree with.

[Alf]

Part of the problem here, as Zimmerwald has noted, is that while left communism is a fairly well defined political tradition, Leninism is a completely vague term which means all things to all men. If the term has any definite historical origins, it is as an expression of the growing counter-revolution in Russia in the 1920s, when Leninism and an uncritical defence of all Lenin's ideas and actions became the official ideology of the emerging Stalinist bureaucracy; the left communists (and this includes the Italian communist left around Bordiga and others, despite later protestations of being more Leninist than Lenin) were generally those who were able not only to oppose the rise of Stalinism after 1923, but were able also to criticise the opportunist errors of the Bolsheviks and the Comintern even in the 'good old days' under Lenin. For example, on parliamentarism and the United Front they were not afraid to take positions opposed to those defended by Lenin. This did not mean that the left communists immediately rejected the positive heritage of Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the Russian revolution, though later on, this became a strong tendency within the Dutch and German left in particular - this is where the term 'council communism' comes in, but it definitely emerged as part of the communst left.
The Trotskyists began life as a weaker expression of proletarian resistance to the counter-revolution, and found it much more difficult to go back to the roots of some of the original errors made by Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the CI. The fact that they often called themselves 'Bolshevik-Leninists is one sign of this.
If the discussion around the original question can go anywhere, it would be necessary to separate two things:
- the left communist criticisms of some of Lenin's ideas, eg on national struggles, parliamentarism, the United Front, etc
- the left communist criticism of those groups whose 'Leninist' label is actually an expression of their descent from the Stalinist counter-revolution, and which are more accurately described today as part of the left wing of capitalism. Most left communists would certainly include all the Stalinist and Maoist groups in this category, but also the Trotskyists who have in the course of historical events become a kind of critical appendage of Stalinism and social democracy.
This two-part article goes into some of these questions:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)

[Devrim]

No, "Proletcult" in the traditional sense wasn't upheld by Left Communists at its conception,

Well yes.


but Left Communists still have assimilationist, "one-culture" views of internationalism that I don't agree with.

It is news to me.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Was the "Workers' Opposition" Left Communist as such?

[Palingenisis]

It is news to me.

Devrim

Cough...Comments you made when the subjects of the Cornish language and Irish culture came up would suggest otherwise...

[Devrim]

Was the "Workers' Opposition" Left Communist as such?

No, I wouldn't say so. I would say it was a syndicalist opposition based in the trade union's and their bureaucracy.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Yes, this is true. You should see the ICP's take on 'Left Wing Communism...':

«'LEFT-WING' COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER» - CONDEMNATION OF THE RENEGADES TO COME (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/ren/renegadeae.html) The most exploited and counterfeited text for over forty years by all opportunist swines, each swine being characterised and defined by the barefaced invocation of it (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/ren/renegadeae.html)


Bit of a difference there between that and this...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/ruhle01.htm

[Devrim]

Cough...Comments you made when the subjects of the Cornish language and Irish culture came up would suggest otherwise...

Well first, they were my personal ideas. We don't have formal positions on every cultural question. What we do say is that language movements tend to be in the orbit of nationalism. I think this is true.

I want to come back to those questions anyway. I am trying to catch up with all the discussions I want to this afternoon.

On the Cornish question what I said was 'The last native speaker of which died over one hundred years ago'. That is just a fact. I don't think that you can really claim that it means I 'have assimilationist, "one-culture" views'.

Devrim

[Comrade Phil]

I don't think Luxemburg was supportive of Leninism at all. From my understanding, she puts forward the notion that a revolution lead by a vanguard party is in no way a genuine social revolution but rather a intellectual coup d'etat comparable to the Blanquists or Jacobins. She is also highly critical of democratic centalism, arguing that it creates blind subordination and elitism.

Here's the article:
Organizational Questions
of the Russian Social Democracy (Leninism v. Marxism)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm

I've never really understood why Leninists tend to view that Luxemburg was supportive of Lenin and his views, is there something I'm missing?

[Devrim]

Bit of a difference there between that and this...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/ruhle01.htm

Yes, there is. Neither the 'German' or the 'Italian' lefts recognised each other as being in the same current. The Germans saw the 'Italians' as 'ultra-Leninist', and the 'Italians' saw the 'Germans' as 'a semi-syndicalist deviation'.

What could now be called 'left communism' today draws on the work of the Italian left in exile, which 'rediscovered' the positions of the 'German' left.

Devrim

[Die Rote Fahne]

I was wondering what the left-com -- or Luxemburgist, council-communist etc. -- critique of Leninism is. Beyond that it's just "authoritarian"; I think some folks see the Stalinist deformation of the Soviet Union as a natural continuation of Leninist policy. To add, I mean criticism of Leninism (and therefore Trotskyism and Maoism) in theory; not a criticism of Lenin's or Leninist's actions. Anyway, all answers are appreciated, thanks comrades.

(By the way, please could we try and keep sectarianism out of this, as to not derail the thread, thanks.)

Read Marxism or Leninism by Rosa Luxembourg

[A.R.Amistad]

Well yes.



It is news to me.

Devrim

I've based this idea on Luxembourg's chauvinistic views on culture and her belief that British Imperialism in India was progressive. I am not under the impression that all Left-Communists believe that, but its an idea thats all too uncommon. I just hate it when leftists denounce national cultures as reactionary. Its just as chauvinistic as any right-wing Nationalist in the end.

Propaghandi

Read Marxism or Leninism by Rosa Luxembourg This is a highly outdated text and shouldn't be upheld as Luxembourg's firm and final stance on the ideas of Leninism. Sure, she remained critical, but by the time of the 1917 she had largely changed her anti-Leninist position, and had long renounced what this article had argued. People change.

Comrade Phil


I've never really understood why Leninists tend to view that Luxemburg was supportive of Lenin and his views, is there something I'm missing?

Yes, you are missing something. Luxembourg, and Lenin, and Trotsky, changed over time and changed their positions on things. Luxembourg may have been critical, but in the end she was more supportive of Lenin and Trotsky and agreed with them more than she disagreed.

[Palingenisis]

Yes, there is. Neither the 'German' or the 'Italian' lefts recognised each other as being in the same current. The Germans saw the 'Italians' as 'ultra-Leninist', and the 'Italians' saw the 'Germans' as 'a semi-syndicalist deviation'.

What could now be called 'left communism' today draws on the work of the Italian left in exile, which 'rediscovered' the positions of the 'German' left.

Devrim

The ICC if I understand your position correctly view Lenin as a comrade who made mistakes but one of the reasons that you dont consider the Internationalist Communist Group to be in the "proletarian camp" is because you view them as supporting national liberation struggles, Lenin though saw the "right of national self-determination" as a political principle that he held in a way you cant accuse them of doing.....Why are they not comrades because of their views but Lenin was?

And yes I know there are other reasons you dont consider the ICG comrades but the impression I got from you and Leo is that there view of that there can be a proletarian content in national liberation struggles is reason enough for them not to be your comrades.

[Devrim]

I've based this idea on Luxembourg's chauvinistic views on culture and her belief that British Imperialism in India was progressive. I am not under the impression that all Left-Communists believe that, but its an idea thats all too uncommon. I just hate it when leftists denounce national cultures as reactionary. Its just as chauvinistic as any right-wing Nationalist in the end.

But when did she say that?

These sort of ideas were very common in the workers movement. Witness Marx:


Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?

There was a time when Marxists thought that the development of capitalism was progressive.

Luxemburg changed her ideas because she thought the period had changed, and that capitalism had ceased to play a progressive role.

Personally, I think that all 'national culture' is reactionary. It is not a position of the ICC though, and I don't think that there is anything chauvinist about it.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

Devrim

Personally, I think that all 'national culture' is reactionary. It is not a position of the ICC though, and I don't think that there is anything chauvinist about it.


No offense, but this is exactly what grinds my gears. There is no one on this forum who doesn't in some way participate in and enjoy a national culture, and not all nationally based cultures are "bourgeois." By asserting that there should be one world culture one is asserting that one already existing culture should dominate all others.

[Devrim]

The ICC if I understand your position correctly view Lenin as a comrade who made mistakes but one of the reasons that you dont consider the Internationalist Communist Group to be in the "proletarian camp" is because you view them as supporting national liberation struggles, Lenin though saw the "right of national self-determination" as a political principle that he held in a way you cant accuse them of doing.....Why are they not comrades because of their views but Lenin was?

And yes I know there are other reasons you dont consider the ICG comrades but the impression I got from you and Leo is that there view of that there can be a proletarian content in national liberation struggles is reason enough for them not to be your comrades.

I think that there are differences. Lenin didn't support national liberation struggles on principle, but as a tactical measure. We say that he was wrong, but that it was at the start of a new historical period, that opened by the First World War, what Lenin called 'the epoch of wars and revolutions'. People struggled to adapt and to understand the implications of this new period. Now the nature of the period is clear, and for us, the communist position on these movements.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

I know you are being bombarded with questions but out of interest do the ICC view John Mc Clean in the same way you view James Connolly?

[Devrim]

No offense, but this is exactly what grinds my gears. There is no one on this forum who doesn't in some way participate in and enjoy a national culture, and not all nationally based cultures are "bourgeois." By asserting that there should be one world culture one is asserting that one already existing culture should dominate all others.

But I didn't say that there should be 'one existing culture that should dominate all others'. I think that the working class will create its own culture in its struggle for power. Nor did I say that national culture is 'bourgeois'. Generally what gets passed of as national culture is actually the remnants of 'feudal' culture.

The thing is though that it is turned into a commodity to be sold like any other. For example, in Turkey amongst both Turks and Kurds alike, as well as in Ireland, folk dancing is turned into spectacles like 'Riverdance' or 'Anadolu Ateşi', precisely because they do not have much resonance in everyday life, which is a result of the historical destruction of the peasantry as a class, which are then sold to people who feel a longing for community in a world where it is little in evidence.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Propaghandi
This is a highly outdated text and shouldn't be upheld as Luxembourg's firm and final stance on the ideas of Leninism. Sure, she remained critical, but by the time of the 1917 she had largely changed her anti-Leninist position, and had long renounced what this article had argued. People change.

But surely that doesn't change the fact that that article contains some views that some people agree with, and so is a useful resource if you want to know what those people think? I'd say that what Luxemburg thought is of less relevance than what people who are still alive and doing things today think, so if some left communists still agree with that text, then it's still relevant.

[Zanthorus]

I've never really understood why Leninists tend to view that Luxemburg was supportive of Lenin and his views, is there something I'm missing?

Easy: Luxemburg's work is a titanic strawman that doesn't hold up to any serious reading of WITBD.


Read Marxism or Leninism by Rosa Luxembourg.

The title "Leninism or Marxism" is also misleading as this was never the title given to it by Luxemburg herself. And later on she became more supportive of Lenin although she differed with him on the National Question.

The whole debate surrounding WITBD and the critiques by Trotsky and Luxemburg are tied to a specific debate in Russian Marxism that ceased to be referenced to by even Lenin himself after 1907. It is only of any interest because liberal scholars have made such a fuss over WITBD as the "original sin" of russian bolshevism from which all the sins of Stalinism later flowed that anyone pays it any attention.

For the most part the book only expresses very basic ideas on party organisation and there really isn't much to critique (from a Partyist perspective anyway. I'm still critical of the book but for different reasons than most).

[A.R.Amistad]

But I didn't say that there should be 'one existing culture that should dominate all others'. I think that the working class will create its own culture in its struggle for power. Nor did I say that national culture is 'bourgeois'. Generally what gets passed of as national culture is actually the remnants of 'feudal' culture.

The thing is though that it is turned into a commodity to be sold like any other. For example, in Turkey amongst both Turks and Kurds alike, as well as in Ireland, folk dancing is turned into spectacles like 'Riverdance' or 'Anadolu Ateşi', precisely because they do not have much resonance in everyday life, which is a result of the historical destruction of the peasantry as a class, which are then sold to people who feel a longing for community in a world where it is little in evidence.

Devrim

I think we leftists need to realize that national culture as we see it is not going to go away, no matter how many social revolutions there are. Personally, I think cultures are too closely tied with geography for class structure to destroy or create it. You are right, mostof the cultures we see today are remnants of the feudal times. Why? Because they've outlived every revolution since way before feudal times, such as in Spain. Cultures do change in form and can become more progressive, but elements of those different cultures remain. No one new culture is going to generate because geographical differences will always support different interpretations of it.

[Devrim]

I know you are being bombarded with questions

By you mostly ;)


but out of interest do the ICC view John Mc Clean in the same way you view James Connolly?

Connolly at one point was a great militant who, in our opinion, got dragged into a nationalist uprising through desperation. MacLean also was a great fighter against the war and for workers interests, who ended up with some nationalist positions. I think that there is a difference between them in that MacLean didn't get dragged along with anything like Pearse's 'blood and soil' nationalism, and certainly not the whole idea of a blood sacrifice, which we would say is reactionary to the core.

Devrim

[which doctor]

'Luxemburgism' only exists as a result of a perversion of Luxemburg's actual views in an effort to pit Luxemburg against Lenin, which is profoundly dishonest. First off, Luxemburg's pamphlet 'Leninism or Marxism' was originally titled 'Organizational Questions of Russian Social-Democracy.' I don't even think 'Leninism' even existed in 1904. The word 'Leninism' never even appears in the entire work. Also, her work 'The Russian Revolution' which supposedely critiques the Bolshevik revolution for not being democratic enough was written while she was in prison, where the only news of the revolution she got came from bourgeois press reports. She realized the mistakes she made in it, and ordered for all copies to be destroyed and her opinion on the Russian Revolution is better expressed in her later published The Russian Tragedy (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/09/11.htm). Unfortunetely, Ann Arbor paperbacks bundled The Russian Revolution and Leninism or Marxism? together, which continues to perpetuate the myth of Luxemburg's anti-bolshevism. Luxemburg's endorsement of Bolshevism can be found in her 1918 piece What is Bolshevism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20-alt.htm)

[A.R.Amistad]

But surely that doesn't change the fact that that article contains some views that some people agree with, and so is a useful resource if you want to know what those people think? I'd say that what Luxemburg thought is of less relevance than what people who are still alive and doing things today think, so if some left communists still agree with that text, then it's still relevant.


Its possible to agree with and put into praxis, but the ideas have been refuted by the author herself and have also been largely discounted as sectarianism, so I don't think it is relevant anymore, for the same reason I don't think WITBD is a relevant text anymore. For example, I still believe that a vanguard party with democratic centralism is needed, etc. etc., but Lenin changed a lot of his views on that post-1905 so I adhere to Lenin's more updated and tested views on the role of a vanguard party.

[Palingenisis]

http://libcom.org/library/counter-revolution-ireland-serge-van-der-straeten-philippe-daufouy

Does anybody know anything about the authors of this text or the origin of text itself?

Was Les Temps Modernes a Left Communist magazine?

[Devrim]

Does anybody know anything about the authors of this text or the origin of text itself?

Was Les Temps Modernes a Left Communist magazine?

I don't know anything about the authors, or the text itself, but 'Modern Times' is a well known French publication, which still exists,and was started just after the war by Sartre, and no it wasn't left communist.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm sorry I hate that website

[Palingenisis]

I'm sorry I hate that website

The libarary is pretty good. The forums are a bit cracked....I read in the Republican-Socialist group here that they were talking on it about during their anarchist revolution they would attack the IRSP HQ with tanks :crying: . Anti-Politics is less OTT "ultra-left" forum but it to drips of intellectuality cut off from actual life...."Critiquing" everything to the point where even a bacon sandwich becomes filled with all sorts of nuances.

[A.R.Amistad]

Palingenisis

Critiquing" everything to the point where even a bacon sandwich becomes filled with all sorts of nuances.

Funny you say that, because when I brought up the novel idea of community owned restaurants as a move toward socialist thinking, some ultra-leftist redirected me to a campaign based on that site called "abolish restaurants." So yes, you are right, enjoying a bacon sandwich is reactionary (according to reactionaries;))

[MilitantWorker]

On the question of culture...I think an interesting contradiction has been highlighted in this thread..

Devrim spoke of remnants of feudal culture, Mr. Amistad spoke of national identities/culture blah blah..

I'm not sure how uniform this is but in my experience/from what I've seen..many working people in the US sorta "forge" their own "cultures" (nah mean?) on the daily..so I honestly like some of Gramsci's writings on false consciousness, "the war of position", base/superstructure, the writings on bourgeois ideology and pop culture, etc...because I believe that the international proletarian movement will need a uniform ideology (NOT A UNIFORM CULTURE) before workers start the actual resistance against the capitalist system

I need to read more on this, I'll be back with a new thread most likely...peace

[MilitantWorker]

Zimmerwald, Devrim, anyone...

suggested reading on the subject I mentioned in my last post?

thanks for the help guys, you know you are much appreciated

[A.R.Amistad]

Please pull your head out of your ass and go outside where you can talk to real working people (you know, sunlight etc)...keyboard warriors sheesh


sorry that you can't recognize a joke, so the "sheesh" goes to you.

[MilitantWorker]

homie-- we could all do without the off color comments that is all I am saying

</response>

[A.R.Amistad]

^?

[Palingenisis]

sorry that you can't recognize a joke, so the "sheesh" goes to you.

To be fair I havent seen any similar carry on by members of the ICC but I have come across very self-indulgent "ultra-left" and wannabe "situationist" 'zines and people who are full of endless critique and self-critique...Adronos without the redeeming features.

[A.R.Amistad]

now I am utterly confused as to whats going on here

[Palingenisis]

Zimmerwald, Devrim, anyone...

suggested reading on the subject I mentioned in my last post?

thanks for the help guys, you know you are much appreciated

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html

Thats a very good overview of Bordiga.

http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-germany-1918-1921

And thats a very good from what Ive read so far history of the Left Communists in Germany.

[MilitantWorker]

I think we leftists

Sorry, I'm not a leftist


I'm sorry I hate that website


I just hate it when leftists denounce national cultures as reactionary. Its just as chauvinistic as any right-wing Nationalist in the end.

Once again, not a leftist.


I take a lot of my inspiration on national-culture and internationalism from the way Frida and Diego put it out there

lawl...good art/bad politics


Left Communists still have assimilationist, "one-culture" views of internationalism


There is no one on this forum who doesn't in some way participate in and enjoy a national culture, and not all nationally based cultures are "bourgeois."

Uh......no. I object.


[Marxism or Leninism] is a highly outdated text and shouldn't be upheld as Luxembourg's firm and final stance on the ideas of Leninism. Sure, she remained critical, but by the time of the 1917 she had largely changed her anti-Leninist position, and had long renounced what this article had argued


"Labor Aristocrat", huh...

[A.R.Amistad]

Sorry, I'm not a leftist





Once again, not a leftist.



lawl...good art/bad politics





Uh......no. I object.



"Labor Aristocrat", huh...


do you have a point?

[MilitantWorker]

blah

[A.R.Amistad]

No, no points...just questions...

Will you please explain what national liberation is and how in the bleep it relates to the international proletarian movement, good sir? Thank you.

National liberation movements are key to the undoing of imperialism, the highest and most oppressive form of capitalism.

Could you please not troll? Thank you.

[Palingenisis]

No, no points...just questions...

Will you please explain what national liberation is and how in the bleep it relates to the international proletarian movement, good sir? Thank you.

This is the learning section...and this thread is about people trying to figure out the exact relationship between Lenin (and Leninism) and Left Communism. Of course other topics will crop up as they would in a normal conversation...But this thread is not about national liberation and really I dont think your aggro is in the right place here...Why not go to one of the threads dealing with national liberation in the politics section if you want to argue about it?

[MilitantWorker]

You're right. Sorry everyone.

[Palingenisis]

http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek

I havent read this but it looks like it would be interesting for someone looking to learn about the relationship of the different strands of Left Communism to Lenin's views.

[black magick hustla]

On the question of national culture. I once discussed this issue with a sort of black nationalist that was my professor. I argued that I could care less about national culture, and national identity, and that even as a minority and mexican, I could not wait for the day for all that to burn down. He was grossed out, like he had a sort of cognitive dissonance.


I think communism, being the end of history as we know it, would bring very beautiful culture. So beautiful that perhaps the language of us, men living in a society of masters and slaves, could not even express. Culture and language are a mirror of the world, and as such, a world of free people would carry on a world of free culture. I feel no attachment to the cultural deadweight of past generations who lived under the heel of a world of dog eats dog. That sort of melancholy is what accompanied the Volk-discourse of german reactionaries who could not dream of a better, future world, and therefore looked at the past for inspiration.

[Lyev]

Please carry on with the discussion of nationalism; whilst not explicitly linked to the topic at hand, I find it quite compelling. This is obviously an issue that left-communists and all varieties of Leninists (Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc.) differ on, then?

[Palingenisis]

Please carry on with the discussion of nationalism; whilst not explicitly linked to the topic at hand, I find it quite compelling. This is obviously an issue that left-communists and all varieties of Leninists (Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc.) differ on, then?


Actually there is a break away from the Spartacus League in the USA called Platypus1917 or something along that line who would be in agreement on questions of national liberation and national culture with Devrim and Malador.

Even though you dont have an official position on it have you (Devrim and Malador) ever met anyone within the ICC who disagreed with your views on "national"/"folk" culture?

[black magick hustla]

Even though you dont have an official position on it have you (Devrim and Malador) ever met anyone within the ICC who disagreed with your views on "national"/"folk" culture?

Well, the closest I can think of was when I had a discussion with Lars on the question of proletarian morality. He argued that there is a sort of "good behavior" that can be objectively deduced out of darwinistic axioms. I disagreed vehemently with that. That is the closest I encountered.

[Lyev]

the question of proletarian morality. He argued that there is a sort of "good behavior" that can be objectively deduced out of darwinistic axioms. What on earth do you mean by that?

[MilitantWorker]

I think communism, being the end of history as we know it, would bring very beautiful culture. So beautiful that perhaps the language of us, men living in a society of masters and slaves, could not even express. Culture and language are a mirror of the world, and as such, a world of free people would carry on a world of free culture. I feel no attachment to the cultural deadweight of past generations who lived under the heel of a world of dog eats dog.

:thumbup1:

[black magick hustla]

What on earth do you mean by that?

Well, he more or less was arguing that in order to figure out what is "good" we can do it out of what will make us survive as species, etcetera. Maybe I am simplifying it. But he thought that was the scientififc way of doing it.

[Palingenisis]

Well, he more or less was arguing that in order to figure out what is "good" we can do it out of what will make us survive as species, etcetera. Maybe I am simplifying it. But he thought that was the scientififc way of doing it.

Have you read the two articles on ethics on the ICC site and if so what do you make of them?

[zimmerwald1915]

I think that a lot of it would be to do with the prestige of Trotsky after the revolution, and on the other side Bordiga coming from one of the smaller European countries, which didn't use a language known by that many people.

Devrim
It also has quite a bit to do with the fact that Bordiga dropped out of organizational activity after about 1928, and kept up a correspondence with only a few close comrades.


The ICC if I understand your position correctly view Lenin as a comrade who made mistakes but one of the reasons that you dont consider the Internationalist Communist Group to be in the "proletarian camp" is because you view them as supporting national liberation struggles, Lenin though saw the "right of national self-determination" as a political principle that he held in a way you cant accuse them of doing.....Why are they not comrades because of their views but Lenin was?
Lenin defended that position before the experience of the Russian Revolution and its European and Chinese progeny destroyed what validity it had in the minds of its defenders. The GCI defends it today.

On the issue of folk culture, I actually spent this year researching some aspects of that question, and can tell you that maldoror is essentially correct. The interests of, at least, the American CP in promoting folk culture flourished alongside the counter-revolution. They most heavily promoted what they called "people's songs" during the Popular Front period as a way to get people interested in what they had to say, and during the war in order to get people to fight for the Allied/Soviet imperialist camp.

[Palingenisis]

Lenin defended that position before the experience of the Russian Revolution and its European and Chinese progeny destroyed what validity it had in the minds of its defenders. The GCI defends it today.

The Internationalist Communist Group does not defend the right of nations to self-determination...what they do say is that national liberation struggles can have a proletarian content within them (such as the fight of the Iraqi working class against Anglo-American Imperialists).

[which doctor]

Actually there is a break away from the Spartacus League in the USA called Platypus1917 or something along that line who would be in agreement on questions of national liberation and national culture with Devrim and Malador.
Platypus isn't a breakaway from the Spartacist League. Two of the founding members were members in the Spartacist League for a very brief period around 1989 or so, but Platypus was founded in 2006, and the links between the two organizations stop there. Here's what the sparts think about the platypi (buyer beware!): http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/908/ysp-platypus.html

[Devrim]

Funny you say that, because when I brought up the novel idea of community owned restaurants as a move toward socialist thinking, some ultra-leftist redirected me to a campaign based on that site called "abolish restaurants." So yes, you are right, enjoying a bacon sandwich is reactionary (according to reactionaries;))

It is not a 'campaign to abolish restaurants'. It is a pamphlet. It describes itself as such:


ABOLISH RESTAURANTS
a worker's critique of the food service industry A 60-page illustrated guide to the daily misery, stress, boredom, and alienation of restaurant work, as well as the ways in which restaurant workers fight against it. Drawing on a range of anti-capitalist ideas as well as a heaping plate of personal experience, it is part analysis and part call-to-arms.

It can be found here:

http://www.prole.info/

I am not saying that I agree with all of it, but it certainly isn't what you say.

Devrim

[Devrim]

On the question of culture...I think an interesting contradiction has been highlighted in this thread..

Devrim spoke of remnants of feudal culture, Mr. Amistad spoke of national identities/culture blah blah..

I'm not sure how uniform this is but in my experience/from what I've seen..many working people in the US sorta "forge" their own "cultures" (nah mean?) on the daily..so I honestly like some of Gramsci's writings on false consciousness, "the war of position", base/superstructure, the writings on bourgeois ideology and pop culture, etc...because I believe that the international proletarian movement will need a uniform ideology (NOT A UNIFORM CULTURE) before workers start the actual resistance against the capitalist system


I think that this is true. I would envisage a revolution as an explosion of culture, not an 'international mono-culture'.

I think Maldoror put it very well:


I think communism, being the end of history as we know it, would bring very beautiful culture. So beautiful that perhaps the language of us, men living in a society of masters and slaves, could not even express. Culture and language are a mirror of the world, and as such, a world of free people would carry on a world of free culture. I feel no attachment to the cultural deadweight of past generations who lived under the heel of a world of dog eats dog. That sort of melancholy is what accompanied the Volk-discourse of german reactionaries who could not dream of a better, future world, and therefore looked at the past for inspiration.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This is the learning section...and this thread is about people trying to figure out the exact relationship between Lenin (and Leninism) and Left Communism. Of course other topics will crop up as they would in a normal conversation...But this thread is not about national liberation and really I dont think your aggro is in the right place here...Why not go to one of the threads dealing with national liberation in the politics section if you want to argue about it?

I think that it is actually a key point. You write:


National liberation movements are key to the undoing of imperialism, the highest and most oppressive form of capitalism.

The communist left sees national liberation movements as having a tendency to become tools in conflicts between rival imperialisms. It is one of the key differences between us and 'Leninism'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Even though you dont have an official position on it have you (Devrim and Malador) ever met anyone within the ICC who disagreed with your views on "national"/"folk" culture?

I don't know. It isn't something that I have really talked about with people in the ICC.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It also has quite a bit to do with the fact that Bordiga dropped out of organizational activity after about 1928, and kept up a correspondence with only a few close comrades.

That is a good point really. I sort of forgot about that one. :blushing:

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Internationalist Communist Group does not defend the right of nations to self-determination...what they do say is that national liberation struggles can have a proletarian content within them (such as the fight of the Iraqi working class against Anglo-American Imperialists).

Personally I just think that they have a fetish about violence, and nearly at the point where they think that anybody with a gun or a bomb is proletarian. OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but calling 'Osama' a centrist is pretty far gone.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

I think that this is true. I would envisage a revolution as an explosion of culture, not an 'international mono-culture'.


I dont think anyone here is arguing that culture should be static however there is the fact that any writing, painting, music, etc draws on and develops what went before it...From where will the "post-revolutionary" culture draw? I think it should be remembered that the village commune under fuedalism was in many ways more "free" than your average dweller in a modern metropolis who's thinking and everyday life is much more dominated by his or her oppressor (capital). What is essentially human in the old folk cultures and in the culture of the ascendent bourgiouse is what any post revolutionary culture will bring out and draw on....However the products of a decadent capitalist "cultural industry" and the assult on humanity found from Dada through to post-modernism and punk represent a class enemy.

[Palingenisis]

Personally I just think that they have a fetish about violence, and nearly at the point where they think that anybody with a gun or a bomb is proletarian. OK, I am exaggerating a bit, but calling 'Osama' a centrist is pretty far gone.

Devrim

Well the whole thing about biting police men in order to give them AIDS was a bit over the top but there is a difference between having a fetish for violence and defending the political principle of the right of nations to self-determination (which they dont do). Also political Islam does feed on real social issues and I would say is involved in actual working class struggles. Didnt they refer to him though as a Social Democrat and not a "Centrist"?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

'Luxemburgism' only exists as a result of a perversion of Luxemburg's actual views in an effort to pit Luxemburg against Lenin, which is profoundly dishonest.
Again, though, I'm less interested in whether "Luxemburgism" as a tendency can actually claim scriptural backing from St Rosa than in how people who use the label Luxemburgist actually behave today.

Please carry on with the discussion of nationalism; whilst not explicitly linked to the topic at hand, I find it quite compelling. This is obviously an issue that left-communists and all varieties of Leninists (Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc.) differ on, then?
It is one of the major ones. That's why groups like the ICC are so big on the term internationalist, since they view internationalism as a dividing line between them and leftists. Of course, pro-national liberation leftists also call themselves internationalists, which is where it starts to get somewhat confusing.

EDIT: Ooop, didn't see there was another page.

[Devrim]

Well the whole thing about biting police men in order to give them AIDS was a bit over the top but there is a difference between having a fetish for violence and defending the political principle of the right of nations to self-determination (which they dont do). Also political Islam does feed on real social issues and I would say is involved in actual working class struggles. Didnt they refer to him though as a Social Democrat and not a "Centrist"?

I am pretty sure it was 'centrist'. Political Islam does feed on real social issues, but is in no way a workers' movement either in its goals, or sociological make-up. Take a look at the the class background of suicide bombers in Gaza. They overwhelmingly come from the sociological middle class, and if we look at Osama, he is of course a multi-millionaire. Nor do I think that it is in anyway involved in working class struggles. I'd like to see an example.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I splitted this thread. The rest of the posts are in Politicsz in the "decomposition of culture".

[Palingenisis]

That is a good point really. I sort of forgot about that one. :blushing:

Devrim

But I thought "his" party continued on? It seems weird that the current he represented prospered to some extent in the middle east though and not elsewhere...

[Lyev]

The communist left sees national liberation movements as having a tendency to become tools in conflicts between rival imperialisms(bold mine)

Is there concise examples of this? Maybe perhaps in somewhere like Vietnam? I choose this example because there was a movement there in Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong with a strong Marxist-Leninist current. Plus the American and French imperialism were very obvious there.

[Palingenisis]

(bold mine)

Is there concise examples of this? Maybe perhaps in somewhere like Vietnam? I choose this example because there was a movement there in Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong with a strong Marxist-Leninist current. Plus the American and French imperialism were very obvious there.

Actually there is some truth in what he said.

I think national liberation in this day and age is currently only really possible under the leadership of and largely by the working class in most cases. A lot of the time petit-bourgiouse nationalists will either sell out to the imperialism they were fighting or cosy up to another imperialist block.

Left Communists consider the vietcong to have been capitalist nationalists pure and simple.

[black magick hustla]

(bold mine)

Is there concise examples of this? Maybe perhaps in somewhere like Vietnam? I choose this example because there was a movement there in Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong with a strong Marxist-Leninist current. Plus the American and French imperialism were very obvious there.

I think actually one of the best examples is Vietnam. Vietnam became the battleground for Soviet and American Imperialism. With the Vietcong, being the prescence of Soviet imperialism.

[Lyev]

I think actually one of the best examples is Vietnam. Vietnam became the battleground for Soviet and American Imperialism. With the Vietcong, being the prescence of Soviet imperialism.
Ah yes I see. But what do left-coms -- or anyone else for that matter -- posit as an alternative for movements like the Vietcong, in similar situations?

EDIT: where's the evidence for Soviet (or American, in fact) imperialism in Vietnam?

[black magick hustla]

Ah yes I see. But what do left-coms -- or anyone else for that matter -- posit as an alternative for movements like the Vietcong, in similar situations?

I mean the best answer is working class revolution, obviously. But that is a farfetched alternative. I don't think we "can" pose alternatives except do whatever to survive the imperialist onslaught. Atleast that is what I would do.

[Palingenisis]

Ah yes I see. But what do left-coms -- or anyone else for that matter -- posit as an alternative for movements like the Vietcong, in similar situations?

*EDIT: where's the evidence for Soviet (or American, in fact) imperialism in Vietnam?

In the real world that is a very tricky question...Take aid yes but watch for attaching strings that will turn you into a puppet. This is why Maoists stress the importance of self-reliance but I dont think that that should be turned into a suicidal principle. The political independence of the working class has to always be asserted.

[Palingenisis]

I mean the best answer is working class revolution, obviously. But that is a farfetched alternative. I don't think we "can" pose alternatives except do whatever to survive the imperialist onslaught. Atleast that is what I would do.

That post explains perfectly why Im not a Left-Communist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLoJuAhqz4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q3-Qx6ULIA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqezzysorY0

[black magick hustla]

That post explains perfectly why Im not a Left-Communist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLoJuAhqz4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q3-Qx6ULIA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqezzysorY0

so you prefer martydrom?

[Palingenisis]

so you prefer martydrom?

There is a quote I think from Bordiga that I will found somewhere in the GCI-ICG site that I will dig out...But basically you are your people, your class...And to lay down your life for them I think is one of the highest honours imaginable. Though yes I am infected by capitalist individualism so in a way Im being a hypocrite...But the only people I have met who arent hypocrites in some way or other are out and out psychopaths.

[S.Artesian]

There is a quote I think from Bordiga that I will found somewhere in the GCI-ICG site that I will dig out...But basically you are your people, your class...And to lay down your life for them I think is one of the highest honours imaginable. Though yes I am infected by capitalist individualism so in a way Im being a hypocrite...But the only people I have met who arent hypocrites in some way or other are out and out psychopaths.


I need to keep that in mind: "The only people who aren't hypocrites, are psychopaths."

So I if say I'm not a psychopath am I being hypocritical?

Anyway, what was it Patton said? "The trick isn't in giving up your life for your country. It's in making that other poor bastard give up his life for his country.

Ixnay on the artyrdom-ma.

[Palingenisis]

I need to keep that in mind: "The only people who aren't hypocrites, are psychopaths."

So I if say I'm not a psychopath am I being hypocritical?

Anyway, what was it Patton said? "The trick isn't in giving up your life for your country. It's in making that other poor bastard give up his life for his country.
.

I dont think any of us or at least most of us live up all of the time to our ideals or ethical standards....That kinda makes most of us hypocrites doesnt it? But Id rather be a hypocrite than a psychopath without ideals or ethical standards...

Patton wasnt Joe Hill or the Haymarket martyrs though was he?

"Soldier of the people, he died so we could live..."

"Soldier of the people, she died so we could live..."

What better thing could be said about anyone after they are gone in your opinion?

[S.Artesian]

I dont think any of us or at least most of us live up all of the time to our ideals or ethical standards....That kinda makes most of us hypocrites doesnt it? But Id rather be a hypocrite than a psychopath without ideals or ethical standards...

Patton wasnt Joe Hill or the Haymarket martyrs though was he?

"Soldier of the people, he died so we could live..."

"Soldier of the people, she died so we could live..."

What better thing could be said about anyone after they are gone in your opinion?


Actually, I'm not too concerned about what is said after I'm gone, it's while I'm here that I want all that good stuff-- socialism, good music, emancipation of labor, end to discrimination, non-commercial baseball.

Have to tell you, not seeking the least bit of glory, not enamored of martyrdom in the least. Don't mind fighting, mind you, I just want to win, and winning includes living.

[Robocommie]

I dont think any of us or at least most of us live up all of the time to our ideals or ethical standards....That kinda makes most of us hypocrites doesnt it? But Id rather be a hypocrite than a psychopath without ideals or ethical standards...

I actually like the way you put that though, it's an interesting way of looking at it.

Anyway, the best life is one lived for the sake of other people, and the best death is one for the good of others, whatever that may mean.

[soyonstout]

basically you are your people, your class...And to lay down your life for them I think is one of the highest honours imaginable.

I think one question I would ask of this sentiment, as a left-communist, is for whom do participants in national wars lay down their lives? For their class or for the bourgeoisie of that particular country/ethnic group? To lose one's life in the struggle of the international proletariat against world capitalism is entirely different than to lose one's life in order that a certain national bourgeoisie can be formally independent to exploit workers as it sees fit and attempt to become an important world power within capitalism. I would say that fighting for the Viet Cong is fighting for a faction of imperialism so that they could be in control of the surplus value extracted from the workers in Vietnam, rather than the French or the Americans. Are Vietnamese workers free from world capitalism in any way? No. Even the young Soviet power in Russia, which left communists generally support (at least up until the 20s) was entirely constrained by trading on the world market--left communists don't think its possible to have "socialism in one country." And this is part of the critique of wars of national liberation: what is the goal of such wars and what can be the practical outcome of them?

Secondly, as for what workers beleaguered by imperialism can do, I don't think they have to just resign themselves to their fate: they can do what workers everywhere do when confronted with capitalist barbarism--develop the class struggle. This means strikes against both the occupying and native bourgeoisie--this means recognizing that many of the invading soldiers are basically workers in uniform that are being sent around the world to kill other workers in the name of their bourgeoisie and fraternizing with those soldiers, encouraging solidarity between the workers of the invaded country and the soldiers (who are also exploited) of the invader country, encouraging dissension among the soldiers, etc. This may seem entirely far-fetched but has happened. It happened in Vietnam and it happened in WWI and it scares the shit out of both bourgeoisies involved.

The working class is not just exploited, but revolutionary according to Marxists. And what is revolutionary about it is not how badly it is exploited, but the fact that all over the world the class of people who actually do the work of the world are exploited by the same system and face the same kinds of erosion of their living standards--skilled, unskilled, immigrant, native-born--capitalism plays these divisions against each other, but it always makes us pay for its problems. And when workers can unite across these categories, the struggle already carries the seed of world revolution within it.

[Devrim]

But I thought "his" party continued on? It seems weird that the current he represented prospered to some extent in the middle east though and not elsewhere...

At the time he didn't really have a party. he had been marginalised in the Communist Party and then sort of dropped out (He did a bit of time in prison as well).

The PCInt, which all of today's Bordigist parties are descended from formed after the Second World War, and was large (up to 50,000 members). The first split was in 1952 between what is now the ICT and the 'hard-line Bordigists' that became the ICP.

Incidentally during all this Bordiga got back into politics starting around 1944.

The ICP was a large organisation by modern left communist standards;), and had sections in quite a few countries including, but not only, Algeria and Lebanon. The in 1982 it torn itself apart in a series of splits and expulsions, a lot of it being triggered by things coming up in the Arab sections about Arab, and particularly Palestinian nationalism.

It is not a very detailed account, but I think it gives you the gist of what went on.

Devrim

[Devrim]

EDIT: where's the evidence for Soviet (or American, in fact) imperialism in Vietnam?

I think that most people, not just communists, saw the Vietnam war as a moment in the confrontation between the two superpowers, as was the Korean War before it. Whether you think the USSR was imperialist is of course a question of analysis. I assume that being a CWI member you don't. I'd rather address you other point than get bogged down in that question here. It has been discussed in enough other places.


Ah yes I see. But what do left-coms -- or anyone else for that matter -- posit as an alternative for movements like the Vietcong, in similar situations?

I think that it is a question of understanding the balance of class forces. The working class in these situations is weak. For us this is shown by the fact that they have been mobilised, not around class demands, but behind a national movement.

If we look at the situation in Palestine, or Northern Ireland for example, we can hear many leftists talk about the struggle there being undefeated. For us the working class in Palestine are probably the most defeated in the region, and I think that the fact that Northern Ireland has the lowest wage levels in the UK is very telling. For us it is directly related to the fact that the working class is divided on sectarian lines. What can communists do when the working class is weak? Well not as much as when they are strong obviously. Tiny groups of revolutionaries (and the strength of revolutionary groups is directly related to the strength of the working class) can not change the balance of class forces by willpower alone. So we continue our work in whatever small ways we can.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

If we look at the situation in Palestine, or Northern Ireland for example, we can hear many leftists talk about the struggle there being undefeated. For us the working class in Palestine are probably the most defeated in the region, and I think that the fact that Northern Ireland has the lowest wage levels in the UK is very telling. For us it is directly related to the fact that the working class is divided on sectarian lines. What can communists do when the working class is weak? Well not as much as when they are strong obviously. Tiny groups of revolutionaries (and the strength of revolutionary groups is directly related to the strength of the working class) can not change the balance of class forces by willpower alone. So we continue our work in whatever small ways we can.

Devrim

Devrim what leftists talk about the struggle or indeed the working class in the occupied six counties as being "undefeated"? It most certainly is.

Also I dont think its just the ICC that sees the fact that the six counties has the lowest wages in the "United Kingdom" as being directly related (I would have said caused by) the fact the working class is divided along "sectarian" lines....But Im not sure that the word "sectarian" is the best word to use there. The working class is divided because a large portion of it is fanatically loyal to the British state. You might get them to struggle around very narrow economic issues but beyond that good luck.

[Lyev]

I think that most people, not just communists, saw the Vietnam war as a moment in the confrontation between the two superpowers, as was the Korean War before it. Whether you think the USSR was imperialist is of course a question of analysis. I assume that being a CWI member you don't. I'd rather address you other point than get bogged down in that question here. It has been discussed in enough other places.Oh yes of course, it was right in the middle of Cold War after all. Any excuse for the USA and USSR to attack each another they took. And actually, I don't have a concrete position on imperialism and the former USSR. I haven't read enough about it. But the definition of imperialism is objective, so surely everyone is going to draw the same conclusion?

[Zanthorus]

But the definition of imperialism is objective

Not necessarily. There are different definitions floating about. The only two I know of from communists are the ones by Luxemburg and Lenin. I'm sure there are probably more though.

[Devrim]

Oh yes of course, it was right in the middle of Cold War after all. Any excuse for the USA and USSR to attack each another they took. And actually, I don't have a concrete position on imperialism and the former USSR. I haven't read enough about it. But the definition of imperialism is objective, so surely everyone is going to draw the same conclusion?

Your political organisation thinks it was not imperialist, but a 'degenerated workers state'. As Zanthorus says there is no 'objective' definition of imperialism.

Devrim

[this is an invasion]

Palingenisis


Funny you say that, because when I brought up the novel idea of community owned restaurants as a move toward socialist thinking, some ultra-leftist redirected me to a campaign based on that site called "abolish restaurants." So yes, you are right, enjoying a bacon sandwich is reactionary (according to reactionaries;))
Have you ever had to work in a restaurant?


It's fucking bullshit.