Leninism and Left Communism

[norwegianwood90]

What are the differences and similarities between these two ideologies? A basic definition (if such a thing is possible :lol:) would also be appreciated.

[∞]

Que Zanthrous*

[Paulappaul]

That's a really broad question. Generally, and this is making it as basic as possible, Left Communists oppose Parliamentary and Trade Union Participation while Leninism does not.

Like Leninism, Left Communism is divided into many branches of theory. If you wanted to get any more specific then the above, you need to narrow down that question.

[∞]

1.Left Communism can be a democratic marxist ideology. (Italian Left)
2.Left Communism can be council communism which differs from leninism because of it's lack of centralism and lack of political suppression. i.e. More likely to permit a constituent assembly. (German dudes)

What made Leninism special was its central control over MOP.
Left Communism CAN be applied through mass action and spontaneous social upheaval.

[Paulappaul]

Left Communism can be council communism which differs from leninism because of it's lack of centralism

That's not true. I'd like to see a reference.

[∞]

That's not true. I'd like to see a reference.

Theory of revolutionary spontaneity, stress on worker COUNCILS.
The fact it is a form of Left Communism?
I advise you read some Paul Mattick.

[Paulappaul]

Theory of revolutionary spontaneity, sterss on worker COUNCILS.
The fact it is a form of Left Communism?

That's not a reference. Spontaneity has no perquisite theory to it, if it did, it wouldn't be Spontaneous. Therefor it could be Decentralized or Centralized. Workers' Councils can be Centralized and have historically been so.

I'm not sure of this, but I don't think the Italian left had any opposition to the theory of Centralization. So no, the fact that it's a part of Left Communism doesn't mean it's decentralized.

[∞]

That's not a reference. Spontaneity has no perquisite theory to it, if it did, it wouldn't be Spontaneous. Therefor it could be Decentralized or Centralized. Workers' Councils can be Centralized and have historically been so.

I'm not sure of this, but I don't think the Italian left had any opposition to the theory of Centralization. So no, the fact that it's a part of Left Communism doesn't mean it's decentralized.

Thats because the Italian Left had Bolshevist tendencies growing within them.
The German workers party fundamentally rejected this line and became more against Leninism.
The concept of councils(real Soviets) existed up until they were gotten rid of later, after Lenin's authoritarian policies really took place. Luxemburg did believe in centralism in some form, but rejected anything that makes Leninism different from most tendencies. Him and Trotsky accused her of being too orthodox for promoting a less suppressive (and fundamentally more Marxist) approach to the development of Russia.

http://libcom.org/library/LeninismMarxismRosaLuxemburg1

http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/rosa.htm

[Paulappaul]

I advise you read some Paul Mattick. I advise you read some Sylvia Pankhurst as she had a great impact on Pannekoek and visa versa. They both inspired the works of Mattick.

Pankhurst says in her "Communism Vs. Reforms" that the Soviet System, aside from Spontaneity would theoretically be organized similarly to this model:


The Workshop Council, comprising all the workers in the shop.
The Factory Council, comprising delegates from the Workshop Council.
The Sub-District Council, comprising ll the delegates from the District Councils.
The District Council, comprising delegates from the Sub-District Councils.
The National Council, comprising delegates from the District Councils.note the "national council"

Regardless, Spontaneity in theory, once again has no prerequisite, it leaves upon the Workers to decide there own fate. Therefor they can be either Centralized or Decentralized. Its not up to theory or revolutionaries, such a concept would be antithetical to the idea of Spontaneity.


The concept of councils(real Soviets) existed up until they were gotten rid of later, after Lenin's authoritarian policies really took place.So the Soviets in Russia were not Centralized and the Workers' Councils there after?

[∞]

I advise you read some Sylvia Pankhurst as she had a great impact on Pannekoek and visa versa. They both inspired the works of Mattick.

Pankhurst says in her "Communism Vs. Reforms" that the Soviet System, aside from Spontaneity would theoretically be organized similarly to this model:

note the "national council"

Regardless, Spontaneity in theory, once again has no prerequisite, it leaves upon the Workers to decide there own fate. Therefor they can be either Centralized or Decentralized. Its not up to theory or revolutionaries, such a concept would be antithetical to the idea of Spontaneity.

So the Soviets in Russia were not Centralized and the Workers' Councils there after?

Thats what I'm saying. All I'm saying there is a legitimate sect of non-central CCs and we shouldn't denounce their ideas. And no, I do not feel they were centralized(they always were) afterward, party bureaucracy led to the de-legitimization of the soviets. I'm also trying to say the current Luxemburgist/Council Communists are people I can align myself with. For pointing out the inadequacies of Bolshevist theory and central planning.

[Paulappaul]

All I'm saying there is a legitimate sect of non-central CCs and we shouldn't denounce there ideas.

I'm saying that's against the theories of Spontaneity promoted by Luxemburg and the Council Communists.


I do not feel they were centralized afterward

Sorry let me rephrase that, by Workers' Councils after I meant the workers' councils in other countries i.e. Chile, May, Hungary.


I'm also trying to say the current Luxemburgist/Council Communists are people I can align myself with.

Who like me?


For pointing out the inadequacies of Bolshevist theory and central planning.

There is nothing Bolshevik in Centralism. Decentralism and Centralism are not aspects of Marxism. An aspect of Marxism is "the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself" whether they organize themselves in a Centralized matter or not.

[∞]

I'm saying that's against the theories of Spontaneity promoted by Luxemburg and the Council Communists.

Well its contemporary...






There is nothing Bolshevik in Centralism. Decentralism and Centralism are not aspects of Marxism. An aspect of Marxism is "the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself" whether they organize themselves in a Centralized matter or not.

I'm not saying Centralism is bolshevik or Marxist.
The centralism in the former USSR is what I am against. The central planning, the suppression of assemblies and anarchists (whom Rosa praised for their mass strike) is what Luxemburg was against. They might have had some comradeship but there was an eminent difference between Rosa and Trotsky/Lenin.

[Zanthorus]

What are the differences and similarities between these two ideologies? A basic definition (if such a thing is possible :lol:) would also be appreciated.

Practically everything, and then again practically nothing. The problem is that what goes under the banner of 'Leninism' is incredibly broad, and a similar situation exists within 'Left-Communism' (Although less so in the latter than in the former). It would be nice, of course, if we could just wittle down 'Leninism' to what Lenin said, which would make this a lot easier, but any specific interpretation, like any specific interpretation of Marx, is going to be controversial with at least one group calling itself 'Leninist'. So in the interests of making this as easy as possible (And believe me, this is a lot easier than undertaking a long textual exegesis of Lenin's collected works), we'll include under 'Leninism' any group which considers itself as such, and has at least some clear link with Lenin in terms of ideology or organisational history. Left-Communism is slightly easier to define, it includes all those groups to the left of the Communist International which began criticising the Comintern line after the second congress, and which were booted from the international in the period 1920-30.

Right away we become upon an initial similarity - Historically, both movements were enthusiastic about the setting up of the Communist International and the international revolutionary wave which began in Russia 1917 and ended in 1921. Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as this. To make this clear, we should make a brief note of the main historical divide between Left-Communists, that is, between the German Left (And the closely related Dutch Left) and the Italian Left. The German left were the majority of those who formed the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partie Deutschlands or KPD), but they were ousted by Paul Levi (A 'Luxemburgist' no less) in 1920, and formed the Communist Workers Party of Germany (Kommunistische Arbeiter-Partei Deutschlands or KAPD). The KAPD remained affiliated to the international for another 2 years, but their leading theoreticians began to develop critiques of the Russian revolution and 'Bolshevism', labelling the latter as a form of Blanquism, or even going so far as to say that Russia had been an essentially bourgeois revolution from the start. Increasingly, the Council Communist movement (As it is also referred to) began to develop critiques of the 'vanguard' party, and political parties in general (The KAPD's founding congress had already stated that they were not a party in the traditional sense of the term), and to reject wholesale anything to do with Leninism, Bolshevism, the Communist International and the Russian revolution. Apart from the issue of the vanguard party, what also drove them in this direction were critiques of Lenin's stance on national trade unions and parliamentary participation. The debate between Council Communists and Leninists on such issues actually goes back to the days of Lenin himself. Those interested can read Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) by Lenin and Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) by Hermann Gorter. Needless to say, Lenin comes down in favour of working within 'reactionary' trade-unions, and participating in parliament in order to gain a platform for revolutionaries, while Gorter opposes both, arguing that the situation in western europe as opposed to Russia means that different tactical considerations come into play than those which motivated the Bolsheviks. While the German-Dutch left still thought that 'revolutionary' unions were organs which the working-class could work within, affiliated with the Unionen movement in Germany, and supported the International Workers' of the World from afar, the International Communist Current, the one out of the two main modern Left-Communist organisations which upholds the legacy of the German left, albeit critically, thinks that 'revolutionary' unionism is essentially a contradiction in terms. They also oppose Lenin's support for national liberation struggles, and 'the right of nations to self-determination', upholding Rosa Luxemburg's position on this question.

While Council Communism marks a clear opposition to Leninism with the Left-Communist movement, the Italian left provides no such thing. Of them, it was once remarked that they were more Leninist than Lenin himself. The Italian left was formed on the basis of the struggle of the Abstentionist fraction of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano or PSI) which opposed parliamentary participation, against the Maximalist-Electionist faction, which believed, not only in using parliament as a platform for revolutionaries, but in a peaceful and parliamentary road to socialism. This struggle against the Maximalist-Electionists was made even more difficult, because the PSI opposed support for the first world war, unlike the majority of second international parties, and applied for affiliation to the Comintern. At the second congress of the Comintern, Lenin had laid out a 19 point program. Amadeo Bordiga, a leading figure of the Abstentionists, managed to get an extra two points added, which made support for what was now the 21 points a mandatory condition for affiliation to the Comintern. Since the PSI did not agree to the points, they couldn't join. This allowed the Abstentionists to break with the PSI and form the Communist Party of Italy (Partito Comunista d'Italia or PCd'I). At least in part because the Comintern had allowed the Italian left (Or sinistra, as the International Communist Party - Programma Comunista prefers to be called, to avoid the usual connotations of the term 'left') to achieve it's break the PSI, they remained loyal to Lenin and Lenin's Russia, while the KAPD which had been ousted by the Comintern leadership, became embittered. Although there were definitely clues as to the Sinistra's orientation prior to the break with the PSI. Bordiga made it clear in his March 1919 (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialism_and_anarchy.htm) and January 1920 (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialists_and_anarchists.htm) articles for Il Soviet on anarchism that the question of parliamentary participation was a debate on tactics between Marxists, and that he would have nothing to do with anarchism. In a letter of the Italian left asking for affiliation to the Comintern (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/letters.htm), they also make it clear that, apart from on the question of parliament, they have nothing in common with the German-Dutch left, which they regarded as crypto-syndicalist, and they supported Lenin's line on entryism into reactionary trade unions. The upside down relationship of the Italian left to Leninism as compared to the German-Dutch left can probably be seen most clearly by taking a look at the International Communist Parties (Programma Comunista) somewhat, er, 'unique' take on Lenin's 'Left-Wing Communism': «'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder» - Condemnation of the Renegades to Come, The most exploited and abused text for over forty years by all opportunist swines, each swine being characterised and defined by the barefaced invocation of it (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/ren/renegadeae.html). To put it pretty clearly, although Bordigists oppose participation in parliament, they support working within even the most reactionary trade unions to win them over to Communis positions, although positions on this vary between groups. The International Communist Party (Partito Comunista), for example, makes a distinction between 'reactionary' and 'regime' unions, the latter being trade unions set up by the state as in fascism, or unions which are otherwise integrated into the state apparatus, and holds that working within 'regime' unions is impermissable. On this subject you can read The Party and the Trade Unions (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiicecie.html). Bordigists also support a vanguard party, however they go further than Lenin. They argue that 'Democratic Centralism' was only necessary in the Communist International because those parties were 'impure' Communist parties. The international of the future will be one big 'pure' Communist party which will require absolutely no internally democratic mechanisms, basing itself on 'Organic Centralism' instead.

The Bordigists were not the only group to come out of the Italian left though. They were in fact a post world war two development, and their current can probably said to have begun historically in around 1952, when the split occured in the Internaitonalist Communist Party between the Bordigists centred around Il Programma Comunista, and the faction around Battaglia Comunista led by Onorato Damen. Unfortunately, not many of Damen's texts have been translated into English, although the Communist Workers' Organisation (British branch of the Internationalist Communist Tendency, the descendants of the Battaglia current). A sample text from his book on the split between himself and Bordiga can be read online: Centralised Party, Yes! Centralism over the Party, No! (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-03-17/centralised-party-yes-centralism-over-the-party-no). There is also a couple of pieces here (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2003-08-01/background-on-the-italian-communist-left-bordiga-and-bordigism) and here (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/the-italian-communist-left-a-brief-internationalist-history) where the ICT further tries to give background on their split with Bordigism. Basically: the Bordigists thought that national and colonial struggles were still important in some parts of the world, while the Damen tendency took up Luxemburg's position on this; the Bordigists thought that Communists could win the Unions to class positions, while the Damen tendency thought that this possibility had now been exhauste; the Bordigists thought that the class was not a class without the party, and that the party would exercise power in the name of the class during the revolution, while the Damen tendency thought that only the proletariat as a class could exercise political power. On the issues of national liberation and trade unions at least then, the Damen tendency had made a break with Leninism, although it's support for the revolutionary party meant that they continued to consider themselves as such, and it is highly questionable wether or not the exercise of power by a single party in the name of the class is a characteristic of 'Leninism'. At the second All-Russia congress of Soviets, the Bolshevik delegates supported a proposal to form a coalition government of all the parties represented, even though they had the majority of delegates. The Right-SR's and the Mensheviks walked out, scuperring the plan, but the Left-SR's retained a minority presence within Sovnarkom until they stormed out themselves when their proposal to wage a 'revolutionary war' with Imperial germany was rejected during the debate over Brest-Litovsk. In short, the one party state was created more out of accident than conscious design.

[Paulappaul]

While the German-Dutch left still thought that 'revolutionary' unions were organs which the working-class could work within, affiliated with the Unionen movement in Germany, and supported the International Workers' of the World from afar, the International Communist Current, the one out of the two main modern Left-Communist organisations which upholds the legacy of the German left, albeit critically, thinks that 'revolutionary' unionism is essentially a contradiction in terms.

The notion of "Industrial Unions" in the early German Left movement, comes from the fact that for the most part, the unified theory of a "Workers' Council" didn't come till later. Its really used for a lack of a better word. In "Open letter to Comrade Lenin" he tosses around terms like "Workers' Union", "Industrial Organization", "Industrial Union" and "Soviet" all pretty interchangeably. In the same way that some of the First International described a system of Labor Councils as an organ for state power and revolution, without actually saying "Workers' Council".

Industrial Unions as used in the Syndicalist sense were described by Pannekoek as,

"a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold, the state power"

however,

"the I.W.W. so far has been the most revolutionary organisation in America."

So while the Council Communists recognized the radicalism and contribution of the I.W.W. they remained critical of them. I can see some truth in it, but I think it was really more as a battle of ideologies.

But as you say, the KAPD while being a "party" was not a party in the most formal sense of the term. The same can be said for the Unions organized by the KAPD which were very different from Revolutionary Unions and traditional labor unions.

[AK]

1623 words
Holy fucking shit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yep, well, if you put the phrase "Left Communism" in a topic title, you're bound to expect an essay from RevLeft's resident (winking) star.

[ZeroNowhere]

The difference is that only one of the two exists.