Whats wrong with being an ultra-leftist?

[∞]

Sorry, I think it's a compliment. Because we're more Left than you.

[The Idler]

Being ultra-left exposes the reformist left.

[Zanthorus]

I think the term originates from Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder where he attempts to show how the lessons of the Russian revolution could be applied to more industrially advanced countries. Since the Russian revolution was the only thusfar successful revolution it was regarded as folly to take the line of the "ultra-lefts" who espoused the policies that had been advocated by the Forwardists in the RSDLP and were regarded as at least semi-anarchist (Although Lenin was also called an "anarchist" by social-democrats).

A fair number of "ultra-lefts" also wouldn't regard themselves as part of the "left", which is generally idenitified with the left-wing of capital.

[Crux]

Sorry, I think it's a compliment. Because we're more Left than you.
That's pretty infantile.

[ComradeOm]

What's the point of this thread? It seems unlikely to lead to a fruitful discussion of ultra-leftist ideology and tactics

Edit:

(Although Lenin was also called an "anarchist" by social-democrats)In fairness, he was also considered an anarchist by many of the actual anarchists of Russia 1917 ;)

[Zanthorus]

In fairness, he was also considered an anarchist by many of the actual anarchists of Russia 1917 ;)

He was also considered an anarchist by the anarchists of China. The anarchist movement there even got a massive boost in support after the Russian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It depends on how you define "ultra-left."

If by "ultra-left" it's vague more-left-than-thou stuff, then there might not be anything wrong.

However, there are so many things wrong with adopting an ultra-leftist strategic organizational orientation (irrational hatred of bureaucracy, mass strike fetishes, "direct action," all culminating in some "all power to the soviets" anti-party and anti-bureaucracy fetish), even if you happen to be ComradeOm. ;)

[Barry Lyndon]

Ultra-lefts are not 'more left' in practice, only in rhetoric. Ultra-lefts are often, whether they realize it or not, reactionaries in disguise, because they denounce, sabotage, undermine, and lie about existing revolutionary or progressive movements, instead of trying to constructively criticize and change them for the better. They would rather have the workers bear the full brunt of capitalist oppression then to have a revolution that ultra-lefts deem imperfect.

[Paulappaul]

^Speaking of rhetoric :laugh:

[Barry Lyndon]

^Speaking of rhetoric :laugh:

Speak for yourself. I don't have repeated orgasms over 1890's European industrial workers.

[Paulappaul]

Uh huh. Whatever that means :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

Sorry, I think it's a compliment. Because we're more Left than you.
must.. resist.. facepalm...

This is exactly the point. The term ultra-left refers to someone who takes impractical and stupid positions for the sake of being 'more leftist'. They discard all material conditions and contradictions and base their ideas solely around being as 'leftist' as possible. You are displaying a great example of this mentality by taking such pride in the fact that you've been labelled ultra-leftist. Its kinda embarrassing tbh >_>

A familiar example of ultra-leftism is in discussions on imperialism, when someone dismisses all national liberation forces unless they are explicitly communist. This is ultra-leftist because while it may make them feel good like they are 'the true uncompromised leftist', it ignores the objective situation and in practice means supporting imperialism.

It means being objectively useless/reactionary in persuit of subjective purity.

[Barry Lyndon]

A familiar example of ultra-leftism is in discussions on imperialism, when someone dismisses all national liberation forces unless they are explicitly communist. This is ultra-leftist because while it may make them feel good like they are 'the true uncompromised leftist', it ignores the objective situation and in practice means supporting imperialism

Even if they are explicitly communist, it doesn't matter. Exhibit A: Ultra-left vitriol towards the Black Panthers, the Nepalese Maoists, the PFLP, etc etc.

[Soldier of life]

A common grievance I would have with ultra leftists would be their refusal to acknowledge something that is progressive, it is all black and white to them. An example of this would be the USSR, Cuba, and more recently Venezuela. Ultra leftists would compare these states to any other capitalist state, in other words, it's either perfect or it is a terrible enemy. Ultra leftists seem to believe that socialist states exist in a vacuum, free from interference. Many of the problems contained in socialist states find their source at the door of US capitalism/imperialism, and while far from perfect, the likes of the USSR should be acknowledged as progressive. Ultra leftism also refers to tactics, there is no 'strategic retreats' to copper-fasten revolution or pauses to adapt to prevailing conditions, it just amounts to dealing with all problems in the world with the response 'I think they should have a proper socialist revolution', no grasp of reality at times.

[Crux]

must.. resist.. facepalm...

This is exactly the point. The term ultra-left refers to someone who takes impractical and stupid positions for the sake of being 'more leftist'. They discard all material conditions and contradictions and base their ideas solely around being as 'leftist' as possible. You are displaying a great example of this mentality by taking such pride in the fact that you've been labelled ultra-leftist. Its kinda embarrassing tbh >_>

A familiar example of ultra-leftism is in discussions on imperialism, when someone dismisses all national liberation forces unless they are explicitly communist. This is ultra-leftist because while it may make them feel good like they are 'the true uncompromised leftist', it ignores the objective situation and in practice means supporting imperialism.

It means being objectively useless/reactionary in persuit of subjective purity.
So those who specifically support say the PFLP and criticize other groups in palestine, or groups that would support the CPN-M but not the UML and NC, who by their own statements are fighting for national independence and even socialism, are ultra-left?

[Communist]

.

To Learning, from Theory.

Moved.

.

[Kotze]

Ultra-Leftism: Abhorring even sketching a different society, because having a coherent vision is viewed as "totalitarian" (whatever that means), instead hoping that everything will happen spontaneously, also avoiding the thought that maybe not the entire world at once will undergo revolution, so there might be an antagonism which lasts for years, but making plans anticipating that possibility would be too depressing, advocating post-scarcity "economics" (everybody will work for no pay and everybody takes what he wants, this will work because everything can be multiplied at virtually no cost like software or will soon be like that, we are only not there yet because of the capitalists, you see), "discussing" postmodern "philosophy" (critique of everything that boils down to yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man) or "dialectics" (how to explain any situation as the clear outcome of some principles that are vague enough that they could also explain every imaginary situation), lifestylism, bad breath.

[scarletghoul]

So those who specifically support say the PFLP and criticize other groups in palestine, or groups that would support the CPN-M but not the UML and NC, who by their own statements are fighting for national independence and even socialism, are ultra-left?
UML and NC are pretty obviously comprador-bourgeois parties, despite what they may say, so no it's not at all ultra-leftist to oppose them. The fact that the Maoists have had such success also shows that it's not at all impracticle or anything to support them. So no, this is a case of a practical revolutionary position, not an ultra-leftist one. The ultra-leftists with regards to Nepal are those who oppose the Maoists (for ending the civil war without going "all the way"; for not establishing socialism immediately, or whatever)...

And there's nothing wrong with criticising any group (even those we support). In fact its vital. Umm with Palestine I honestly don't know enough about it. But obviously we should all support the Palestinian fight for liberation, whichever organisation is at the forefront of it. There's nothing wrong with criticising the reactionary points of Hamas, and upholding the PFLP as the most proper revolutionary Palestinian force,, however I do consider it ultra-leftist to oppose Palestinian resistance on the grounds that its leaders are Hamas..

[Paulappaul]

A common grievance I would have with ultra leftists would be their refusal to acknowledge something that is progressive, it is all black and white to them. An example of this would be the USSR, Cuba, and more recently Venezuela. Ultra leftists would compare these states to any other capitalist state, in other words, it's either perfect or it is a terrible enemy. Ultra leftists seem to believe that socialist states exist in a vacuum, free from interference. Many of the problems contained in socialist states find their source at the door of US capitalism/imperialism, and while far from perfect, the likes of the USSR should be acknowledged as progressive. Ultra leftism also refers to tactics, there is no 'strategic retreats' to copper-fasten revolution or pauses to adapt to prevailing conditions, it just amounts to dealing with all problems in the world with the response 'I think they should have a proper socialist revolution', no grasp of reality at times.


I wouldn't call myself an Ultra Leftist and yet, I think this is all wrong. The USSR wasn't progressive. What makes it progressive in our minds it that is counteracts Bourgeois media. Fact of the matter is the USSR did as worse things, if not worse then the United States or other Capitalist countries.

Venezuela isn't progressive either. It's dominated by the PSUV state Machine. I'm not calling for anything perfect either. Truly progressive movements which created alternatives to Capitals were Workers' Councils in history.

[el_chavista]

Nationalist revolutions are plenty of comrades too confident in their willpower and "voluntaryism".

[9]

What's the point of this thread? It seems unlikely to lead to a fruitful discussion of ultra-leftist ideology and tactics


Not least of all because there is no unified "ultra-leftist ideology and tactics", considering the term is a slander which is applied to a pretty broad range of groups, from third camp Trotskyists to left-communists to anarchists. So in all likelihood, this thread will proceed down the same road it is already on, with people setting up strawmen and proceeding to tear them down, like so:


Ultra-Leftism: Abhorring even sketching a different society, because having a coherent vision is viewed as "totalitarian" (whatever that means), instead hoping that everything will happen spontaneously, also avoiding the thought that maybe not the entire world at once will undergo revolution, so there might be an antagonism which lasts for years, but making plans anticipating that possibility would be too depressing, advocating post-scarcity "economics" (everybody will work for no pay and everybody takes what he wants, this will work because everything can be multiplied at virtually no cost like software or will soon be like that, we are only not there yet because of the capitalists, you see), "discussing" postmodern "philosophy" (critique of everything that boils down to yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man) or "dialectics" (how to explain any situation as the clear outcome of some principles that are vague enough that they could also explain every imaginary situation), lifestylism, bad breath.

Also, the OP reeks of troll.

[Kotze]

the term is a slander which is applied to a pretty broad range of groups, from third camp Trotskyists to left-communists to anarchists. So in all likelihood, this thread will proceed down the same road it is already on, with people setting up strawmen and proceeding to tear them down...All the "strawmen" in my enumeration are pretty common among them (aside from the last one, you got me there), ie. anything less than world revolution is beneath us and dialectics with Trotskyists, lifestylism and post-scarcity or other economically illiterate bs like parecon with anarchists. It's not my fault that they sound ridiculous.

[Qayin]

Sorry, I think it's a compliment. Because we're more Left than you.
That's stupid,your basically saying a sectarian comment.


Being ultra-left exposes the reformist left.Would Left Communists/Post-left Anarchists/Libertarian Socialists call Marxist-Leninists/Maoist/Trots reformists?

That is a really low blow, none of us here are Social Democrats or Liberals.


Ultra-lefts are not 'more left' in practice, only in rhetoric. Ultra-lefts are often, whether they realize it or not, reactionaries in disguise, because they denounce, sabotage, undermine, and lie about existing revolutionary or progressive movements, instead of trying to constructively criticize and change them for the better. They would rather have the workers bear the full brunt of capitalist oppression then to have a revolution that ultra-lefts deem imperfect.
Even if they are explicitly communist, it doesn't matter. Exhibit A: Ultra-left vitriol towards the Black Panthers, the Nepalese Maoists, the PFLP, etc etc. Barry that is not fair at all and you know this. I am very pro PFLP(Even Hamas to an extent), BPP, Naxalite, Red Shirts, ect

Just because I am of a more radical doctrine then a state socialist does not mean I will actively oppose an ongoing struggle against Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Capitalism. ESPECIALLY the PFLP, who the fuck is going to announce an historical leftist group fighting against the zionist occupation?

[scarletghoul]

the term is a slander which is applied to a pretty broad range of groups, from third camp Trotskyists to left-communists to anarchists.
Ultra-leftism is present in Maoists, MLs, etc, too. It's not specific to any ideology or group, but rather a problem that arises across the Left. Perhaps you maybe think its 'slander' against Anarchists and trots because the term is more often used by MLs and on RevLeft theres a funny and sharp hostility between MLs and others.. But really if you think it's 'slander' then you don't understand this term at all.

[scarletghoul]

Barry that is not fair at all and you know this. I am very pro PFLP(Even Hamas to an extent), BPP, Naxalite, Red Shirts, ect

Just because I am of a more radical doctrine then a state socialist does not mean I will actively oppose an ongoing struggle against Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Capitalism. ESPECIALLY the PFLP, who the fuck is going to announce an historical leftist group fighting against the zionist occupation?
You are not ultra-leftist then, comrade

[Paulappaul]

All the "strawmen" in my enumeration are pretty common among them (aside from the last one, you got me there), ie. anything less than world revolution is beneath us and dialectics with Trotskyists, lifestylism and post-scarcity or other economically illiterate bs like parecon with anarchists. It's not my fault that they sound ridiculous. When you put anything in that context it is ridiculous. But your post is still full of Strawmen. For example you say Parecon is an attribute to Anarchism. Which really isn't true. Infact a nice critique is provided by Libcom (http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism).

Furthermore you Post - Scarcity and Lifestylism as an attribute to Anarchists. These ideologies stand apart form that tradition of Socialism.

Honestly, you sound like an grumpy Leninist.

[Qayin]

Ultra-leftism is present in Maoists, MLs, etc, too. It's not specific to any ideology or group, but rather a problem that arises across the Left. Perhaps you maybe think its 'slander' against Anarchists and trots because the term is more often used by MLs and on RevLeft theres a funny and sharp hostility between MLs and others.. But really if you think it's 'slander' then you don't understand this term at all. Why even use the term? Its sounds ridiculous.Explain to us all what it means then, Lenins book was basically a big fuck you to anybody disagreeing with his government, Anarchists, the German Left, and so forth. The Idea Lenin himself has the right to gauge whats "ultra left" and what isn't dogmatic as hell. What made him the right to standardize radical politics? Saying anything passed Marxism-Leninism is Infantile is dogmatic.

When it is used it is used to slander an individual here,from what I have seen those called "ultra-left" typically because he or she disagrees with the majority on a situation(For example if someone denounces the situation in Venezuela for not being "socialist" enough) or expose anti-authoritarian politics such as a disagreement with the state,lenin,ect.


You are not ultra-leftist then, comrade Oh but I am by your definition. My personal views are way more "left" then any of those groups, I just refuse to be a sectarian in such a dire situation such as the 3rd world.

[HammerAlias]

I'm part of the ultra-left, my comrade. I would describe my career as being a revolutionary social theorist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenins book was basically a big fuck you to anybody disagreeing with his government, Anarchists, the German Left, and so forth. The Idea Lenin himself has the right to gauge whats "ultra left" and what isn't dogmatic as hell.

Lenin's pamphlet was a glass half full and half empty. It was an attempt to remind readers that the Bolsheviks emulated the pre-war SPD model outside a revolutionary period, but it failed to suggest that the already-ultra-left KPD militants be realists or realos by folding back into the USPD - an "outstanding role model for left politics today" that "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics," to quote Die Linke's Dietmar Bartsch (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-current-views-t136732/index.html) - for the new non-revolutionary period.

[AK]

A fair number of "ultra-lefts" also wouldn't regard themselves as part of the "left", which is generally idenitified with the left-wing of capital.
So those who detract us as ultra-leftists are really more leftist than we are?

Ultra-lefts are not 'more left' in practice, only in rhetoric. Ultra-lefts are often, whether they realize it or not, reactionaries in disguise, because they denounce, sabotage, undermine, and lie about existing revolutionary or progressive movements, instead of trying to constructively criticize and change them for the better. They would rather have the workers bear the full brunt of capitalist oppression then to have a revolution that ultra-lefts deem imperfect.
Wow. Talk about dogma.

[ComradeOm]

Not least of all because there is no unified "ultra-leftist ideology and tactics", considering the term is a slander which is applied to a pretty broad range of groups, from third camp Trotskyists to left-communists to anarchistsWell, yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of some historic movements (particularly the KAPD et al in Germany) to whom the label can be legitimately applied to. Fair point though

[Zanthorus]

The critiques of "utra-leftism" in this thread are truely stunning. Well above and beyond even Revleft's usual standard of highly crafted, witty and striking tracts of complete and unutterable garbage.


So those who detract us as ultra-leftists are really more leftist than we are?

I would have no quarrels with conceding the title of "lefter than thou" over to the anti-impie brigade.

[Devrim]

Lenin's pamphlet was a glass half full and half empty. It was an attempt to remind readers that the Bolsheviks emulated the pre-war SPD model outside a revolutionary period, but it failed to suggest that the already-ultra-left KPD militants be realists or realos by folding back into the USPD - an "outstanding role model for left politics today" that "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics," to quote Die Linke's Dietmar Bartsch (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-current-views-t136732/index.html) - for the new non-revolutionary period.

This really is nonsense. First there is nothing to suggest in April and May 1920 when Lenin wrote the pamphlet that he saw a new 'non-revolutionary period' beginning, but more importnatly for those who have read it, it is very clear what it says about Kautsky:


We must see to it that Communists do not make a similar mistake, only in the opposite sense, or rather, we must see to it that a similar mistake, only made in the opposite sense by the "Left" Communists is corrected as soon as possible and eliminated as rapidly and painlessly as possible. It is not only Right doctrinairism that is erroneous; Left doctrinairism is erroneous too. Of course, the mistake of Left doctrinairism in communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kautskyism); but, after all, that is only due to the fact that Left communism is a very young trend, is only just coming into being. It is only for this reason that, under certain conditions, the disease can be easily eradicated, and we must set to work with the utmost energy to eradicate it.

Devrim

[AK]

I would have no quarrels with conceding the title of "lefter than thou" over to the anti-impie brigade.
Why must you talk like this? :crying:

[Kotze]

Let's see, the users 9 and Paulappaul were offended by my little list and called the things there strawmen. I took a look at their profiles. Paulappaul mentions a liking for Parecon and is a member of the group Left Communists. 9 is a member of groups named Dialectical Materialists, For genuine free-access communism (self-description "a system of society in which goods and services are produced directly for use and are made freely available for direct appropriation by consumers (...) voluntary labour without any kind of remuneration"), Left Communists. Don't you understand that spouting support for above concepts which are stupid on its face leads to ultra-leftists having the image of being out of touch with reality?

[eclipse]

For genuine free-access communism (self-description "a system of society in which goods and services are produced directly for use and are made freely available for direct appropriation by consumers (...) voluntary labour without any kind of remuneration")

I`d like to know what`s supposed to be so stupid about this.

[manic expression]

I am not trollin'
:rolleyes:

The problem with being ultra-left? Well, it means you're running to irrelevance, to say nothing of isolation from working-class struggles. The goal is not to be more "left" than everyone else, the goal is to push forth the cause of socialism, of the workers, of humanity. If you take "ultra-left" as a badge of pride or you reject the term's validity, then you deserve every single negative connotation that comes with it.

[Kotze]

Why is a system without an accounting unit stupid?
-Because stuff is limited, so it has to be rationed. Tribes that survive without using money don't allow unlimited freeloading either, they have their ways to deal with freeloaders like ostracism in extreme cases. But before a freeloader gets reprimanded, he needs to be identified. The tribes achieve that by a mental book-keeping process that works only because the tribe is small and the number of different goods is small, so a person of average intelligence in such a group can have a basic idea what every member contributes and takes. This doesn't scale.

In case anybody wonders about the other two concepts I called stupid on its face, the stupidity of Dialectical Materialism is explained by user Rosa Lichtenstein in several threads on this board, the stupidity of Parecon is explained by David Schweickart in an article named Nonsense on Stilts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This really is nonsense. First there is nothing to suggest in April and May 1920 when Lenin wrote the pamphlet that he saw a new 'non-revolutionary period' beginning

Then why the suggestion of some united front of sorts with the USPD? It is because the ultra-left KPD didn't obtain majority political support from the working class.

The suggestions for Britain and Italy also clearly suggest a new non-revolutionary period (again, The Road to Power).


but more importantly for those who have read it, it is very clear what it says about Kautsky

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html


Some readers might feel that the idea of Kautsky influencing Lenin in any way, especially after 1914, is inherently implausible - even paradoxical. The standard story about Lenin and Kautsky goes something like this: Lenin did indeed regard Kautsky as a Marxist authority prior to 1914, although this was probably due to a misunderstanding. But Kautsky’s actions and articles after the outbreak of the war made the scales fall from Lenin’s eyes, and he renounced Kautsky and ‘Kautskyism’.

This standard story is wrong on one essential point: Lenin never renounced “Kautsky, when he was a Marxist” - the phrase used constantly by Lenin after the outbreak of war to refer to the pre-war Kautsky. On the contrary, Lenin continued to energetically affirm the Marxist credentials and insights of Kautsky’s writings, especially up to and including 1909. Lenin ferociously attacked what he called Kautskianstvo, a term that he coined to sum up Kautsky’s behaviour after 1914. But Kautskianstvo most explicitly did not mean ‘the system of views set forth by Kautsky in his pre-war writings’ - in fact, the most glaring feature of Kautskianstvo was precisely Kautsky’s failure to live up to those views.

I have documented this point elsewhere. Here I will just assert that there is nothing paradoxical about Lenin being influenced by Kautsky, even in 1917, on issues other than such wartime controversies as the nature of imperialism and the need for a purified third international.

Look at the Russian text of Left-Wing Communism, and you will find the term Kautskianstvo and not Kautskiisma (like "Marxisma" the Russian word).

[Crux]

UML and NC are pretty obviously comprador-bourgeois parties, despite what they may say, so no it's not at all ultra-leftist to oppose them. The fact that the Maoists have had such success also shows that it's not at all impracticle or anything to support them. So no, this is a case of a practical revolutionary position, not an ultra-leftist one. The ultra-leftists with regards to Nepal are those who oppose the Maoists (for ending the civil war without going "all the way"; for not establishing socialism immediately, or whatever)...

And there's nothing wrong with criticising any group (even those we support). In fact its vital. Umm with Palestine I honestly don't know enough about it. But obviously we should all support the Palestinian fight for liberation, whichever organisation is at the forefront of it. There's nothing wrong with criticising the reactionary points of Hamas, and upholding the PFLP as the most proper revolutionary Palestinian force,, however I do consider it ultra-leftist to oppose Palestinian resistance on the grounds that its leaders are Hamas..
To some Chavez would be an obvious comprador. The point is I think your definition of "ultra-leftism" is far too rubbery.

[syndicat]

Let's see, the users 9 and Paulappaul were offended by my little list and called the things there strawmen. I took a look at their profiles. Paulappaul mentions a liking for Parecon and is a member of the group Left Communists. 9 is a member of groups named Dialectical Materialists, For genuine free-access communism (self-description "a system of society in which goods and services are produced directly for use and are made freely available for direct appropriation by consumers (...) voluntary labour without any kind of remuneration"), Left Communists. Don't you understand that spouting support for above concepts which are stupid on its face leads to ultra-leftists having the image of being out of touch with reality?


These points of view are inconsistent with each other. Participatory economics also requires an accounting unit, requires the able bodied to earn a consumption entitlement for personal consumption goods based on remuneration for effort. So it's inconsistent with moneyless free-sharing.
As to Schweickart's review of participatory economics, it was filled with strawman fallacies and Schweickart himself advocates a statist market socialism that would be dominated by a bureaucratic class...hence his dislike for parecon's critique of the bureaucratic class.

Now, as to what's wrong with the "ultra-left". I tend to associate this with a failure to appreciate how consciousness develops through a protracted process of struggle. so for example if someone notes that the union is dominated by a bureaucracy who look to partnership deals and then says one should simply ignore the union, this leaves out the fact that the union also has membership meetings, is a channel through which workers occasionally develop demands and struggles with employers, and in which it is possible to develop an oppositional movement. unionism is a contradictory phenomenon, and so it is not quite correct to say unions are simply part of capital or part of the state...a viewpoint I identify as "ultra-left."

On the other hand, I don't think it is possible for the working class to gain power through the state, but only through social counter-power developed outside the state, so I don't favor a parliamentary strategy, tho in some situations voting might be okay as a tactic. And some might call that "ultra-left" I suppose.

As others have said, "ultra-left" doesn't really have a clear definition. so it ends up being merely an epithet.

[Barry Lyndon]

To some Chavez would be an obvious comprador. The point is I think your definition of "ultra-leftism" is far too rubbery.

'Obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!!

[Barry Lyndon]

Well above and beyond even Revleft's usual standard of highly crafted, witty and striking tracts of complete and unutterable garbage

You really need to stop talking about yourself. It's rather boring.

[Zanthorus]

You really need to stop talking about yourself. It's rather boring.

Well there really isn't much else to discuss in this thread.

[Paulappaul]

Don't you understand that spouting support for above concepts which are stupid on its face leads to ultra-leftists having the image of being out of touch with reality?

I respect Participatory Economists. I don't nessacarly agree with them and I do feel that Parecon doesn't offer a means of Class Struggle. but does offer some good theoretical works with which Political Parties can formulate their Programs on, as trying to be done in the "new" international.

I don't understand how being a Left Communist leads me to be out of touch with reality. Your sound like an idiot and a Troll when you through out meaningless comments like that, without the ability to back it up. So, what part of Left Communist Tactics do you feel to be out of touch?

[Zanthorus]

I don't understand how being a Left Communist leads me to be out of touch with reality.

Well, you see, you don't automatically latch yourself onto every populist demagogue who declares themselves a "socialist" or "anti-imperialist", which in Leftist-land means that you must either be a reactionary or out of touch.

[Kotze]

As to Schweickart's review of participatory economics, it was filled with strawman fallaciesEven if there are strawman fallacies, the following is enough:

Parecon asks every person to provide a consumption plan in advance for an entire year.
"Please note," says Albert, "this does not mean that every individual must specify how many units of every single product they need down to size, style and color." Whew, that's a relief. But then what do I specify? Birthday gifts? A nice sweater for my wife?

We have a problem here. If I don't specify what gifts I want, including such details as size, style and color, how are the producers going to know what to produce?The fun doesn't stop there.
What next? Well, the various consumer and worker councils, using their computers, and helped out by facilitation boards, aggregate all this information, to see if what people want to consume matches what they propose to do, qualitatively and quantitatively, at the workplace. If, for everything that is desired, there are people willing to work long enough in the appropriate production facilities to produce it, then the process comes to an end.

If it doesn't? (Albert doesn't expect it to, nor should we.) Well--our lists will be returned to us. The prices have been changed--raised for things for which there is excess demand, lowered for those for which there is a surplus. "At this point," says Albert, "consumers reassess their requests and most often shift their requests for goods in excess demand toward those whose indicative prices have fallen because they were in excess supply" (131). That is to say, we'll have to redo our lists! All of us--for if supply and demand fail to match for any of the hundreds (thousands?) of items on a person's list, the prices will change, and so one's consumption request will no longer equal one's work offer.

So we try again. Then again. Then again. . . . After several iterations, Albert assures us, there will be convergence.

Now compare Parecon with proposals made by Paul Cockshott and others: People will receive labour vouchers to buy stuff with. They will be able to buy stuff on short notice, you know, like now? This daily customer feedback will be used for planning. The difference to the present is that these vouchers will have some limits that today's money doesn't have: No individual will be able to buy a factory with it or a big piece of land. Regulation will keep the threat of a rising parasite class at bay, through putting harsh limits on inheritance and setting a minimum and maximum income. This leads to the question who regulates the regulators, that is how to prevent a "coordinator class" from getting rich, aside from the max income limit. The answer to that is to use selection rules that make it easier for newcomers, the simple rule for the most accurate representation being selection by lot. With leeching minimized, this will give the vast majority a higher standard of living than they have now.

Is it so hard to see which proposal is more realistic?

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, you see, you don't automatically latch yourself onto every populist demagogue who declares themselves a "socialist" or "anti-imperialist", which in Leftist-land means that you must either be a reactionary or out of touch.No, it means that you're racist. Just like all people who oppose Obama, in fact. Of course, if you oppose Clinton, you are sexist, so voting at the primaries was no doubt a difficult exercise.

[manic expression]

I don't understand how being a Left Communist leads me to be out of touch with reality. Your sound like an idiot and a Troll when you through out meaningless comments like that, without the ability to back it up. So, what part of Left Communist Tactics do you feel to be out of touch?
OK, that's the thing. What "Left Communist Tactics"? When's the last time anyone's seen a strong, vibrant, important left communist movement or party or organization? When's the last time we saw left communists on the streets, opposing the crimes of capitalism?

Philosophers interpret the world, in various ways...the point is to change it. Those words mean something.


Well, you see, you don't automatically latch yourself onto every populist demagogue who declares themselves a "socialist" or "anti-imperialist", which in Leftist-land means that you must either be a reactionary or out of touch.
Or both.

[Crux]

'Obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!!
Hahaha. No, you fail. Did I say Chavez was a comprador? No I did not. I mean geez, why don't you accuse me of support the Nepalese Congress Party as well? It seems the point just went flying past your head.

[syndicat]

Parecon asks every person to provide a consumption plan in advance for an entire year.

This is a suggestion. Participatory planning could work without this. What's essential is that the commuity orgs, regional federations, and workplace orgs develop plans. Moreover, it's not as big a deal as you may think. Suppose that each person has their own computer record of purchases, accessible only by them, which tracks all their purchases for the past year. All they have to do for a proposal for the following year is to indicate some probable changes...such as plan for a long vacation or a new dwelling because they have a new kid, whatever. Althernatively if they don't want to do this, they can simply let last year's record roll over as the plan for the next year.

Anyway, the point is to have a channel whereby individuals can backup or support proposals for new products and indicate major changes in consumption, so that the planning system reflects a better estimate of projected demand. Your proposal about labor vouchers to buy stuff doesn't provide a way to indicate support for proposed new products. Obviously you can only buy what exists. So it won't reflect dissatisfaction with the available options.

Other than that labor vouchers would be similar to participatory economics as a measure of work effort...but only if we assume that jobs have been reorganized to balance them for how harsh or unpleasant the work is. With "balanced jobs" work effort requirements are roughly equalized and thus remuneration for work effort justifies equal payment per hour.

now as to this quote from Schweickart:

What next? Well, the various consumer and worker councils, using their computers, and helped out by facilitation boards, aggregate all this information, to see if what people want to consume matches what they propose to do, qualitatively and quantitatively, at the workplace. If, for everything that is desired, there are people willing to work long enough in the appropriate production facilities to produce it, then the process comes to an end.

If it doesn't? (Albert doesn't expect it to, nor should we.) Well--our lists will be returned to us. The prices have been changed--raised for things for which there is excess demand, lowered for those for which there is a surplus. "At this point," says Albert, "consumers reassess their requests and most often shift their requests for goods in excess demand toward those whose indicative prices have fallen because they were in excess supply" (131). That is to say, we'll have to redo our lists! All of us--for if supply and demand fail to match for any of the hundreds (thousands?) of items on a person's list, the prices will change, and so one's consumption request will no longer equal one's work offer.

So we try again. Then again. Then again. . . . After several iterations, Albert assures us, there will be convergence.

This is inaccurate. Individual workplaces, individuals and community orgs don't "aggregate information using their computers." This what the federal information organization does. The tallies of projected supply and demand then imply changes in prices (due to pricing rules the society has adopted). Workplace and communty orgs then may have to change their plans to accommodate to changes in projected prices.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Number of planning negotiation rounds could be limited. Ultimately production organizations are governed by the rule that the cost per unit of benefit has to not fall too far below some standard or their use-right to the means of production is called into question.

Community organizations and households all have finite budgets they have to stick to (unless they've gotten approval to go over for some reason). If changes in projected prices change in a second round of proposals, you may have to change your proposals to stay in budget. This gives the power to make this decision to individuals, communities, and workplaces...rather than concentrating the power into the hands of a bureaucratic class, as Schweickart's scheme would do...or as would happen under statist central planning.

Markets mean production orgs can make opportunistic changes to make more profit since the worker org accrues a private profit, under Schweickart's scheme. It's a scheme that encourages greed, just like in capitalism.

in regard to labor vouches:

They will be able to buy stuff on short notice, you know, like now? This daily customer feedback will be used for planning. The difference to the present is that these vouchers will have some limits that today's money doesn't have: No individual will be able to buy a factory with it or a big piece of land. Regulation will keep the threat of a rising parasite class at bay, through putting harsh limits on inheritance and setting a minimum and maximum income. This leads to the question who regulates the regulators, that is how to prevent a "coordinator class" from getting rich, aside from the max income limit. The answer to that is to use selection rules that make it easier for newcomers, the simple rule for the most accurate representation being selection by lot. With leeching minimized, this will give the vast majority a higher standard of living than they have now.


Why can't a person buy stuff on short notice under participatory economics? A personal plan is just a projection. It's not the same as a commitment. you see, this is another strawman.

in regard to means of production, if they are socially owned and allocated by the society, no one privately owns means of production. Worker production orgs control means of production as a use-right.

i have no idea what you're going on about in your talk about "selection rules." Are you talking about selecting bosses? Why do we need bosses? Or are you talking about selection of delegates to regional or national congresses? Election versus selection by lot is a question that is entirely separate from the question of participatory economics versus some othere economic model.

And your talk here about labor vouchers is radically inconsistent with Schweickart's market socialism.

[Paulappaul]

OK, that's the thing. What "Left Communist Tactics"? When's the last time anyone's seen a strong, vibrant, important left communist movement or party or organization? When's the last time we saw left communists on the streets, opposing the crimes of capitalism?

Left Communist tactics are a numerous number of things. For one Full Demands over Immediate or Reformist demands i.e. Worker's Control over Nationalization. Mass Strikes - as theorised by Rosa Luxembourg - whether in the form of Industrial Unions or Workers' Councils. Parties agitating for the above proposals.

Left Communists are very active in Europe, particularly Britain. Look at the ICC for example.

[Qayin]

'obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!! lol left communists are racist huh?

wow..

[∞]

Being ultra-left exposes the reformist left.

yet, you have Chomsky as your avatar...

[manic expression]

Left Communist tactics are a numerous number of things. For one Full Demands over Immediate or Reformist demands i.e. Worker's Control over Nationalization. Mass Strikes - as theorised by Rosa Luxembourg - whether in the form of Industrial Unions or Workers' Councils. Parties agitating for the above proposals.
Saying the mass strike is good (Rosa Luxembourg wasn't a left communist, by the way) or that workers should have control over nationalization (something just about every communist supports) are not tactics, they are basic positions. At best, they are theories on tactics. Actual tactics need to be put into practice. That's what I'm asking for, and apparently there aren't any.


Left Communists are very active in Europe, particularly Britain. Look at the ICC for example.
When they actually do something, let me know.

[Barry Lyndon]

Greece- Uh, no, no left coms here.......
http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/images/greece/3b.jpg

Nepal- oooops, none here either.......
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/images/upf-pic1.jpg

Venezuela-Gee, where are they?
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/files/img_noticia/t_abn_28_11_2008_mision_marcha_protesta_radonski_0 8_101.jpg
Can't find them ANYWHERE, except on revleft!

[Barry Lyndon]

lol left communists are racist huh?

wow..

Yes, they are. If you sincerely believe that the only people who have made worthwhile contributions to Marxist theory are white, and that the only revolutions worth having are those made by white people, then you are a racist.
Which is what the left-coms believe, as much as they may try to conceal it, not very well I'm afraid.

[Qayin]

Greece- Uh, no, no left coms here.......
Your joking? Anarchists are what you could consider "ultra leftists"
in the book We Are An Image From The Future it explains in the 70s-80s and even now Anarchists were what you could call Autonomists before they identified with Anarchism, and today thats what they get there inspiration from and some still identify with that.



Yes, they are. If you sincerely believe that the only people who have made worthwhile contributions to Marxist theory are white, and that the only revolutions worth having are those made by white people, then you are a racist.
Which is what the left-coms believe, as much as they may try to conceal it, not very well I'm afraid.

Nothing to do with theory, just race I get it.. :laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Left Communists are very active in Europe, particularly Britain. Look at the ICC for example.
Just to confirm to everyone, this is not true. I have never come across a Left Communist in this country, nor do I know any normal working class people who would know what Left Communism even is.

[Barry Lyndon]

Your joking? Anarchists are what you could consider "ultra leftists"
in the book We Are An Image From The Future it explains in the 70s-80s and even now Anarchists were what you could call Autonomists before they identified with Anarchism, and today thats what they get there inspiration from and some still identify with that.

No, I don't consider all anarchists 'ultra-left'. I have great respect and admiration for anarchists who have built up revolutionary networks in the trade unions and student organizations, and are directly attacking and undermining the banks and police, like in Greece. In fact, I have greater respect for them then I do for many so-called Marxists. In other threads I have defended the 'black bloc' from the attacks of....guess what...left coms!

[Qayin]

Fuckin Judeas peoples front...



No, I don't consider all anarchists 'ultra-left'. I have great respect and admiration for anarchists who have built up revolutionary networks in the trade unions and student organizations, and are directly attacking and undermining the banks and police, like in Greece. In other threads I have defended the 'black bloc' from the attacks of....guess what...left coms!
Maybe some of them, which is strange since a lot of our ideas coincide with there ideas.

[9]

Originally Posted by Kotze
Let's see, the users 9 and Paulappaul were offended by my little listWhat are you talking about? Where in this thread have I been 'offended' by anything?


9 is a member of groups named Dialectical Materialists, For genuine free-access communism (self-description "a system of society in which goods and services are produced directly for use and are made freely available for direct appropriation by consumers (...) voluntary labour without any kind of remuneration"), Left Communists.1) I 'joined' the Left Communist usergroup to post a question about something related specifically to that tendency which I didn't feel like asking in the main forums. You don't have to be a Left Communist to post topics in the usergroup.
2) What the hell has dialectical materialism got to do with 'ultra-leftism'? Everyone from Bordiga to Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin was a proponent of dialectical materialism in some form.
3) Are you a troll?



Originally Posted by Kotze
In case anybody wonders about the other two concepts I called stupid on its face, the stupidity of Dialectical Materialism is explained by user Rosa LichtensteinWell I guess that answers #3.



Originally Posted by Barry Lyndon
'Obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!!
Yes, they are. If you sincerely believe that the only people who have made worthwhile contributions to Marxist theory are white, and that the only revolutions worth having are those made by white people, then you are a racist.
Which is what the left-coms believe, as much as they may try to conceal it, not very well I'm afraid.

Grow up.

[Barry Lyndon]

Just to confirm to everyone, this is not true. I have never come across a Left Communist in this country, nor do I know any normal working class people who would know what Left Communism even is.

Really? Left-Coms are self-aggrandizing liars? I would have never guessed. :lol:

[Barry Lyndon]

Your joking? Anarchists are what you could consider "ultra leftists"
in the book We Are An Image From The Future it explains in the 70s-80s and even now Anarchists were what you could call Autonomists before they identified with Anarchism, and today thats what they get there inspiration from and some still identify with that.

No, I don't consider all anarchists 'ultra-left'. I have great respect and admiration for anarchists who have built up revolutionary networks in the trade unions and student organizations, and are directly attacking and undermining the banks and police, like in Greece. In other threads I have defended the 'black bloc' against the attacks of....guess what...left coms!

[28350]

The concept of left-versus-right kind of breaks down where we are (ideologically).

[∞]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-leftism

Ultra-Left= Left Com?:confused:

[Terminator X]

Wikipedia never lies.

[∞]

Wikipedia never lies.

I was being sarcastic

[Terminator X]

I was being sarcastic

I know, I was just commenting on the sheer ridiculousness of that Wiki entry.

[∞]

I know, I was just commenting on the sheer ridiculousness of that Wiki entry.

It does talk about "The infantile left" i.e. Anarchists aswell though...

[Paulappaul]

Saying the mass strike is good (Rosa Luxembourg wasn't a left communist, by the way) or that workers should have control over nationalization (something just about every communist supports) are not tactics, they are basic positions.

Goals Define means, that's a basic. I never said Rosa Luxembourg was a Left Communist, I implied her theories held a great importance to the German/Dutch left.


At best, they are theories on tactics. Actual tactics need to be put into practice. That's what I'm asking for, and apparently there aren't any.

The German Revolution for one. May 68 contained alot of Left Communists, Autonomists Marxists and Libertarian Socialists. Most 1st world revolutions contained Left Communist elements.

I would ask you, what has your particular ideology done for the establishment of Socialism?

[AK]

'Obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!!
Holy shit Barry, your arguments are stupider and stuffed with more straw than mine.

Yes, they are. If you sincerely believe that the only people who have made worthwhile contributions to Marxist theory are white, and that the only revolutions worth having are those made by white people, then you are a racist.
Which is what the left-coms believe, as much as they may try to conceal it, not very well I'm afraid.
Yet I cannot see anything anywhere ever written or spoken by a left communist claiming that all Marxist theories written by non-whites are not worthwhile. Left communists hate a lot of Stalin's ideas and policies. And Stalin was white. Going by your logic (or lack, thereof) Left Communists hate the white race.

Stop jumping to conclusions you asshole. Maybe you should realise that Left Communists have opposed certain Marxist theories that were written by non-whites simply because of an opposition to the theorists' ideas.

Now that that bit of nastiness is over...

I have never come across a Left Communist in this country, nor do I know any normal working class people who would know what Left Communism even is.
To be honest, I really doubt you will meet many working class people at all who know what Marxism or Anarchism actually are (short of 'evil dictatorship' and 'lawlessness and chaos', respectively).

[black magick hustla]

im glad all the maoists are shittalking us something said ive done my job well in this forum. for the record ive met more left communists than maoists in the us

[manic expression]

Goals Define means, that's a basic. I never said Rosa Luxembourg was a Left Communist, I implied her theories held a great importance to the German/Dutch left.
"Goals define means"...cool, so what means? What practiced tactics? How are left communists actually trying to make those "means" a reality?


The German Revolution for one. May 68 contained alot of Left Communists, Autonomists Marxists and Libertarian Socialists. Most 1st world revolutions contained Left Communist elements.
The German Revolution happened before left communism was even a concrete tendency, and its leaders were not left communists even by your own concession. So no. May 68? The situationists were far more influential in that, I haven't heard of a left communist group actually making all that much of a difference there. "Most 1st world revolutions" means nothing. So we're back to square one.


I would ask you, what has your particular ideology done for the establishment of Socialism?
Since 1917: October Revolution and the establishment and defense of the Soviet Union. Establishment and defense of socialism throughout Europe (Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.). Chinese Revolution and the construction of working-class society in China. Cuban Revolution and socialism in Cuba. Vietnamese Revolution and national liberation. Socialist construction in the DPRK. Ongoing revolutions in Nepal, Venezuela, India, Colombia. The working-class destabilization of successive bourgeois governments in Greece. Contributions to the defeat of imperialism in South Africa, Angola, Ethiopia, Algeria, Namibia. I could go on.

But most immediately, I can point to Marxist-Leninists in the streets of almost any country, reaching workers, opposing capitalist crimes and generally being communists. That's what communists do.

[black magick hustla]

when a socialist in the us speaks about irrelevance we might as well start speaking about a one eyed mad man making fun of the blind

[Paulappaul]

Goals define means"...cool, so what means? What practiced tactics? How are left communists actually trying to make those "means" a reality?Agitating for the creation of Workers' Councils and Strikes. Through Parties and other means of Organization, it matters who you talk too, much like with all tendencies of Marxism.


The German Revolution happened before left communism was even a concrete tendencyThose active in the German Revolution included the Socialist Left (Rosa Luxemburg, etc) and the later Communist Left (Otto Ruhle), that is, those who aspired for the creation of Mass Strikes and Workers' Councils.

The result of the Revolution and the betrayal of the Third International founded the the German Dutch tendency and consequently the KAPD.


and its leaders were not left communists even by your own concessionFor more Information on the role of Communist left in the German Revolution:

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


May 68? The situationists were far more influential in thatSituationists, often called, Councilists a tendency of Left Communism. So no. Go look up their history, particularity that of the relationship with Socialisme ou Barbarie.


So we're back to square one.So no.


Since 1917: October Revolution and the establishment and defense of the Soviet Union. Establishment and defense of socialism throughout Europe (Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.). Chinese Revolution and the construction of working-class society in China. Cuban Revolution and socialism in Cuba. Vietnamese Revolution and national liberation. Socialist construction in the DPRK. Ongoing revolutions in Nepal, Venezuela, India, Colombia. The working-class destabilization of successive bourgeois governments in Greece. Contributions to the defeat of imperialism in South Africa, Angola, Ethiopia, Algeria, Namibia. I could go on.

Congratz for the dumping of all Marxist theory and successful mass genocide of millions:)

I think you forgot the Khmer Rouge though.

[Kotze]

I can see what the appeal of ultra-leftism is: Your ideas are never put into practice, so you don't have to revise them. You can always say that this or that isn't true socialism. But there is a reason your ideas aren't put into practice: They are either so vague that they don't mean anything, or when it gets concrete, they are seen by normal people as idiotic. Do you ultra-lefties live in a bubble? I have talked to non-political persons from all walks of life and convinced hundreds of the soundness of land value taxation and other straightforward ideas. How radical the ideas I talk about are depends on the person I talk to, I haven't turned one conservative into a socialist in one day, but I have turned conservatives into social democrats and social democrats into socialists. Have you ever talked to a person who is not part of your leftier-than-thou scene about stuff like "post-scarcity economics" or Parecon? Here is a tip for you: If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't believe in ridiculous stuff.

As for the racism claim: I don't think the claim was that you are consciously racist.

[manic expression]

when a socialist in the us speaks about irrelevance we might as well start speaking about a one eyed mad man making fun of the blind
Revolutionary socialists in the US are leading the anti-war movement, leading efforts against racism and police brutality and oppression, building coalitions between the various nations of the US and gaining widespread support all the time. If you think that's being one-eyed, it's only because you're blind.


Agitating for the creation of Workers' Councils and Strikes. Through Parties and other means of Organization, it matters who you talk too, much like with all tendencies of Marxism.
For the third time, that's a goal, not a tactic. In fact, it's not even a strategy. Clearly, you don't understand what practice even means.

Your answer would be like if someone asked a general what tactics they were going to use in a coming conflict, and the general said "well, we're going to militarily defeat the enemy through the use of weapons". The question is how you're going to go about that, in an immediate sense. The fact that you cannot answer this means you're bankrupt when it comes to practice of any sort.


Those active in the German Revolution included the Socialist Left (Rosa Luxemburg, etc) and the later Communist Left (Otto Ruhle), that is, those who aspired for the creation of Mass Strikes and Workers' Councils.The German Revolution was led in Berlin by Luxemburg and Liebknecht. They weren't left communists at all. In Bavaria, we see activity by communists like Eugen Levine and Hans Beimler. No left communists there, either. Stop trying to make stuff up just because you can't think of a single constructive thing left communists have ever done.


The result of the Revolution and the betrayal of the Third International founded the the German Dutch tendency and consequently the KAPD.OK, so you're saying the German Revolution wasn't done by left communists, left communists just try to hijack the Revolution's legacy because it makes them feel better. Like I've been saying. Thanks.


Situationists, often called, Councilists a tendency of Left Communism. So no. Go look up their history, particularity that of the relationship with Socialisme ou Barbarie.Tell me, do you agree with the theories presented in the "Society of the Spectacle"? If you're going to claim the situationists, you need to at least contend with what they said. Once you do that, we can move on to what left communists actually did (or didn't do) during May 1968.


Congratz for the dumping of all Marxist theory and successful mass genocide of millions:)

I think you forgot the Khmer Rouge though.And here we see left communism's only contribution to anything: parroting bourgeois opposition to socialism. Communists fight for revolution, you whine on the sidelines. Twas ever thus.

Oh, and I assumed you were going to claim Pol Pot as a left communist...since it would make about as much sense as the rest of your nonsense. :lol:

[AK]

I can see what the appeal of ultra-leftism is: Your ideas are never put into practice, so you don't have to revise them. You can always say that this or that isn't true socialism. But there is a reason your ideas aren't put into practice: They are either so vague that they don't mean anything, or when it gets concrete, they are seen by normal people as idiotic. Do you ultra-lefties live in a bubble? I have talked to non-political persons from all walks of life and convinced hundreds of the soundness of land value taxation and other straightforward ideas. How radical the ideas I talk about are depends on the person I talk to, I haven't turned one conservative into a socialist in one day, but I have turned conservatives into social democrats and social democrats into socialists. Have you ever talked to a person who is not part of your leftier-than-thou scene about stuff like "post-scarcity economics" or Parecon? Here is a tip for you: If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't believe in ridiculous stuff.
Quit trolling.

[Madvillainy]

Just to confirm to everyone, this is not true. I have never come across a Left Communist in this country, nor do I know any normal working class people who would know what Left Communism even is.

of course left communism is tiny, no one is denying that. That doesn't mean their ideas are wrong. I mean I've never met a maoist in 'my' country, nor do I know any working class people who would know anything about maoism, but this alone doesn't prove that maoism is utter shite, ya know?

[eclipse]

And here we see left communism's only contribution to anything: parroting bourgeois opposition to socialism. Communists fight for revolution, you whine on the sidelines. Twas ever thus.


It might also be that there have just been the very wrong compromises with political power on the side of the movement. But the ends justify the means, don`t they?
To bad that the means defined the end in all of this revolutions you counted up.
A wall to keep the workers inside the system to end all walls, what a beautiful ironic compromise that is.

And if success is a sign of legitimity, caitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy and opression are the most legitimate causes there have ever been.

Is revolutionary notalgia and denying to learn from past mistakes ultra leftists by the way?

[manic expression]

It might also be that there have just been the very wrong compromises with political power on the side of the movement. But the ends justify the means, don`t they?
To bad that the means defined the end in all of this revolutions you counted up.
Not really. Cuba, DPRK, PRC, Laos. Those revolutions are alive and well.

And the only "compromise" that led to the short-term end of the Russian Revolution was a move away from Marxism-Leninism. You know, the anti-socialists of the Socialist Bloc talked a lot about "workers' councils", are you going to claim them as left communists, too?


A wall to keep the workers inside the system to end all walls, what a beautiful ironic compromise that is.
:lol: Do you even know the city that the Berlin Wall was built around? Talk about parroting bourgeois rhetoric.


And if success is a sign of legitimity, caitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy and opression are the most legitimate causes there have ever been.
Good thing actual communism has abolished capitalism and patriarchy and set up the power of the workers as Marx intended. Left communists whine on the sidelines and take their political cues from whoever happens to be bad-mouthing working-class movements.


Is revolutionary notalgia and denying to learn from past mistakes ultra leftists by the way?
To make mistakes, one has to actually, you know, do stuff.


(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

[Zanthorus]

To make mistakes, one has to actually, you know, do stuff.

Yes, and Left-Communism takes it's cue from people who "did stuff". The first, second and third internationals and the sections which split off from the latter (Mainly the German-Dutch and Italian Left), as well as the history of workers struggles.

[eclipse]

I can`t talk about Laos, but these two (DPRK, PRC) have obviously failed their objectives. Ok, Cuba is quite discussable, but it`s no society under worker control either. So quite a dictatorship, but not one of the proletariat.


Do you even know the city that the Berlin Wall was built around?
Lol. It seems you don`t. At least if you don`t count West Berlin as a city in itself, that is.
Well, I stayed there for quite some time, it's the capital of my country and some of my best friends are living there. That answers your question?


Good thing actual communism has abolished capitalism and patriarchy and set up the power of the workers as Marx intended.
Where was that exactly?


To make mistakes, one has to actually, you know, do stuff.
Sometimes though, making mistakes can be avoided by thinking your stuff through before you do it. At least to the point where you come to the conclusion that it`s not a good option to force their own emancipation upon people.

Assisting reactionary states and movements to reach communism is exactly like bombing for peace or fucking for virginity. Yes, even if they sport that fancy constructivist agit - prop aesthetics.

[Paulappaul]

For the third time, that's a goal, not a tactic. In fact, it's not even a strategy. Clearly, you don't understand what practice even means.
Your an idoit. Agitating (which is a tactic) inherently implies organization.


The German Revolution was led in Berlin by Luxemburg and Liebknecht. They weren't left communists at all. In Bavaria, we see activity by communists like Eugen Levine and Hans Beimler. No left communists there, either. Stop trying to make stuff up just because you can't think of a single constructive thing left communists have ever done.Otto Ruhle was a PART OF THE FUCKING SPARTAKUSBUND.

Your an idiot, go read some history then come back. As I said earlier, there is whole book on this (http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-germany-1918-1921). So no. Stop trying to make stuff up.


Tell me, do you agree with the theories presented in the "Society of the Spectacle"? If you're going to claim the situationists, you need to at least contend with what they said. What I think doesn't matter. We're talking about the history of Left Communism.



Oh, and I assumed you were going to claim Pol Pot as a left communist...since it would make about as much sense as the rest of your nonsense.No just further examining your idea of "Socialism" which is at best the actions of Pol Pot.


And here we see left communism's only contribution to anything: parroting bourgeois opposition to socialism.Oh yes, your fruitful examples of Socialism :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

I can`t talk about Laos, but these two (DPRK, PRC) have obviously failed their objectives. Ok, Cuba is quite discussable, but it`s no society under worker control either. So quite a dictatorship, but not one of the proletariat.
The PRC and DPRK have promoted the cause of the workers. They have underwent socialist construction and are led by vanguard parties of the workers. Sure, they're not perfect, but that's not the point. Cuba is the most democratic country on the planet.

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm
http://quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html

Don't believe what the bourgeoisie tells you.


Lol. It seems you don`t. At least if you don`t count West Berlin as a city in itself, that is.
Well, I stayed there for quite some time, it's the capital of my country and some of my best friends are living there. That answers your question?
West Berlin was, technically at least, its own city until the reunification. The wall went around West Berlin, it wasn't keeping East German workers in. Further, the perks given to denizens of West Berlin (the only place in Germany where military service wasn't mandatory, for instance) made it a desirable destination for West Germans as much as East Germans.


Where was that exactly?
USSR, PRC, Cuba, DDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam. I can go on.


Sometimes though, making mistakes can be avoided by thinking your stuff through before you do it. At least to the point where you come to the conclusion that it`s not a good option to force their own emancipation upon people.
You think revolutions happen by consensus? Revolutions ARE force.


Assisting reactionary states and movements to reach communism is exactly like bombing for peace or fucking for virginity. Yes, even if they sport that fancy constructivist agit - prop aesthetics.
And they're reactionary...why, exactly? Don't hide behind capitalist "common sense" on Cuba or the Soviet Union, actually deal with the reality of what they were and what they did.


(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

[Blackscare]

'Obvious' only to you, who possesses a crystal ball and sees that the revolution will fail, as all revolutions led by non-whites always do!!!!



You really need to stop talking about yourself. It's rather boring.
Wait, so arbitrary accusations of racism in one post, then a classic "I know you are but what am I" zinger in the very next post.

Can we give this guy an award for best revleft user ever?

[manic expression]

Your an idoit. Agitating (which is a tactic) inherently implies organization.
"Agitating" is not a tactic. The specific form of agitation (selling newspapers in public squares, leading a protest against imperialist wars with a certain coalition) is the tactic. "Implying organization" means nothing. Illustrating concrete ways of promoting socialism, to say nothing of pointing to examples of left communists putting such tactics into action, means something. That you don't know the difference basically proves my point.


Otto Ruhle was a PART OF THE FUCKING SPARTAKUSBUND.
Which makes the Spartacus League chock full of left communists. :rolleyes:


Your an idiot, go read some history then come back. As I said earlier, there is whole book on this (http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-germany-1918-1921). So no. Stop trying to make stuff up.
So you're not going to specify anything. So yeah, just as I thought.


What I think doesn't matter. We're talking about the history of Left Communism.
Which you're trying to whitewash because the "history of Left Communism" is practically nonexistent.


No just further examining your idea of "Socialism" which is at best the actions of Pol Pot.
:lol: Left communist bourgeois rhetoric marches on. You could find all of Paulappaul's arguments against socialism in any capitalist critique. Interesting. Pol Pot was no communist. That's all there needs to be said on that little argument of yours.


Oh yes, your fruitful examples of Socialism :rolleyes:
Yep, which enfranchised and uplifted the workers of every country it established itself in. Keep whining on the sidelines, though.

[Blackscare]

When they actually do something, let me know.


As opposed to the Leninist hordes that are storming the halls of power all over Europe as we speak.

[Zanthorus]

Which makes the Spartacus League chock full of left communists. :rolleyes:

I don't know about the Spartacus League but the majority of the KPD at it's founding was Left-Communist (They voted against electoral participation) and when the KAPD split from them they took the majority faction. Left-Communists were also the majority faction of the original PCI, in fact Bordiga was the founder and the first secretary and it would probably never have formed without his initiative in splitting the abstentionist faction from the PSI (And I have even heard that even though Gramsci accepted the position of leader of the PCI after the beuracratic maneuverors ousted Bordiga he still considered Bordiga the rightful leader). There were also Left-Communist groups in the Bolshevik party (In fact Lenin wrote an article on ""Left-Wing" Childishness" in opposition to them) and in small opposition groups inside Russia as well as groups like the Leninbund and "irreconcilables" in the Left Opposition which saw the USSR as being state-capitalist and essentially bourgeois in opposition to Trotsky (Whose own wife eventually came round to the viewpoint that Russia had ceased to be a workers state).


Which you're trying to whitewash because the "history of Left Communism" is practically nonexistent.

And the books which the ICC publishes on the history of the Russian, British, Italian and Dutch-German lefts are...?

[Paulappaul]

"Agitating" is not a tactic. The specific form of agitation (selling newspapers in public squares, leading a protest against imperialist wars with a certain coalition) is the tactic.So it is a tactic. Alright thanks.


"Implying organization" means nothing. Illustrating concrete ways of promoting socialism, to say nothing of pointing to examples of left communists putting such tactics into action

Agitating, participating in parliament for full demands, that's promoting Socialism.


Which makes the Spartacus League chock full of left communistsWhen it's highest positions are dominated Spontaneities and Left Communists, yeah.


So you're not going to specify anything. So yeah, just as I thought.I don't need to specify anything it's right in front of you.

Not to mention Paul Mattick, Herman Gorter, Ernst Schwarz, Karl Schröder, etc. were all a part of the German Revolution.


Yep, which enfranchised and uplifted the workers of every country it established itself in. Hmm.. yes the workers love to suppressed.

[Zanthorus]

Not to mention Paul Mattick, Herman Gorter, Ernst Schwarz, Karl Schröder, etc. were all a part of the German Revolution.

Don't forget Anton Pannekoek.

Speaking of whom... (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm#s3)

[Crux]

Manic expression: is being opposed to the PRC regime ultra-leftist?

[manic expression]

So it is a tactic. Alright thanks.
You're still lost. What you laid out were goals that need to be met through the application of specific tactics. You can't illustrate any, likely because you don't know of any. You'd rather make vague statements about mass strikes with absolutely no understanding of how to get to the point in which a mass strike would be even remotely possible. Typical, really.


Agitating, participating in parliament for full demands, that's promoting Socialism.
And what left communist organization is presently doing that right now? What left communists are in the streets, agitating for socialism, leading the fight against imperialism? I won't hold my breath.


When it's highest positions are dominated Spontaneities and Left Communists, yeah.
Like Luxemburg? No. Liebknecht? No. Eugen Levin? No. So no.


I don't need to specify anything it's right in front of you.
Yes, this thread is right in front of me, and it is so obviously lacking any practical suggestions from your end. Which is my point.


Not to mention Paul Mattick, Herman Gorter, Ernst Schwarz, Karl Schröder, etc. were all a part of the German Revolution.
Great. None of that does much for your point, though. The October Revolution involved Left SRs...does that mean we can say the October Revolution was ideologically aligned around that tendency? Your logic is wishful thinking.


Hmm.. yes the workers love to suppressed.
The workers love to suppress...counterrevolutionaries.

[eclipse]

Don't believe what the bourgeoisie tells you.
Well, I can make up my own opinion, thanks. And all at least somehow credible sources encountered so far, say something else. Among them radical people who have traveled to several of these countries, and were severly disappointed.
Criticism does not equal propaganda. We can start there with Lenin himself.
Read Emma Goldman, "My disillusionment with Russia" for example.

I won`t demonize them, there were lots of progressive impulses, but I can`t cry out about injustices committed by capitalists and keep silent about some comitted by self-declared communists just for harmonies sake. Would be self - treason.
And a revolution that exiles, tortures and murders me in the end for not conforming to party line is not my revolution.


The wall went around West Berlin, it wasn't keeping East German workers in. Of course, that`s the reason it has been tunneled, jumped over or circumvented at every occasion. The east german border at large was severly controlled, patrols having the orders to shoot their own people. Fuck, I know enough people whose families fled from there personally, mostly by moving though several neighbour countries that were allowed for GDR/DDR tourists to travel too.
Stop feeding me shit here, learn some history.
may start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_attempts_and_victims_of_the_inner_German_bo rder


I can go on to name places where movements aspired these things but were severly disappointed all the times. Thanks. Of course you can, you have too include all this and apologize a lot of stuff that just can`t be apologized for to keep a consistent world view. Communism is kinda marginalized in the west now and fascism spreads like a damn virus in the ex warsaw - pact countries. I`ve really had enough discussions with people from there who were extremely disappointed with communist ideals. If we continue this nostalgic shit and do not try to build something better on the ruins we can stop the struggle right here.


And they're reactionary...why, exactly?
I can`t find any workers self control there. I can find rich buerocrats and party bosses as well as regular capitalists exploiting people though. You do not belive honestly that for example the grave conditions under which chinese workers toil would withstand one single day if they had a say in it, do you?
quick google find for you:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/chin-o11.shtml

[manic expression]

As opposed to the Leninist hordes that are storming the halls of power all over Europe as we speak.
Well, the KKE and the PCP are some of the most militant, visible, vibrant, well-supported leftist groups in all of Europe. The KKE has helped put Greek governments on their heels on multiple occasions. And that's just Europe.


Manic expression: is being opposed to the PRC regime ultra-leftist?
I wouldn't say it would be necessarily, no.


I don't know about the Spartacus League but the majority of the KPD at it's founding was Left-Communist (They voted against electoral participation) and when the KAPD split from them they took the majority faction. Left-Communists were also the majority faction of the original PCI, in fact Bordiga was the founder and the first secretary and it would probably never have formed without his initiative in splitting the abstentionist faction from the PSI (And I have even heard that even though Gramsci accepted the position of leader of the PCI after the beuracratic maneuverors ousted Bordiga he still considered Bordiga the rightful leader). There were also Left-Communist groups in the Bolshevik party (In fact Lenin wrote an article on ""Left-Wing" Childishness" in opposition to them) and in small opposition groups inside Russia as well as groups like the Leninbund and "irreconcilables" in the Left Opposition which saw the USSR as being state-capitalist and essentially bourgeois in opposition to Trotsky (Whose own wife eventually came round to the viewpoint that Russia had ceased to be a workers state).
So what did they do? If the influence of the left communists was as you say, then how did they utilize this influence?

And Lenin called the USSR state capitalist, too.


And the books which the ICC publishes on the history of the Russian, British, Italian and Dutch-German lefts are...?
Marginal...because no one else really cares, and why should they?

[Zanthorus]

Like Luxemburg? No.

Well according to the majority on this site at least, Luxemburg was a racist.


Great. None of that does much for your point, though. The October Revolution involved Left SRs...does that mean we can say the October Revolution was ideologically aligned around that tendency? Your logic is wishful thinking.

There were obviously elements of Left-SR thinking in the October revolution, else the majority would not have voted for the Social-Revolutionaries in the Constituent Assembly, and the Left-SR's would not have been invited to join Sovnarkom. Similar to how their were Left-Communist elements involved in the German Revolution.

The main point that's being made here is that you are saying that there are no instances of Left-Communist's putting their ideas into practice, which is simply not true. They were involved in the German revolution even if they didn't constitute the majority thereof. In fact, arguing about majority tendencies would seem to be a bit odd considering that the actual majority tendency was social-democrats, whose being voted to the workers councils was what allowed their dissolution. Which, again, shows that putting ones ideas into practice has no bearing on the truth-value of those ideas, or else we'd all be off joining the Democrats, Labour, SPD etc.

EDIT:


So what did they do? If the influence of the left communists was as you say, then how did they utilize this influence?

To put it quite simply, they didn't. I don't have any excuses for the KAPD I'm afraid. However Bordiga was a committed centralist who followed the line given to him by the Comintern even when he disagreed with it. His disagreement of course was what led to his expulsion for "Trotskyism". Apparently Marxist-Leninists disagree with even the basic principles of Democratic Centralism.


And Lenin called the USSR state capitalist, too.

He thought that state capitalism was a step forward. We disagree.


Marginal...because no one else really cares, and why should they?

Because they offered analyses of the degeneration of the Comintern and the Russian revolution. Two issues which still haunt the majority of the Left long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[manic expression]

Well, I can make up my own opinion, thanks. And all at least somehow credible sources encountered so far, say something else. Among them radical people who have traveled to several of these countries, and were severly disappointed.
Criticism does not equal propaganda. We can start there with Lenin himself.
Read Emma Goldman, "My disillusionment with Russia" for example.
What a time to cite an anarchist. Anyway, criticizing Lenin is fine, dovetailing with capitalist rhetoric isn't. Trying to put me in the same camp as Pol Pot, for instance, is an example of the latter.

Many radical people traveled to the Soviet Union and Cuba and were not disappointed. Paul Robeson said he took his first steps in full human dignity in the USSR. Assata Shakur is free because Cuba defended her against white supremacy.


I won`t demonize them, there were lots of progressive impulses, but I can`t cry out about injustices committed by capitalists and keep silent about some comitted by self-declared communists just for harmonies sake. Would be self - treason.
And a revolution that exiles, tortures and murders me in the end for not conforming to party line is not my revolution.
What injustices, and in what context? There were mistakes in many areas, but mistakes are mistakes. They were made in the wider campaign of emancipating the working class, which is what communism has done around the world. But aside from that, the party line was the workers' line. If you oppose that, ramifications are almost unavoidable.


Of course, that`s the reason it has been tunneled, jumped over or circumvented at every occasion. The east german border at large was severly controlled, patrols having the orders to shoot their own people. Fuck, I know enough people whose families fled from there personally, mostly by moving though several neighbour countries that were allowed for GDR/DDR tourists to travel too.
Stop feeding me shit here, learn some history.
So we're not going to talk about the wall you brought up? Your call, I guess. Anyway, the espionage across the border was overwhelming, to expect the DDR to not heavily patrol it is unreasonable, and to expect the DDR to just let anyone go if they couldn't get within touching distance is also unreasonable. NATO was playing hard ball, why should the DDR have played nice?


to name places where movements aspired these things but were severly disappointed all the times. Thanks. Of course you can, you have too include all this and apologize a lot of stuff that just can`t be apologized for to keep a consistent world view. Communism is kinda marginalized in the west now and fascism spreads like a damn virus in the ex warsaw - pact countries. I`ve really had enough discussions with people from there who were extremely disappointed with communist ideals. If we continue this nostalgic shit and do not try to build something better on the ruins we can stop the struggle right here.
You might be severely disappointed, but that hardly diminishes the accomplishments of the workers of those countries. Vast improvements in living standards, political enfranchisement of the working class, the defeat and frustration of imperialism...all great, historic achievements that individual disappointment will never dull. This is what revolution is, it's not pretty and it's not what you want it to be...but it's progress nevertheless.

Why do you think fascism is such a problem in the former socialist countries? The entire rationale for capitalism was that racism and competition were awesome and that internationalism sucks. This is Defending Socialism 101 for every ultra-left here: the fall of European socialism opened a pandora's box of misery. Oppose socialist states, and that's what you get. Let this be a lesson as we look to our comrades in Cuba, Korea, Laos and elsewhere.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html


I can`t find any workers self control there. I can find rich buerocrats and party bosses as well as regular capitalists exploiting people though. You do not belive honestly that for example the grave conditions under which chinese workers toil would withstand one single day if they had a say in it, do you?
You honestly think that the economic situation of China is due to political power? Are you forgetting what China looked like 70 years ago? They're building a society with many contradictions and shortcomings, of course, but the vanguard party still holds power, and it's 100x better than what's going on in the rest of Asia. Let's get behind our comrades in the PRC, they're the best hope for the workers in China. That's the reality of the thing.


(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

[manic expression]

Well according to the majority on this site at least, Luxemburg was a racist.
Engels kind of was too, in some ways, I guess...but he was still a great revolutionary.


There were obviously elements of Left-SR thinking in the October revolution, else the majority would not have voted for the Social-Revolutionaries in the Constituent Assembly, and the Left-SR's would not have been invited to join Sovnarkom. Similar to how their were Left-Communist elements involved in the German Revolution.
Exactly. But it wasn't the Left SRs' revolution, especially in ultimate terms. History bore this out.


The main point that's being made here is that you are saying that there are no instances of Left-Communist's putting their ideas into practice, which is simply not true. They were involved in the German revolution even if they didn't constitute the majority thereof. In fact, arguing about majority tendencies would seem to be a bit odd considering that the actual majority tendency was social-democrats, whose being voted to the workers councils was what allowed their dissolution. Which, again, shows that putting ones ideas into practice has no bearing on the truth-value of those ideas, or else we'd all be off joining the Democrats, Labour, SPD etc.
If a marginal, footnote role in the German Revolution is all that left communists can come up with, then I'm pretty satisfied in our conclusion.


He thought that state capitalism was a step forward. We disagree.
However, his understanding and definition of state capitalism was not what most people think it was, let's be clear.


Because they offered analyses of the degeneration of the Comintern and the Russian revolution. Two issues which still haunt the majority of the Left long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They offer analyses. That's kind of what I'm getting at.

[Zanthorus]

Engels kind of was too, in some ways, I guess...but he was still a great revolutionary.

Well Engels was never a part of the majority tendency in any revolution, so according to you at least that makes him irrelevant.


Exactly. But it wasn't the Left SRs' revolution, especially in ultimate terms. History bore this out.

No disagreements here.


If a marginal, footnote role in the German Revolution is all that left communists can come up with, then I'm pretty satisfied in our conclusion.

You seem to keep dodging the point about Social-Democrats. There is a school of thought within Left-Communism which says that Marxist-Leninists are actually Social-Democrats with a bit of a violence fetish. I've never been too convinced on that score myself but taking you as a sample would suggest otherwise.


However, his understanding and definition of state capitalism was not what most people think it was, let's be clear.

Neither was the Left-Communists at that time in fact, they were in favour of greater state centralisation and nationalisation.


They offer analyses. That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Yes, and what you're getting at is an irrelevant point.

[tellyontellyon]

The problem with ultra lefts is that they never actually achieve anything in the real world.
You have to engage with the working class where they are; at the level of consciousness that they have; you need to address yourself to the day-to-day concerns they have.
It is only through struggle and experience that the working class realise that their limited reformist aims won't get them anywhere in the long term. it is throught he experience gained through all those limited struggles that the consciousness and energy for revolution develops....
....that is not the same as reformism...
marxists must not ignore the struggles for reform, but see them as oppourtunities for building consciousness and militancy.

[Zanthorus]

On another note, why has Stagger Lee thanked every single post on this page (EDIT: And every post in this thread for that matter)?

[Devrim]

The problem with ultra lefts is that they never actually achieve anything in the real world.
You have to engage with the working class where they are; at the level of consciousness that they have; you need to address yourself to the day-to-day concerns they have.
It is only through struggle and experience that the working class realise that their limited reformist aims won't get them anywhere in the long term. it is throught he experience gained through all those limited struggles that the consciousness and energy for revolution develops....
....that is not the same as reformism...
marxists must not ignore the struggles for reform, but see them as oppourtunities for building consciousness and militancy.

I thought that was exactly the sort of thing that we were involved in on the ground.

Devrim

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Ultra-lefts are not 'more left' in practice, only in rhetoric. Ultra-lefts are often, whether they realize it or not, reactionaries in disguise, because they denounce, sabotage, undermine, and lie about existing revolutionary or progressive movements, instead of trying to constructively criticize and change them for the better. They would rather have the workers bear the full brunt of capitalist oppression then to have a revolution that ultra-lefts deem imperfect.

Where do you get this from? My impression was that they reject things you find "revolutionary" or "progressive" on either the grounds that they are counter productive, could be done better, or point out that regardless of whether they are helpful to working people or not, should not be linked somehow to the achievement of communism.

Please tell me how you can consider that they reject revolutions they deem "imperfect", when they supported/support the Russian revolution, whilist making numerous criticisms of its handling?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Well, you see, you don't automatically latch yourself onto every populist demagogue who declares themselves a "socialist" or "anti-imperialist", which in Leftist-land means that you must either be a reactionary or out of touch.

Racist. :cool:

[scarletghoul]

of course left communism is tiny, no one is denying that. That doesn't mean their ideas are wrong. I mean I've never met a maoist in 'my' country, nor do I know any working class people who would know anything about maoism, but this alone doesn't prove that maoism is utter shite, ya know?
You're mostly correct, but I was responding to the other user's crazy claim that left-communists are huge in Britain.

[Devrim]

You're mostly correct, but I was responding to the other user's crazy claim that left-communists are huge in Britain.

What the other user said was:


Left Communists are very active in Europe, particularly Britain. Look at the ICC for example.

It doesn't claim that the ICC is huge. It says they are 'very active'.

You wrote:


Just to confirm to everyone, this is not true. I have never come across a Left Communist in this country, nor do I know any normal working class people who would know what Left Communism even is.

I suppose it depends where you go. Generally, we don't spend much time at leftist demos, but I think that if you have spent much time on picket lines in strikes, you would probably have run into a left communist.

That's where I met the ICC when I was on strike as a postman.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

I thought that was exactly the sort of thing that we were involved in on the ground.

Devrim

Except the fact that I have never heard of left-com activity anywhere in the world, except in your own biased publications. I read a lot about Bolivarianism, I read a lot about Maoism, I read quite a bit about anarchists, heck I read about what Trotskyists are doing from time to time. But Left-coms-zero. Zilch. Nada. I barely knew what left-coms WERE before I came to revleft, and I consider myself pretty well informed about the radical left.

[Qayin]

This whole thread is way to fucking sectarian

[manic expression]

Well Engels was never a part of the majority tendency in any revolution, so according to you at least that makes him irrelevant.
His work in the Second International alone disqualifies that line of logic.


You seem to keep dodging the point about Social-Democrats. There is a school of thought within Left-Communism which says that Marxist-Leninists are actually Social-Democrats with a bit of a violence fetish. I've never been too convinced on that score myself but taking you as a sample would suggest otherwise.
Just about every Marxist called her/himself a Social Democrat until WWI and the resulting political fallout. Lenin was no exception to this, and neither was Engels IIRC. The differences between what is now known as social democracy and what is now known as communism originally arose over opposition to WWI, so that "school of thought within Left-Communism" should probably stop being stupid.


Yes, and what you're getting at is an irrelevant point.
As are most things pertaining to left communism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think the key difference is illustrated in the demands to show "what you do."

The working class makes the revolution, as a class. You can't substitute the activity of a group for the activity of the class. Well, you can.. but it won't lead to the abolition of property in the means of production, classes, exploitation, nations, etc.

[Devrim]

Except the fact that I have never heard of left-com activity anywhere in the world, except in your own biased publications. I read a lot about Bolivarianism, I read a lot about Maoism, I read quite a bit about anarchists, heck I read about what Trotskyists are doing from time to time. But Left-coms-zero. Zilch. Nada. I barely knew what left-coms WERE before I came to revleft, and I consider myself pretty well informed about the radical left.

I think that it is very rare that we talk about our activity in our publications. It is not really what we do. I have just looked at our home page (http://tr.internationalism.org/). There is nothing on the front page about anything we have done. We actually talked in our meeting tonight about putting one page about something we have done, a series of twelve meetings we just organised for striking Turkish workers to speak in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, in our next paper. On our front page there is an article about a militant worker being sacked from his job. We didn't mention that he was a left communist. There is the text of a speech given by a member of a group of striking workers from different sectors, who stormed the platform at Mayday in İstanbul. We don't mention that we set up their website (http://direnistekiisci.info/) for them.

It is just not the way we go about things really.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

Not really. Cuba, DPRK, PRC, Laos. Those revolutions are alive and well.
Sweatshop capitalism?

[HEAD ICE]

On another note, why has Stagger Lee thanked every single post on this page (EDIT: And every post in this thread for that matter)?

Much of the posts in this thread (especially the first two pages) were not geared on debating the merits or faults of left communism but people concocting posts designed to get "thanked" by posters of their respective tendency.

Now if you excuse me I am going to go to a strike all alone to pass out my little bitty pamphlet and after that I am off to the Klan rally.

[Qayin]

Much of the posts in this thread (especially the first two pages) were not geared on debating the merits or faults of left communism but people concocting posts designed to get "thanked" by posters of their respective tendency.
I've got tons of thanked from you and I defended Left Communism. I've been thanked by people who are not anarchists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What do left communists do?

A summary of decades of work of a recently deceased member of the ICC can be found here: The ICC's tribute to our comrade Jerry Grevin (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/03/jerry-grevin)

[∞]

Sorry I didn't know this thread was about the organizational methods of Left Communists :huh:

[StoneFrog]

Sorry I didn't know this thread was about the organizational methods of Left Communists :huh:

ZING!

lol :laugh:

[AK]

This whole thread is way to fucking sectarian
That's why we love it.

Much of the posts in this thread (especially the first two pages) were not geared on debating the merits or faults of left communism but people concocting posts designed to get "thanked" by posters of their respective tendency.

Now if you excuse me I am going to go to a strike all alone to pass out my little bitty pamphlet and after that I am off to the Klan rally.
Didn't you just make that post to get thanked? Hypocrisy, much? :)

[Zanthorus]

Just about every Marxist called her/himself a Social Democrat until WWI and the resulting political fallout. Lenin was no exception to this, and neither was Engels IIRC. The differences between what is now known as social democracy and what is now known as communism originally arose over opposition to WWI, so that.

It's not about names.

It's about the fact that you propose almost the same things as social-democrats only more "radical".

[manic expression]

It's not about names.

It's about the fact that you propose almost the same things as social-democrats only more "radical".
Not anymore, certainly. Most social democrats finally admitted to being capitalists and removed any references to Marxism from their platforms decades ago. But that's really the point, since the end of the Second International, communists have been saying that social democrats were simply bourgeois agents within the working-class movement, and that's been proven by what's happened since. Agents, let's not forget, will propose and say whatever they think will serve themselves best. Actions, not words, are what we must talk about here.


Sweatshop capitalism?
Not at all. The capitalist class does not hold state power in the PRC. The market that exists is under the firm control of the CPC, and recently the market has been cut back and restricted even further. The vanguard party remains in control of Chinese society, not the market.

[∞]

Overall I can only seem to see it as a derogatory term put forth by Lenin himself.
Well...fuck Lenin,

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sKmUW8U4m0c/SxqTTqbTcsI/AAAAAAAABrM/8QkaTg3eeOo/s400/Socialism%25203.gif

http://www.fuebuena.com.ar/wp-content/uploads//2008/05/lenin.jpg

[Zanthorus]

Lenin wrote a lot more than just Left-Wing Communism ya know.

[Crux]

Not at all. The capitalist class does not hold state power in the PRC. The market that exists is under the firm control of the CPC, and recently the market has been cut back and restricted even further. The vanguard party remains in control of Chinese society, not the market.
Nonsense. And wouldn't you know it since the early 90's billionares and owners of big companies have been allowed into the CPC. Some "worker's vanguard", eh? And let's not forget hwo the All China Trade Union have acted as thugs for the companies in the recent waves of strikes in china. The CPC, a party by the millions for the millionaires. See it's stuff like this that makes it hard for me to take PSL serious on international issues.

[black magick hustla]

Revolutionary socialists in the US are leading the anti-war movement, leading efforts against racism and police brutality and oppression, building coalitions between the various nations of the US and gaining widespread support all the time. If you think that's being one-eyed, it's only because you're blind.




yea man thats why ive never met any normal guy that isnt a fucking activist wingnut that knows about the PSL, WWP, the dead marcy, and whatever other wingnut ML activist group. the truth is that nobody cares about you nor your retarded front groups except the muslim student association in my college town. for the record, i am sure you and people like the sparts like to wallow in their own self righteousness about police brutality, but definitely, the protests that matter, like oakland a few weeks ago, were not led by ideological dinosaurs, but the rage of alienated black youth.

[manic expression]

Nonsense. And wouldn't you know it since the early 90's billionares and owners of big companies have been allowed into the CPC. Some "worker's vanguard", eh? And let's not forget hwo the All China Trade Union have acted as thugs for the companies in the recent waves of strikes in china. The CPC, a party by the millions for the millionaires. See it's stuff like this that makes it hard for me to take PSL serious on international issues.
It is a bit frustrating, RevLeft can demand quick responses, which makes it difficult when we're talking about complicated issues. And as far as that goes, it doesn't get more complicated than the PRC. But if you're up for a read and you want to understand what the PSL really says about China, this is worth it:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8915&news_iv_ctrl=1040

By [Engels'] definition, it is clear that the road taken by the Communist Party of China since 1978, following the death of Mao Zedong and the defeat of his supporters within the CPC, has been in the opposite direction from communism—notwithstanding all the party’s public declarations.

The 1949 Chinese Revolution placed China squarely on the path toward socialist development. While elements of that revolution remain, the country and the ruling social order have dynamically moved toward the restoration of capitalist property relations.

But the thing to remember is that the CPC still has a progressive role to play in all this. The ruling party has the capacity and the potential to reverse this course towards capitalism and put China back on the road to communism. Whatever progress there is to be made in China, it will come from within the CPC, not from without. From the same link:

The overthrow of the Communist Party of China in these circumstances would not only lead to the absolute destruction of what is remaining of the old socialist revolution, it would suspend China’s bourgeois democratic revolution.

Such an overthrow by non-revolutionary forces would hurl China backward in its epoch-making struggle to emerge from underdevelopment. It would return China to the semi-slavery of comprador neo-colonial rule. China would then also face the possibility of splintering, as happened in Yugoslavia and as may happen in Iraq under the impact of foreign occupation.

In the face of this threat, it is the responsibility of all revolutionaries and progressive people to resist the imperialist offensive and offer militant political defense of the Chinese government—de-spite profound differences with the theory and practice of so-called “market socialism.”

So yes, the CPC has moved away from socialist policies to say the least, but opposing the CPC will bring no positives for the people of China.


yea man thats why ive never met any normal guy that isnt a fucking activist wingnut that knows about the PSL, WWP, the dead marcy, and whatever other wingnut ML activist group. the truth is that nobody cares about you nor your retarded front groups except the muslim student association in my college town. for the record, i am sure you and people like the sparts like to wallow in their own self righteousness about police brutality, but definitely, the protests that matter, like oakland a few weeks ago, were not led by ideological dinosaurs, but the rage of alienated black youth.
Lots of bitterness here, not too much clarity. Listen, if you don't think the ANSWER protests, which are the only game in town as far as significant anti-war demonstrations go, don't matter, fine. Just know you're dissing the only viable opposition to imperialism in the US. But hey, you can put yourself against whatever cause you want. Also, the Muslim student association in your town is a great place to start, I like how you're so quick to dismiss them, it shows a whole lot of "solidarity" on your part. When I say we're significant, it doesn't mean everyone in your fair village knows the PSL and Sam Marcy and reads Liberation newspaper on the way to work, it means we're on the streets, confronting capitalism and gaining allies (which means working with different groups and ideologies). Even if the PSL isn't leading all the time, it's involved and doing its part. That's what communists are supposed to do. Take notes.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14231&news_iv_ctrl=1030

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By [Engels'] definition, it is clear that the road taken by the Communist Party of China since 1978, following the death of Mao Zedong and the defeat of his supporters within the CPC, has been in the opposite direction from communism—notwithstanding all the party’s public declarations.

The 1949 Chinese Revolution placed China squarely on the path toward socialist development. While elements of that revolution remain, the country and the ruling social order have dynamically moved toward the restoration of capitalist property relations.No mention of class here you'll notice, just abstract references to the policies of the CPC.

It's a lot easier than trying to argue that the working class rules in China (and apparently has decided to establish sweat shops for itself to toil in).

[manic expression]

No mention of class here you'll notice, just abstract references to the policies of the CPC.

It's a lot easier than trying to argue that the working class rules in China (and apparently has decided to establish sweat shops for itself to toil in).
So "socialist" and "capitalist" and "property relations" have nothing to do with class? Those terms are completely unrelated to class analyses, are they? How very interesting a proposal.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Not at all. The capitalist class does not hold state power in the PRC. The market that exists is under the firm control of the CPC, and recently the market has been cut back and restricted even further. The vanguard party remains in control of Chinese society, not the market.

For the life of me, can't believe you're defending the CPC...China is one of the most major capitalist powers in the world today (it has the potential to become the most powerful as if that wasn't enough).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gotta (http://libcom.org/news/chinese-workers-clash-police-after-bossnapping-bahrain-01032010) love (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-China-Sichuan-Province-Tense-in-Aftermath-of-Violent-Anti-Dam-Protests-67484397.html) worker's (http://libcom.org/news/villagers-burn-construction-site-clash-police-land-protest-26042010) power (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2010_06_09/Police_clash_with_striking_workers_at_Jiangsu_fact ory.html) in (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/26176/20100601/honda-china-strike-reveals-growing-labor-discontent.htm) the (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/asia/27china.html) PRC. (http://smallswordsmagazine.com/articles/life/brickkiln.html)

Luckily Chinese villagers and workers have consistently exhibited a very impressive level of struggle throughout history...it's the only thing that I see holding back the disgusting oligarches, capitalist developers and cops from running completely roughshod over their rights.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Overall I can only seem to see it as a derogatory term put forth by Lenin himself.
Well...fuck Lenin,
Shit, after hearing arguments like 'Fuck Lenin' and 'I'm more Left than you!' really makes me think about turning ultra-Left. Golly gee.

Really though, this is a bit silly. Should I just say 'Fuck Bakunin' and expect people to take me seriously? But that's all I'll say... I can't argue with someone so much more Left than me!

This shit is what gives ultra-Lefts a 'bad name'. Like 'MLs' who have wet dreams about Russian nationalism.

[∞]

Shit, after hearing arguments like 'Fuck Lenin' and 'I'm more Left than you!' really makes me think about turning ultra-Left. Golly gee.

Really though, this is a bit silly. Should I just say 'Fuck Bakunin' and expect people to take me seriously? But that's all I'll say... I can't argue with someone so much more Left than me!

This shit is what gives ultra-Lefts a 'bad name'. Like 'MLs' who have wet dreams about Russian nationalism.

Well if you didn't emphasize the Fuck Lenin part. You'd understand that I was also thinking of it as a derogatory term. Lenin seemed to be the only Marxist at the time to use such a term, and then try to make it some kind of insult.

[Barry Lyndon]

Gotta (http://libcom.org/news/chinese-workers-clash-police-after-bossnapping-bahrain-01032010) love (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-China-Sichuan-Province-Tense-in-Aftermath-of-Violent-Anti-Dam-Protests-67484397.html) worker's (http://libcom.org/news/villagers-burn-construction-site-clash-police-land-protest-26042010) power (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2010_06_09/Police_clash_with_striking_workers_at_Jiangsu_fact ory.html) in (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/26176/20100601/honda-china-strike-reveals-growing-labor-discontent.htm) the (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/asia/27china.html) PRC. (http://smallswordsmagazine.com/articles/life/brickkiln.html)

Luckily Chinese villagers and workers have consistently exhibited a very impressive level of struggle throughout history...it's the only thing that I see holding back the disgusting oligarches, capitalist developers and cops from running completely roughshod over their rights.

This.

Manicexpression, I agree with you on a lot of things, but defending the PRC as a workers state is a pretty hopeless position. From what I know about China, the PRC hasn't been acting in a remotely socialist manner since the 1970's. If anything, its reverted to a super-exploitative form of state-directed capitalism. I am not a 'state-cappie' Trot or an anarchist, I am very supportive of Cuba and the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, but I draw the line at China. No regime that admits CEO's into its 'Communist' party, has dismantled its universal healthcare and education systems, warehouses children in sweatshops, sides with the bourgeois Indian government against the Maoist rebels, and enabled thousands of children to DIE because schools made out of shoddy construction materials collapsed in an earthquake while the rich kid's schools remained intact, is deserving of mine or any revolutionaries support. Whatever it once was, the PRC is an enemy of the workers today.

[Zanthorus]

Well if you didn't emphasize the Fuck Lenin part. You'd understand that I was also thinking of it as a derogatory term. Lenin seemed to be the only Marxist at the time to use such a term, and then try to make it some kind of insult.

The Kautskyite center in the Second international also had a bit of a thing against "ultra-left" tactics (Although they didn't call it as such) such as the mass strike. JR can probably fill you in on that better than me (That is, if you can understand his jargon :D).

[∞]

The Kautskyite center in the Second international also had a bit of a thing against "ultra-left" tactics (Although they didn't call it as such) such as the mass strike. JR can probably fill you in on that better than me (That is, if you can understand his jargon :D).

"(They didn't call it such)"

[Glenn Beck]

This whole thread is way to fucking sectarian

It's a goddamn troll thread lovingly devised to inflame Revleft's endless supply of sectarian lignite, what the hell did you expect?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Kautskyite center in the Second international also had a bit of a thing against "ultra-left" tactics (Although they didn't call it as such) such as the mass strike. JR can probably fill you in on that better than me (That is, if you can understand his jargon :D).


"(They didn't call it such)"

Yeah, the term "ultra-left" was actually coined by Trotsky and not Lenin himself. Lenin usually said either "Left-Wing Communists" or "the Lefts."

Zanthorus, I already "filled in" in an earlier post in this thread:

"However, there are so many things wrong with adopting an ultra-leftist strategic organizational orientation (irrational hatred of bureaucracy, mass strike fetishes, "direct action," all culminating in some "all power to the soviets" anti-party and anti-bureaucracy fetish), even if you happen to be ComradeOm."

Zyklon, you can join the RevLeft usergroup Revolutionary Strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205) for more details.

[Barry Lyndon]

Quit trolling.

That's how ultra-lefts tell their critics to shut up-label all criticism as 'trolling'.

[HEAD ICE]

That's how ultra-lefts tell their critics to shut up-label all criticism as 'trolling'.

Yeah bumping up a month old thread just so you can make a one sentence thread shit about left communists (98% of your posts) nope no trolling here.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Nonsense. And wouldn't you know it since the early 90's billionares and owners of big companies have been allowed into the CPC. Some "worker's vanguard", eh?

The admission of businessmen into the Party has not been going smoothly. Officially it is policy that they may join, but local party bodies have been dragging their feet. Leadership is quite disappointed in the uptake.

(I know, link or GTFO. I'll post one when I have a moment to sit down.)

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

(irrational hatred of bureaucracy


anti-bureaucracy fetish

In other words anyone who criticizes the reconstitution of the bourgeois class via the strategy of democratic centralism is "irrational", "fetishistic", or otherwise intellectually defective. This sort of emotional ad hominem appeal is common within the context of this debate; Lenin referring to the left-communists as "infantile", or Huey Newton's attempts to characterize all anarchists as "white". (Within the context of a New African left that was moving more towards libertarian / autonomist politics)

The reason such emotional appeals are necessary is because the "anti-bureaucratic" line, which carries with it the immediate imposition of the conditions of liberty by the destruction of all forms of tyrannical administration, has obvious immediate emotional appeal to anyone interested in communism, compared to the prospect of draining one's blood, sweat, and tears into a project that will simply create a new technocratic-bourgeois regime.


when someone dismisses all national liberation forces unless they are explicitly communist. This is ultra-leftist because while it may make them feel good like they are 'the true uncompromised leftist', it ignores the objective situation and in practice means supporting imperialism.

What you refuse to understand is that the "ultra-left" has an entirely separate conceptual framework when it comes to understanding imperialism. There's more to imperialism than US soldiers gunning down children in Afghanistan, there's also the global credit market, the arms exchange, etc.

For all practical purposes the "national liberation forces" are not forces of liberation for anyone, but are in fact forces of imperialist restructuring. The only way for communism to succeed is to develop a position of antagonism against all factions of the bourgeoisie.

Edit:


UThe ultra-leftists with regards to Nepal are those who oppose the Maoists (for ending the civil war without going "all the way"; for not establishing socialism immediately, or whatever)...

So anyone who opposes the co-option of the Nepalese left into the existing liberal democratic parliamentary structure is "ultra-left"? In other words, everyone to the left of Prachanda...