Why a coherent Marxist critique of ultra leftism is needed

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Devrim]

Though the group he was criticizing was a small one, the fact that he took the pains of writing a book (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) about them is quite enlightening.

Actually the groups that he attacked had a majority in the German and Italy communist parties, the two Western countries that were seen as closest to revolution.

Devrim

[vyborg]

As Lenin explained, ultra-leftism is simply child-playing with the revolution. These comrades are not a danger if they grow up....but he was speaking about young tendencies coming out from a horrible defeat (the 1WW and the implosion of the Socialist International). We must not confuse these tendencies with group that are sectarian from ages...they are lost...

[Q]

"Ultra-left" is not a particular tendency. It has been used to describe various groups throughout the years. The common thread among all these is that it was exactly that, a description from the group to another group that is to the left of them and is wrong in doing so.

In some groups they just use words like "ultra-left", "sectarian", "opportunist", etc. whenever there is a need to make some distance between two groups, real or imagined. A split is a common occurrence when such words flow all over the place.

[GPDP]

I'm sure in the world of ivory tower parties, such a coherent critique is needed.

Out here in the real world, where the left may as well not exist, I think it'd be best to forgo the petty sectarianism.

[Bilan]

What is it that you want to critique exactly?
I mean, what politics, etc?

[red cat]

A bit off-topic... in many third world countries, Maoists are called ultra leftists and revisionist parties relate their abandoning of parliamentary means to what Lenin called an "infantile disorder". :lol:

[Devrim]

A bit off-topic... in many third world countries, Maoists are called ultra leftists and revisionist parties relate their abandoning of parliamentary means to what Lenin called an "infantile disorder". :lol:

'Ultra-left' is basically just an insult. It has no specific political meaning. If anything it means 'more left wing than the person using it'.

Devrim

[Delenda Carthago]

A revolutionary movement its either gonna be multi-formed or its gonna be nothing.

Everything is needed.It just depends on the time.

[Forward Union]

It is contextually a derogatory term, though (rather embarrassingly) I've seen many people call themselves 'ultra left'. However, it isn't entirely void of content, I mean, if you take left wing positions (or orthodox Marxism, or any particular tendency) to such an extreme that it's impossible to adapt or compromise them to real world situations then It makes some linguistic sense to refer to this as an "ultra" manifestation of the left.

Again, ultra-leftism (or it's most common manifestation; left-communism) is not really a tendency so much as a moralistic opposition within the left to the more pragmatic elements of the movement. That's not to imply that they have no valid arguments, rather they voice an important concern, for example bringing to the fore the concern that Unions may become corrupted or integrated into capitalism. The problem is that instead of taking these concerns on board when making battle plans, their solution is that 'we must have nothing to do with unions' simply because 'they might go wrong'. For this reason it's void of all practical consideration.

[chebol]

I agree with my ultra-left friend above (Devrim).

It is essentially a term of - at best, when it is grounded in material events - political disparagement and difference, but it is just as often a term of abuse.

This is not to say that use of the term isn't valid. On most points, for example, I would regard Devrim as "ultra-left" in his strategy and tactics, while still agreeing on the end goal - a society of associated producers, without state, law, hierarchy or exploitation. The difference is in how we think we can get there at any given point in time.

For that reason, a "coherent Marxist critique of ultra leftism" is of course an elusive goal, not least because it is determined by subject matter, which changes from hour to hour and place to place.

So, I'm all for "a similar coherent critique of contemporary ultra leftism [to Lenin's]" for the modern day. But what's your subject matter? Contemporary Venezuela? Turkey? The US? Australia? Germany? India?

It's not as easy as "updating" Lenin. Any critique needs to arise out of living struggle, or it is almost utterly meaningless.

[Devrim]

Again, ultra-leftism (or it's most common manifestation; left-communism) is not really a tendency so much as a moralistic opposition within the left to the more pragmatic elements of the movement.

So Left communism isn't really a tendency. From a statement like that people would imagine that I was the one who belonged to a group that's international manifestation is merely a loose grouping around an internet site (Anarkismo), and you were the member of a centralised political organisation that has been in existence for thirty five years and has members in 16 countries on four continents. Actually it is the other way round. Of course other left communist other organisations that exist today, like the PCInt, which was once a massive organisation of 50,000 members are mere tendencies.


That's not to imply that they have no valid arguments, rather they voice an important concern, for example bringing to the fore the concern that Unions may become corrupted or integrated into capitalism.

It sounds like it is just our 'concern'. Actually although you might not know it from the practice of much of the left today, other revolutionaries including Trotsky agreed with us:


In other words, the trade unions in the present epoch cannot simply be the organs of democracy as they were in the epoch of free capitalism and they cannot any longer remain politically neutral, that is, limit themselves to serving the daily needs of the working class. They cannot any longer be anarchistic, i.e. ignore the decisive influence of the state on the life of peoples and classes. They can no longer be reformist, because the objective conditions leave no room for any serious and lasting reforms. The trade unions of our time can either serve as secondary instruments of imperialist capitalism for the subordination and disciplining of workers and for obstructing the revolution, or, on the contrary, the trade unions can become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.


The problem is that instead of taking these concerns on board when making battle plans, their solution is that 'we must have nothing to do with unions' simply because 'they might go wrong'. For this reason it's void of all practical consideration.

I'd imagine that in any practical consideration the members of the ICC who post on here have much more experience of involvement in workers' struggles than you have.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I agree with my ultra-left friend above (Devrim).

I never regarded us as friends before:)

Devrim

[chebol]

While I'm at it, I'd also recommend Peter Camejo's "Liberalism, ultraleftism or mass action". Does what you're after but isn't as condescending and out of date as Lenin.

[chebol]

Devrim wrote:


I never regarded us as friends before

:) Friend. Comrade. Whatever. Point is, I regard you as being on the right side in the only struggle worth having, even if I disagree with how you think we can win that struggle.

For all the theoretical argy-bargy we might engage with on here, my friend, I'm more concerned about who's with me on the barricades.

[Palingenisis]

'Ultra-left' is basically just an insult. It has no specific political meaning. If anything it means 'more left wing than the person using it'.

Devrim

Actually insurrectionary anarchists and their ilk are more than happy to consider themselves ultra-left.

[Forward Union]

So Left communism isn't really a tendency. From a statement like that people would imagine that I was the one who belonged to a group that's international manifestation is merely a loose grouping around an internet site (Anarkismo), and you were the member of a centralised political organisation that has been in existence for thirty five years and has members in 16 countries on four continents. Actually it is the other way round. Of course other left communist other organisations that exist today, like the PCInt, which was once a massive organisation of 50,000 members are mere tendencies.

I'm a member of several groups and in every case i am so for pragmatic rather than Ideological reasons. But I never said left-communism was small or irrelevant, I said it was primarily an opposition rather than an original tradition. In other words it takes core principals of other ideologies (in your case Marxism) and turns them into universal laws of practive. It's not just dogmatic, it is actually the negation of all forms of pragmatism.


It sounds like it is just our 'concern'. Actually although you might not know it from the practice of much of the left today, other revolutionaries including Trotsky agreed with us:Yea great, it's my concern to. Probably also one for the Stalinists, because no genuine socialist actually desires a yellow partnership union. But it's the last line of Trotskys statement that "the trade unions can [also] become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat" which distinguishes the genuine practical concern we all should have from your moralisation of real issues. Put simply, left communism reduces practical concerns to moral positions.

Regarding the second Trotsky quote; I couldn't have put it better myself. These quotes support my position and I'm not sure why you brought them up.


I'd imagine that in any practical consideration the members of the ICC who post on here have much more experience of involvement in workers' struggles than you have.Well, I have only 5 years of involvement in workers struggles, from when I got active with the SP in 2004/5, I don't pretend otherwise. If you feel that your longer experience has given you some insight that I have no yet achieved, prove it, rather than simply flaunting your long standing involvement around like it wins the debate automatically.

[Devrim]

I'm a member of several groups and in every case i am so for pragmatic rather than Ideological reasons. But I never said left-communism was small or irrelevant, I said it was primarily an opposition rather than an original tradition. In other words it takes core principals of other ideologies (in your case Marxism) and turns them into universal laws of practive. It's not just dogmatic, it is actually the negation of all forms of pragmatism.

To be honest I think that to condemn a tradition with nearly one hundred years of separate organisational existence as primarily an 'opposition' is a bit limp. It is the intellectual equivalent of saying that there is nothing of an original tradition in anarchism. It is just opposition to Marxism.

I don't even think that left communism is what you say though. I see it as the communist tendency that developed within the working class in the modern era. I think the people you suggest that we are in opposition to are actually the ones who betrayed.


Yea great, it's my concern to. Probably also one for the Stalinists, because no genuine socialist actually desires a yellow partnership union. But it's the last line of Trotskys statement that "the trade unions can [also] become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat" which distinguishes the genuine practical concern we all should have from your moralisation of real issues. Put simply, left communism reduces practical concerns to moral positions.

I don't see how believing workers can't use the unions to defend themselves and their living conditions is a moral position. I think that it is really practical and defines our orientation in strikes and struggles.


Regarding the second Trotsky quote; I couldn't have put it better myself. These quotes support my position and I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Because generally people, including Trotskyists, say that the idea that the unions effectively act as the bosses policemen in the factories is outlandish. It was an idea shared by Trotsky though, and in our opinion the tendency has become more pronounced since his day.


Well, I have only 5 years of involvement in workers struggles, from when I got active with the SP in 2004/5, I don't pretend otherwise. If you feel that your longer experience has given you some insight that I have no yet achieved, prove it, rather than simply flaunting your long standing involvement around like it wins the debate automatically.

This isn't the point that I am making at all. Your implication was that you because we 'won't have any thing to do with the unions', we do nothing practical. I was just pointing out that it is not true.

You don't know me. I once walked past you in the street, but didn't introduce myself. You do know people that know me from when I lived in London if you ask them they can confirm that I was elected to strike committees, involved in organising illegal flying pickets and secondary action, and involved in producing a workers' publication at my work, all while not having anything to do with the union. My point is that not getting involved with the union does not mean doing nothin practical.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

To be honest I think that to condemn a tradition with nearly one hundred years of separate organisational existence as primarily an 'opposition' is a bit limp. It is the intellectual equivalent of saying that there is nothing of an original tradition in anarchism. It is just opposition to Marxism.

A breif google turns up this:

"Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which criticizes the political ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position that is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarianLeninism held by the Communist International after its first two congresses"

"Two major traditions can be observed within left communism: the Dutch-German tradition; and the Italian tradition. The political positions those traditions have in common are a shared opposition to what is termed frontism, nationalism, all kinds of national liberation movements and parliamentarianism and there is an underlying commonality at a level of abstract theory."

"Russian left communism began in 1918 as a faction within the Russian Communist Party named the Left Communists, which opposed the signing of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Imperial Germany"

Left Communism is (at least in Ideological terms) simply a sort of 'conscience' of the workers movement. An objection to other things.


I don't see how believing workers can't use the unions to defend themselves and their living conditions is a moral position. I think that it is really practical and defines our orientation in strikes and struggles.Yes it sounds so reasonable except that it's not based on reality and takes (common) examples of union failures and universalizes them as maxims. What you're really saying is that no union, can ever defend people, and that a closer inspection of the facts is ultimately unnecessary. I am quite happy to debate the particulars of this.

More commonly however I find ultra leftists have the attitude that they 'shouldn't' work with unions regardless. Much like Anarchists who say they wouldn't use the State even in a hypothetical situation where by doing so they would bring about Anarchism, because it's about moral consistency, not victory in and of itself.


You don't know me. I once walked past you in the street, but didn't introduce myself. You do know people that know me from when I lived in London if you ask them they can confirm that I was elected to strike committees, involved in organising illegal flying pickets and secondary action, and involved in producing a workers' publication at my work, all while not having anything to do with the union. My point is that not getting involved with the union does not mean doing nothin practical.Alright but I am not trying to level personal accusations or for a moment suggesting that you, or other left communists are not experienced or dedicated. I'm simply saying that if that experience and dedication makes you right in these matters then you need to justify it in debate, rather than simply stating that you have been involved longer than me.

[fredbergen]

There is such a thing as ultra-leftism.

But 99% of the use of the term "ultra-leftism" today is as the name that opportunists give to anything less cynical and unprincipled than themselves.

[Palingenisis]

There is such a thing as ultra-leftism.

But 99% of the use of the term "ultra-leftism" today is as the name that opportunists give to anything less cynical and unprincipled than themselves.

I dont think its the most useful term...for instance Gauche Proletarianne and the Communist Party of Peru were both far to the left of the Trotskyite groups contemporary with them on issues such as the Trade Unions and electoralism but they used to call the Trotskyites ultra-leftists!

Just out of interest does your group consider any other grouping claiming the mantle of Trotskyism "ultra-leftist"?

[chegitz guevara]

There is such a thing as ultra-leftism.

And you are the very definition.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

How about a coherent "ultra-left" critique of Marxism/Leninism.

[Nosotros]

Ultra leftism seems to me to be just a Bolshevik tactic of criticizing a rival leftist organisation that don't have the 'right' interpretation of Socialism. Pretty infantile if you ask me.

[bcbm]

Actually insurrectionary anarchists and their ilk are more than happy to consider themselves ultra-left.

insurrectionary anarchists generally express hostility to the left, so i doubt they would identify as an "ultra" part of it. i haven't seen it recently, or in any of the major texts.

[Ravachol]

insurrectionary anarchists generally express hostility to the left, so i doubt they would identify as an "ultra" part of it. i haven't seen it recently, or in any of the major texts.

That depends, usually they critique 'leftism', as in the forces seeking to achieve communism by means of politics. Most insurrectionary anarchists are still communists, albeit anti-political ones. The striving for communism can be considered 'left-wing' in my eyes, although I personally despise this binary model of politics.

[ckaihatsu]

'Ultra-leftism' could be the characterization / accusation made of any political take on a *situation* wherein the take favors political-principle "tightness" over more-pragmatic activist-type base-building, as with coalition-forming.

Those concentrating on the practicalities of organizing physical actions / groupings will favor numbers of bodies on the ground *over* more detailed concerns about exactly what kind of political consciousness each of those people being organized has. So, in brief, we could describe political participation *as a whole* as a tradeoff between quality and quantity (theory and practice).

[ckaihatsu]

The more-pragmatic type will use the epithet 'ultra-leftist' against the counterposed party who is *relatively* more-doctrinaire and *particular* about the *political composition* of those being organized, including matters of political stances on issues, and correctness / appropriateness of chosen strategies and tactics.

The more-doctrinaire type may very well *be* ultra-left *if* their attention to details of political refinement goes to the extent of overshadowing genuine opportunities for mass (revolutionary-minded) struggle that may arise.

Depending on the situation at hand it's possible for *either* party to be *too dismissive* of the other -- that one is too theory-oriented or too activity-oriented.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The lost meaning of ultra-leftism goes all the way back to Bakunin's line: Agitate the masses into action somehow, and they will spontaneously solve all political problems.

While Bakunin is more known for his insurrectionist fetishes, he is less known for his advocacy of a general strike manipulated by an invisible minority.

This was glorified into a "mythos" status by Sorel.

This ultra-left strategy infected the Second International through the future left-communist Gorter, who started theorizing the mass strike before Luxemburg diluted it further. Trotsky adopted an even more diluted form than Luxemburg.

This explains the ICC's wrong stance on mass strikes signifying some sort of "revolutionary period," Boris Krichevskii's gradualist and economistic approach towards moving the mass into action, and Trotsky's combination of both in the Transitional Program.

[Devrim]

This ultra-left strategy infected the Second International through the future left-communist Gorter, who started theorizing the mass strike before Luxemburg diluted it further. Trotsky adopted an even more diluted form than Luxemburg.

I am sure that there are many people on here who will criticise Gorter. He was of course only a man, and made many mistakes. However, I don't think many people on here will buy into this criticism of Gorter. All of the 'left ' currents within the second international supported Gorter and Luxemborg's polemic against revisionism. All of them, including Lenin, stood with Gorter on his opposition to the SDP's support of the war.

The left didn't 'infect' the Second International, they were the communist current within it, and those who later became the German left communists were the ones who took a revolutionary position on the war along with Lenin and the majority of Bolsheviks, the Italian Abstenstionist fraction of the Socialist party, and the Serbian party.

The Second International wasn't 'infected' by communists. It was rotten to the core.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

That depends, usually they critique 'leftism', as in the forces seeking to achieve communism by means of politics. Most insurrectionary anarchists are still communists, albeit anti-political ones. The striving for communism can be considered 'left-wing' in my eyes, although I personally despise this binary model of politics.
Well to us left communists, leftism is a very specific phenomenon. Single issue campaigns, participation in state campaigns. Taking positions in the geopolitical campaigns of capitalist states, etcetera

[Palingenisis]

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism

Whatever you think about the ICC I would encourage comrades to read this.

There is a lot in it that we can draw on.

[9]

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism

Whatever you think about the ICC I would encourage comrades to read this.

There is a lot in it that we can draw on.

Yes, I'd imagine Stalinists of all stripes can find common cause with the ICC on this issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Second International wasn't 'infected' by communists. It was rotten to the core.

Why are you misquoting me by saying that it was "infected by communists"?

Except for the RSDLP, the leading parties of the Second International did not have generational successors ready to continue the work of the pioneer centrists. Lenin himself was a generational successor to the pioneer work of Plekhanov, who was some 17 years younger than August Bebel.


Well to us left communists, leftism is a very specific phenomenon. Single issue campaigns, participation in state campaigns. Taking positions in the geopolitical campaigns of capitalist states, etcetera

Abstentionism in the vain hope of some spontaneous strike action is not the answer. [BTW, single-issue campaigns are abstentionist too, since they abstain from other issues.]