Can Someone Please Explain Left Communism?

[Tommy4ever]

In the past I've gone so far as to describe myself as a Left Communist. At this time I thought of it as a libertarian form of Marxism with an emphasis on worker control and without any links to Stalinism etc. ''Great!'' I thought. However, after reading some articles on the ICC website my like for the ideology cooled as they came across as a bit dogmatic and perhaps a little pompous in their language, not to mention sectarian. I've sinced realised that I don't actually know what Left Communism is and would like for someone to explain it to me.

So could some please give me a short explanation of Left Communism?

Thanks, at the moment I am a little confused about what particular ideology best describes my views.

[Broletariat]

I'm by no means an expert, but I'll give it a shot.

Left Communism holds that the most important trait for a Communist to have is Internationalism, no support of national bourgeoisie and only a support of the international proletariat. Left Comms do not see themselves as something outside the working class, but a part of it. They hold that no volunteerist group of revolutionaries in a party can lead the revolution, but that the revolution must come from the working class.

That's about the extent I'm comfortable with definitively saying is Left Communist. Another bit I'd add in is that Left Communists stress the importance of having an international party in order to politically unify workers.

[Savage]

The historical origin of the term comes from those communists who were on the left of the second international, but Left Communist groups such as the ICC can draw their heritage back to the Communist League of 1834–1850.
As for defining yourself as a Left Communist, the major positions of the Communist Left in general are the rejection of parliamentarianism and electoralism, the rejection of national liberation and the rejection of unionism (the extent of this varies). The two main currents of Left Communism are the German-Dutch current and the Italian current, your understanding of the role of the party (and the extent of this role) would place you in one of these two categories or as a synthesis of these categories.

If you were disillusioned by the ICC then check out other Left Communists and Left Communist groups, however, If it's merely the language and rhetoric that your unhappy with, then talk to some of the ICC'ers on revleft or contact the organization themselves. As for sectarianism, all I can say is that the ICC accepts any group that maintains proletarian internationalism, this is all I can ask of any organization. If you were attracted to class power exercised through workers' councils as well as the rejection of Stalinism in all of it's awful forms, then you're probably heading in the right direction.

[Gorilla]

Basically there was a big drive under Lenin to 'Bolshevize' the non-Russian parties of the Third International and anyone who didn't go along was called 'Left'. So originally it was pretty much a catch-all for everyone who didn't follow the Comintern line in the early years before the Trotsky split, including everyone from the anti-partyist council communists to the hyper-partyist line of Bordiga.

As far as I can tell 99% of the original Left Communist movements pretty much died out and the modern left-com groupings come from a little corpuscuscle of the Italian Left that regrouped in France. For some reason they've made anti-natlib a universal litmus test although it was not by any means for all of the original Left Communists.

I'm sure Devrim is going to correct me on stuff quite soon.

[Devrim]

I'm sure Devrim is going to correct me on stuff quite soon.

Not really, you don't sound that sympathetic, but you have got the facts pretty much right.

Maybe on this point you are a little wrong:


As far as I can tell 99% of the original Left Communist movements pretty much died out and the modern left-com groupings come from a little corpuscuscle of the Italian Left that regrouped in France.

This is where the ICC comes from, but the Bordigists and the ICT I would say come more from the remnants of the Italian left that stayed in Italy and formed the PCInt in 1943.

Devrim

[Devrim]

However, after reading some articles on the ICC website my like for the ideology cooled as they came across as a bit dogmatic and perhaps a little pompous in their language, not to mention sectarian.

Yes, I know. :blushing:

Devrim

[sunfarstar]

Yes, I know. :blushing:

Devrim
funny。。。。。

[Zanthorus]

Devrim and Gorilla collectively have it pretty much correct. I would note that there is no self-identified 'libetarian Marxist' movement anywhere, this is just a name given by Anarchists to the Marxists which they like, and to attempt to swell the ranks of their own political tradition.

A minor historical note on Savage's post:


Left Communist groups such as the ICC can draw their heritage back to the Communist League of 1834–1850.

Pretty much every Marxist group can do this, since Marx and Engels were membes of the League. And you have the dates wrong, the League was called the League of the Just, not the Communist League, until it's first congress in 1847, when they decided to rename it. This is important because it was when Marx and Engels joined and the first time that the League had used democratic processes to decide things. Prior to that, the League had been a conspiratorial organisation which followed the ideas of Wilhelm Weitling.

[Thirsty Crow]

I would like to know more about the "decadent capitalism" line put forward by ICC (I'm not so sure that ICC's got a patent on that theoretical construct, though).
The thing is, it reminds me of various propositions regarding one final breakdown of the capitalist system which will come about as a result of the "iron law" inherent to capitalism as a system.

[SHORAS]

I would like to know more about the "decadent capitalism" line put forward by ICC (I'm not so sure that ICC's got a patent on that theoretical construct, though).
The thing is, it reminds me of various propositions regarding one final breakdown of the capitalist system which will come about as a result of the "iron law" inherent to capitalism as a system.

Go on their website and buy their publication on it, it's only a couple or so quid :)

[Savage]

Pretty much every Marxist group can do this, since Marx and Engels were membes of the League.
Thanks for the correction, it was possibly more apt to say that the ICC actually bothers to trace back it's origins.

[Paulappaul]

I would note that there is no self-identified 'libetarian Marxist' movement anywhere

Their are numerous Libertarian Marxist Collectives. I would define my own group as close to this position.

On the topic of Left Communism, I would really stress the dismissal of the Comitern's conception of the universal applicability of the Bolshevik model for a revolution. The German/Dutch tendency refused this on the basis that the Bolsheviks arose in backwards conditions. I believe the Bordigaists shared a similar idea with the centrality of the agrarian question. The Decadent/Progressive theory of Capitalism is also pretty universal to Left Communism. As far as tactics go, on the party, the union and the council question, the German, Dutch, British and Italian Left Communists all had principles of their own. The most radical of the German Communists were aganist a Party separate from the union movement and stressed spontaneity and self activity. Whereas in contrast, the Italian Left Communists basically saw the party as the revolution, and without it, there was no struggle.

Another thing I think characteristic of the Left Communist current is being aganist the Liberal Bourgeois idea of Self Determination. Bordiga believed that the Communist Parties of other countries alongside the Bolshevik Party should have a stake in a rulership of the USSR.

[#FF0000]

Aren't some left communists alright with the concept of National Liberation, though? I think I read somewhere that Bordiga wasn't opposed to it, or something.

[Broletariat]

Aren't some left communists alright with the concept of National Liberation, though? I think I read somewhere that Bordiga wasn't opposed to it, or something.

Bordiga might not have been opposed to it (I don't know), but basically every Left Communist today would say he was wrong on that.

[#FF0000]

basically every Left Communist today would say he was wrong on that.

Well I know that! :lol:

[Gorilla]

Aren't some left communists alright with the concept of National Liberation, though? I think I read somewhere that Bordiga wasn't opposed to it, or something.

Bordiga's line wasn't actually that pro-natlib, it was just vastly more pro-natlib than current leftcoms', which is to say, it was a little bit pro-natlib.

Basically for Bordiga (and I may be butchering him a little but I think this is the gist) national-democratic revolution came down to land reform. Do land reform, get capitalism. Land reform was settled in the core countries of the West by 1871, so communists couldn't give any support to national-democratic movements there. But it hadn't been settled in Russia or the colonial world yet, so it was a good thing for those peoples to do it. So he saw Stalin's collectivization process and the Communist movements in the third world as "great romantic revolutions" that were instituting capitalism just like the European revolutions from 1789-1871 did. Which was a good thing and worthy of interest from communists, but also not communism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A few questions on left communism, if I may.

Decadence theory-is this only upheld by left coms? I haven't seen it referred to by other groups or tendencies. As I understand the ICC's version of this believes that capitalism reached its highest level of expansion in the period immediately before WWI? I may be a bit off base w/this but that's the impression I got.I think the ICC has been criticised for their periodisation.

How would decadence theory explain the rise of Third World capitalism in places like S. Korea and more recently Brazil? I understand this is part of a transference of capital from the developed world to the under developed world (Mandel talks about this) but the process seems deeper than this.

Bordiga's agricultural theory. As I understand Bordiga saw agricultural reform as necessary for the development of capitalism. Would he see a "benevolent despot" like Joseph II of Austria as attempting to "force feed" a process which had earlier occurred in the West? Has Bordiga's ideas been applied to China and the Third World developmental states? Does this tie in with LC's theory of state capitalism?

Do all left coms reject Lenin? As I understand some LCs uphold "Lenin's actions but not the philosophy he used to justify this".

Also-is their an LC document or document critiquing Trotskyism, not historically but current organisations and practices?

[Broletariat]

Decadence theory-is this only upheld by left coms? I haven't seen it referred to by other groups or tendencies. As I understand the ICC's version of this believes that capitalism reached its highest level of expansion in the period immediately before WWI? I may be a bit off base w/this but that's the impression I got.I think the ICC has been criticised for their periodisation.

I believe it's only upheld by the ICC, if I'm not mistaken it's an extension of Luxemburg's Saturated Market thesis, which I personally reject.



Do all left coms reject Lenin? As I understand some LCs uphold "Lenin's actions but not the philosophy he used to justify this".

As far as I'm aware, LC loves the shit out of Lenin, save a few points here and there.


Also-is their an LC document or document critiquing Trotskyism, not historically but current organisations and practices?

None that I am aware of. I'm sure you know LC is a very marginal group, I don't think those organisations have time to devote to that sort of thing.

[Gorilla]

Would he see a "benevolent despot" like Joseph II of Austria as attempting to "force feed" a process which had earlier occurred in the West?

Possibly, but the 1848 revolution still had to happen. Bordiga was pretty firm on 1871 as the final date.


Has Bordiga's ideas been applied to China and the Third World developmental states?

Yes, by Bordiga himself. (Trying to track down exactly where, it hasn't been translated yet; but for the moment I'm taking Loren Goldner's word for it (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html).)

[MarxSchmarx]

So just how useful is "internationalism" as a dividing line between left communism and other leftism? Most if not all serious leftists consider themselves "internationalist" - even those supporting "nationalist" revolutions do so because they see it as getting us one step closer to an international working class movement. And very often the "nationalist" revolutions that are supported have internationalist rhetoric as well, especially during the cold war when they were seeking Soviet aid.

And if support for "nationalist" revolutions is used a litmus test, isn't this rather crude to be useful? For example, there are gradations of nationalism and I'm skeptical of attempts to separate revolutions neatly into a "nationalist" and "not-nationalist". There are on the one hand flagrantly "nationalist revolutions" even through electoral means like say the Bolivarian revolution or the quiet revolution in Quebec. But on the other hand, there are revolutions that can be hybrids between nationalist in practice but internationalist in rhetoric such as the Chinese revolution. Surely not all claims to revolution can be dismissed as "nationalism in sheep's clothing"?

[Paulappaul]

How would decadence theory explain the rise of Third World capitalism in places like S. Korea and more recently Brazil? I understand this is part of a transference of capital from the developed world to the under developed world (Mandel talks about this) but the process seems deeper than this.


Loren Goldner writes a good review of the ICC's decadence theory where he basically calls it Rigid for this reason. Other Left Communist groups are a bit more practical and basically maintain that decadence means that Capitalism can no longer go back to this pre - WW1 period with straight expansion and unending profits. Basically that it is now in a constant crisis wherein it must constantly reform and destory itself to create new markets and new profits. So Goldner for example acknowledges that in Brazil and in South Korea for example, unionism is still viable method of class struggle. He basically argues however that in South Korea (he lived their by the way to study this whole thing) it is moving incredibly fast and already they are moving towards decadence.

[Savage]

So just how useful is "internationalism" as a dividing line between left communism and other leftism? Most if not all serious leftists consider themselves "internationalist" - even those supporting "nationalist" revolutions do so because they see it as getting us one step closer to an international working class movement. And very often the "nationalist" revolutions that are supported have internationalist rhetoric as well, especially during the cold war when they were seeking Soviet aid.
Part of Left Communist theory is that national liberation struggles do not in any way benefit the international working class movement.* (http://http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass/ch2)To the Communist Left, these leftists that claim internationalism are not internationalist. It's also good to keep in mind that Left Communists such as the ICC consider 'leftism' to merely be the left of capital, defining themselves simply as communists rather than leftists.


And if support for "nationalist" revolutions is used a litmus test, isn't this rather crude to be useful? For example, there are gradations of nationalism and I'm skeptical of attempts to separate revolutions neatly into a "nationalist" and "not-nationalist". There are on the one hand flagrantly "nationalist revolutions" even through electoral means like say the Bolivarian revolution or the quiet revolution in Quebec. But on the other hand, there are revolutions that can be hybrids between nationalist in practice but internationalist in rhetoric such as the Chinese revolution. Surely not all claims to revolution can be dismissed as "nationalism in sheep's clothing"?If a revolution does not break down the barriers of international capital then it is not an international revolution, whether 'internationalist rhetoric' is apparent or not is irrelevant. No Left Communist would consider any of the aforementioned revolutions to be proletarian.

*-If the above link does not work, here it is:http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass/ch2

[Devrim]

I would like to know more about the "decadent capitalism" line put forward by ICC (I'm not so sure that ICC's got a patent on that theoretical construct, though).

No, it hasn't. The idea that modes of production have a phase where they develop the means of production and one in which they become a fetter upon developing the means of production is a basic Marxist idea.


Go on their website and buy their publication on it, it's only a couple or so quid :)

You can also read it on-line for free:

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence

Devrim

[Devrim]

As far as tactics go, on the party, the union and the council question, the German, Dutch, British and Italian Left Communists all had principles of their own. The most radical of the German Communists were aganist a Party separate from the union movement and stressed spontaneity and self activity. Whereas in contrast, the Italian Left Communists basically saw the party as the revolution, and without it, there was no struggle.

The main currents of the Dutch, German, and British left communists were pretty close. After all they belonged to one organisation. The Italians were, as you say, very different. Whether what you refer to as the 'most radical' actually were the most radical is a different question.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Basically for Bordiga (and I may be butchering him a little but I think this is the gist) national-democratic revolution came down to land reform. Do land reform, get capitalism. Land reform was settled in the core countries of the West by 1871, so communists couldn't give any support to national-democratic movements there. But it hadn't been settled in Russia or the colonial world yet, so it was a good thing for those peoples to do it. So he saw Stalin's collectivization process and the Communist movements in the third world as "great romantic revolutions" that were instituting capitalism just like the European revolutions from 1789-1871 did. Which was a good thing and worthy of interest from communists, but also not communism.

I think Bordiga said something like 'Mao was the last great romantic bourgeois revolutionary in an era when bourgeois revolutions were no longer possible."

Devrim

[Devrim]

So just how useful is "internationalism" as a dividing line between left communism and other leftism? Most if not all serious leftists consider themselves "internationalist" - even those supporting "nationalist" revolutions do so because they see it as getting us one step closer to an international working class movement. And very often the "nationalist" revolutions that are supported have internationalist rhetoric as well, especially during the cold war when they were seeking Soviet aid.

I don't think the rhetoric is really a key point. The question is whether these struggles are progressive struggles that the working class should support, or whether they are mere moments in the struggle between rival powers.

If we go back to the Cold War and the national liberation war in Vietnam, I think that it is clear that there is a huge difference between it being a liberation struggle that workers should support, or a proxy war between rival imperialist powers in which, like the First World War, workers had no interest in backing either side.

You might not agree with us, but I think there is a huge difference in the two positions.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So Goldner for example acknowledges that in Brazil and in South Korea for example, unionism is still viable method of class struggle. He basically argues however that in South Korea (he lived their by the way to study this whole thing) it is moving incredibly fast and already they are moving towards decadence.

That is quite interesting. I spoke to him in Ankara when he was travelling back from Korea, and while he didn't seem to have formulated the ideas like that then looking back on our conversations now it is possible to see the roots of them there.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Decadence theory-is this only upheld by left coms? I haven't seen it referred to by other groups or tendencies. As I understand the ICC's version of this believes that capitalism reached its highest level of expansion in the period immediately before WWI? I may be a bit off base w/this but that's the impression I got.I think the ICC has been criticised for their periodisation.
I believe it's only upheld by the ICC, if I'm not mistaken it's an extension of Luxemburg's Saturated Market thesis, which I personally reject.

The idea of decadence is held in some form or another by all of the communist left whether they follow Luxemborg's ideas or not. It was also an idea that was held by the Communist International.



Do all left coms reject Lenin? As I understand some LCs uphold "Lenin's actions but not the philosophy he used to justify this". far as I'm aware, LC loves the shit out of Lenin, save a few points here and there.

I think you can find a whole range of views on lenin if you look across the whole of the historic communist left.

Perhaps what you are referring to on the question of philosophy is Pannekoek's book 'Lenin as Philosopher'. It isn't really a central work for left communists. I have read it, but it was nearly 30 years ago, so I can't really comment on it.

You can find it here: http://libcom.org/library/lenin-as-philosopher-pannekoek

And a long article (which I haven't read) by the GCF criticizing it here:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/3102
http://en.internationalism.org/node/3111
http://en.internationalism.org/node/3118
http://en.internationalism.org/node/2951



Also-is their an LC document or document critiquing Trotskyism, not historically but current organisations and practices?

Both the ICC and the ICT have pamphlets on Trotskyism on a historical basis. There are lots of articles that look at trotskyism today, but no single pamphlet or document.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Yes, I know. :blushing:

Devrim
this is a horrible problem btw. i was reading through the platform to suggest some readings for my group and i was a bit embarrassed. the whole wording of the platform needs to be changed. especially when considering the new generation of young workers dont have the politicized language of the past.

For example"


The struggle against the economic foundations of the system contains within it the struggle against all the super-structural aspects of capitalist society, but this is not true the other way around. By their very content ‘partial’ struggles, far from reinforcing the vital autonomy of the proletariat, tend on the contrary to dilute it into a mass of confused categories (races, sexes, youth, etc.) which can only be totally impotent in the face of history. This is why bourgeois governments and political parties have learned to recuperate and use them to good effect in the preservation of the social order.
unless someone irl explains what is this, it just sounds like the writer is insensitive and academic. especially in the US.

Also i guess i am not in a position to say this (yet), but the topic of decadence should be dropped out of the platform. Its a hard concept to digest and accept for some people, and it is not necessary to have communist positions.

[Paulappaul]

The main currents of the Dutch, German, and British left communists were pretty close. After all they belonged to one organisation. The Italians were, as you say, very different. Whether what you refer to as the 'most radical' actually were the most radical is a different question.

Yes, I think we all have a tendency of refering to radical as being "most left" towards a particular position. Take for example on the party question, you're radical if you are closet to Anarchism. But in the case of Bordiga and most of the Italian Left, they are radical in the sense that they believed the party was everything.


That is quite interesting. I spoke to him in Ankara when he was travelling back from Korea, and while he didn't seem to have formulated the ideas like that then looking back on our conversations now it is possible to see the roots of them there.

I've had a couple people ask me about this. His experiences in Korea seemed to have been pretty enlightening. Here are some quotes on the topic,

"I agree with the ICC and IP that in around the time of WW1 in 1914 Capitalism reached a certain point in history in which it ceased to be a progressive mode of production on a world scale. Historically we see that in the first century of capitalism's existence from the early 19th century to 1914 there was a steady development of productive forces and a growth of the working class on a world scale. I Believe that what happened in the period, let's say the decade prior to World War 1, capitalism got to stage where that kind of development could no longer happen in a peaceful evolutionary manner."

[....]

"And from World War 1 until 1970s, no country succeeded in developing into an advanced capitalist power in the way the US and Germany did. Starting in the 1970's and particularly 1980s, South Korea and Taiwan did in fact evolve into effectively evolve into first world countries. I had a discussion with the ICC in 1982 and I said "Look at what's happening in Korea" and the ICC said "It's not happening, this is decadence, we can't believe it

But at the same time I think the theory of decadence holds because as the Asian tigers came up, the Western capitalist countries were going into decline. SO unlike prior to 1914, it was not expansion on a world scale but it was growth here and decline there."

[...]

"Capitalist crisis means a plunge in production, mass unemployment, the destruction of old capital and the creation of the condition for new expansion with a viable rate of profit.... Wiping out old competing capital that's not competitive, wiping out lots of fictitious capital, credit and forcing prices down so that a new phase of expansion start with a rate of profit that will make capitalists invest. That is the mechanism of crisis."

[...]

"Capital cannot realise, socially, the gains in productivity that it creates through competition.

It happened once from 1914 to 1945, and it's happening again since the late 1960s-early 1970s. Could there be a new boom like 1945 to 1973? Yes, but, just as 1945 - 1973 boom excluded a very large part of humanity, there could be another boom but it will also marginalise populations even more than the 1945 - 1973 boom. That to me is what decadence is all about. But in one sense it is the inability of capitalism to socially realise the gains in productivity that it makes through technology"

[...]

"The deeper level is that, as in 1914, there cannot be an expanded world boom, it couldn't be within a capitalist framework because I believe that capitalist law of value is no longer capable of expanding the world productive forces in the same way it did prior to 1914."

[bricolage]

unless someone irl explains what is this, it just sounds like the writer is insensitive and academic. especially in the US.
Doesn't it mean that... if you struggle against the economic foundations of capitalism (wage labour) then you can end up struggling against its spin offs (racism, sexism etc), however if you do it the other way around (anti-racism, anti-sexism etc) you won't end up confronting exploitation and will just end up as tools of the state/capital.
That's what I got but I am probably wrong.

But I get what you are saying, most communist/anarchist publications seem split between patronising tabloid speak and jargon heavy insular speak.

[Alf]

No, I think you've got it right about 'partial' struggles. Obviously a lot of individuals can move towards revolutionary ideas by initially reacting against 'superstructural' things like racism and sexism. But as a class, workers need to confront all racist and sexist ideologies in their ranks because are an obstacle to their unification; and they need to do that by strengthening class unity and overcoming divisions, not by organising according to gender or ethnic groups. Practical example: united action between 'Turkish' and 'Kurdish' workers in the Tekel strikes in Turkey, which goes against all the efforts of both the Turkish government and the Kurdish nationalists and 'leftists' to reinforce those divisions

[MarxSchmarx]

So just how useful is "internationalism" as a dividing line between left communism and other leftism? Most if not all serious leftists consider themselves "internationalist" - even those supporting "nationalist" revolutions do so because they see it as getting us one step closer to an international working class movement. And very often the "nationalist" revolutions that are supported have internationalist rhetoric as well, especially during the cold war when they were seeking Soviet aid. I don't think the rhetoric is really a key point. The question is whether these struggles are progressive struggles that the working class should support, or whether they are mere moments in the struggle between rival powers.

If we go back to the Cold War and the national liberation war in Vietnam, I think that it is clear that there is a huge difference between it being a liberation struggle that workers should support, or a proxy war between rival imperialist powers in which, like the First World War, workers had no interest in backing either side.

You might not agree with us, but I think there is a huge difference in the two positions.

Devrim

But I think rhetoric introduces the fact that there are nuances to every group's claim of internationalism.

Indeed, when exactly does an armed struggle spill over from the category of a "liberation struggle that workers should support" to a "proxy war between rival imperialist powers"? There are very easy cases to call - I think much easier than Vietnam is Mongolia, whose independence struggle even with a leftist tint was pretty flagrantly a proxy war between Soviet Russia and the RoC.

But I think those kinds of "national liberation" movements are the exception to the rule.

In many instances there are, quite independently of who "the backers" are, a comparatively better alternatives. Moreover, some movements have the potential to become truly internationalist movements, and we can't categorize everyone as being in the same conspiratorial boat - even in Vietnam I would suspect that not a few Vietcong operatives truly believed in international communism. Thus while they may be funded and even started out of impure motives, perhaps through struggle they can develop into mature, transformational movements. One such example might be the civil rights movement in America - which started out as a rather reformist movement with strong theocratic overtones that became a mass struggle uniting a broader group of people towards a relatively more progressive order.

Finally, I think that insofar as we recognize that there are moderately better and worse rulers of imperialist countries like the USA and the UK, I don't see why countries where "national liberation" struggles are ongoing should be exempt from this same approach. Thus Obama is better than Bush and Chavez is better than the Venezuelan oligarchy. There is much to criticize about both Obama and Chavez, believe me, but at the same time, the alternatives are quite horrific. I therefore don't see what exactly is gained by equating say the Bolivarian revolution, with all its serious failures, with the oligarchs. It seems far more prudent to acknowledge that the likes of Chavez, problematic though they are, are still more conducive to the goals and interests of workers than the oligarchy that doesn't even pretend to represent the will of the working class, much less internationalism.

Which brings me back to my original point - that there are nuances of gradation in these things that are often sacrificed in the interest of ideological purity. And as somebody who does not actively identify with the ICC or its like, I just can't help but wonder, at the very least, whether these approaches to ongoing struggles capture the nuances and motivations of the bulk of the participants to provide an analysis that informs our praxis

[Savage]

^ Just to reiterate, read this:http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass/ch2

[black magick hustla]

No, I think you've got it right about 'partial' struggles. Obviously a lot of individuals can move towards revolutionary ideas by initially reacting against 'superstructural' things like racism and sexism. But as a class, workers need to confront all racist and sexist ideologies in their ranks because are an obstacle to their unification; and they need to do that by strengthening class unity and overcoming divisions, not by organising according to gender or ethnic groups. Practical example: united action between 'Turkish' and 'Kurdish' workers in the Tekel strikes in Turkey, which goes against all the efforts of both the Turkish government and the Kurdish nationalists and 'leftists' to reinforce those divisions
Of course they do. But have you ever lived in the US?

The race question is a fundamental question. This does not mean I am all for identity politics (I reject them fully). But idk its hard to talk to a black kid living in detroit and about how "race" is a confused category. its a real superstructural reality. Its real that the cops will harrass you for being black and it is real that your friends and brothers are dying in gang wars and it is real that you are probably destined to capitalist barbarism and a life of unemployment and hustle. Of course we have to fight against those of our enemies who try to divide us and pit us against each other, or who try to mix us with our colored bosses. But it does not suffice to say "race is a confused category" when your great grandparents had to pass a jelly bean counting test in order to vote. There are specific problems faced by the latino and black working classes that are not faced by the white working class. Of course, the white working classes are still living in Hell, with meth addicted kids living in their dad's basement working 11 hours a week in K-Mart. But I get the feeling sometimes the communist left tries to sweep the problem of race under the rug rather than address it. No wonder why CLR James, one of the communists who took an internationalist position on WWII, had to write an essay on the "negro question" - he was a black man in michigan. I imagine you could probably say something similar about the gender question. Kollontai had to write plenty about it, and I imagine he had to face sexism etc inside the Bolsheviks. They are real problems among the working class, and it does not suffice to call them out just as "confused categories".

[Alf]

Maldoror: I don't disagree with what you are saying. These are real problems with a huge historical weight. The oppression of women goes back millennia, racism is endemic to his society and also has far older roots. And I agree we have to find better ways of addressing the issues. We seem to agree on the rejection of organising 'by identity' but do you think there are differences here which are deeper than just the way we express ourselves?

[Zanthorus]

I'm back, with a high speed broadband connection at last. I'd like to take back what I said in my previous post about Devrim and Gorilla collectively being 'basically correct' though. Thinking it over, there are more historical innacuracies in Gorilla's post than those pointed out by Devrim:


Basically there was a big drive under Lenin to 'Bolshevize' the non-Russian parties of the Third International and anyone who didn't go along was called 'Left'. So originally it was pretty much a catch-all for everyone who didn't follow the Comintern line in the early years before the Trotsky split, including everyone from the anti-partyist council communists to the hyper-partyist line of Bordiga.

It was not Lenin who initiated the drive to 'Bolshevise' the non-Russian Communist parties. The term does originate from Lenin's attempt to bring the non-Russian parties in line with Bolshevik practice, which was the key theme of the simultaneously famous and infamous text 'Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder'. However, the actual practice known as 'Bolshevisation' by which the 'Lefts' were organisationally expelled from the Communist International began after Lenin's incapacitation. Bordiga's expulsion from the position of PCd'I general secretary came at around the same time that the Left Opposition was beggining it's struggle against the policies of the ruling clique in the USSR, and to begin with there was a certain concordance between the Italian Left and the Russian, and later the International, Left Opposition (Which ended after an incident in which, after failing to attend the initial congress of the ILO because of some problems in recieving the invitation, Trotsky accused the Italian Left of 'National Communism', and on top of that brought a new Italian section in, whose members the Italian Left recognised as the centrists they had been struggling against prior to their expulsion from the PCd'I).

Looking back at the original Left-Communist currents, I think we can say that there were two points on which all the various opposition currents from the Italian Left to the German Left agreed on - the opposition to electoral participation and the opposition to the United Front with the Social-Democratic parties. Of the two positions, it was the latter, the opposition to the United Front, which was the focal point that caused the expulsion of the 'Left' currents from the Communist International.

Both the German and British Lefts were expelled from the Comintern around the same period. I'm not familiar with the details of Pankhurst and the British Lefts expulsion from the CPGB, but basically it seems to me that both the Left Communists and the De Leonists were excluded from the CPGB on the same grounds that they opposed work within the British Labour Party (There was a series of articles in the new CPGB's Weekly Worker which revolved around the theme anyway).

On the German Left I think I'm on more solid ground. Basically, in 1919 Paul Levi and the KPD central committee published a set of theses, the 'Heidelberg Theses', which proclaimed a set of tactics with which any members who disagreed with would be expelled. Among them were positions in opposition to the famous positions of the German Left on the trade-unions and parliamentary participation, so the KPD Left, after attempting to correct what they initially believed was some kind of misunderstanding or mistake, was forced out of the party and formed the KAPD. It seems that the reason that Levi had published the Heidelberg Theses was that he wanted a fusion of the KPD and the USPD (Which was eventually realised in the VKPD), and couldn't win over the Left Social-Democrats whilst anyone holding positions as purportedly extreme as those of the German Left remained within the party. For the record, and in contradiction to your claim that Bolshevisation was a Leninist policy, Lenin actually opposed the split. Although he believed that the tactics of the German Left were mistaken, he also believed that the fundamental question was that of support or opposition to Soviet power, and as such the 'semi-anarchist' German Left as well as various anarcho-syndicalist groups elsewhere should be kept within the Comintern, or at least some kind of joint work should occur, and eventually practical experience would supposedly weed out the 'semi-anarchist' and anarchist currents.

And I can't let this comment by Devrim pass by without comment:


No, it hasn't. The idea that modes of production have a phase where they develop the means of production and one in which they become a fetter upon developing the means of production is a basic Marxist idea.

No it isn't. I'm guessing the reference is to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy preface which actually states "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production". 'Material productive forces' does not mean the same thing as the technological instruments or 'means of production', a productive force for Marx is what it says on the tin, human productive powers. This can be increased through technology, but also through social co-operation, in fact "The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force.”" (The German Ideology)

In the Poverty of Philosophy, Marx writes that "Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself." Indeed, one possible interpretation of Marx's preface in the contribution which I believe has been advanced by various Autonomist Marxists and perhaps others is that the conflict between forces and relations of production refers to a contradiction between the needs of the working-class and capital's inability to realise these needs. In fact, Marx says elsewhere that "History is most happily summed up in this epigram addressed to the apostles of order: while inadequate consumption drives the working classes to revolt, overproduction drives the upper classes to bankruptcy." That is, while overproduction causes economic crises, the working-classes struggle against capitalism is engendered by it's inability to fulfill it's needs and develop itself within the limits of capitalism.

But I suppose the above may be more than a tad academic, so I'll just go straight for the appeal to Pannekoek:


The working class itself, as a whole, must conduct the struggle, but, while the bourgeoisie is already building up its power more and more solidly, the working class has yet to make itself familiar with the new forms of struggle. Severe struggles are bound to take place. And should the present crisis abate, new crises and new struggles will arise. In these struggles the working class will develop its strength to struggle, will discover its aims, will train itself, will make itself independent and learn to take into its hands its own destiny, viz., social production itself. In this process the destruction of capitalism is achieved. The self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism.- The Theory of the Collapse of Capitalism

I think this passage is instructive because it shows that despite the fact that he held the same views as the Communist Left with regards to the change of forms of the workers' movement post-1914 he didn't need to justify it with any 'theory of decadence'. Ultimately, as maldoror says, the 'theory of decadence' seems like an unnecessary accessory to Communist politics, an overtheorisation of something which is actually fairly simple, that in 1914 the old forms of the workers' movement were co-opted, and the struggles of the class drove it to adopt new forms.

[Alf]

It's true that the 'productive forces' is more than the machines you use to make things with. One of the outcomes of the degeneration of the second and third Internationals was the rise of a 'productivist' version of marxism, in which the notion of the 'development of the productive forces' increasingly expressed a vision of capitalist accumulation. Marx's insights into how capitalism inhibits the productive forces in terms of man's creative powers were entirely lost, above all in the Stalinist conception and the programme it gave rise to.
I don't think this in any way contradicts Marx's view that there was the 'objective' conflict between the wage labour relation and the possibility of fulfilling human needs both on the physical and 'spiritual' level; that this conflict expressed itself in economic crises; and that these crises would become increasingly devastating, opening up an epoch of social revolution. This is basically what a 'theory of (capitalist) decadence' amounts to.

[Zanthorus]

I agree with all of the above post, but I don't know about the last sentence. If that is really what the 'theory of decadence' refers to, then how does it make sense to say that capitalism became decadent in 1914? Clearly capitalism has managed to trundle on for quite a bit since then.

[Paulappaul]

It was not Lenin who initiated the drive to 'Bolshevise' the non-Russian Communist parties. The term does originate from Lenin's attempt to bring the non-Russian parties in line with Bolshevik practice, which was the key theme of the simultaneously famous and infamous text 'Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder'. However, the actual practice known as 'Bolshevisation' by which the 'Lefts' were organisationally expelled from the Communist International began after Lenin's incapacitation.

They were basically expelled before 1924 though. In 1920 they weren't eligible for participation in congress' beyond sympathizing and couldn't vote if I recall correctly. The Original 21 Conditions for entry were written by Lenin, if that wasn't "Bolshevisation" of the International communist movement, I don't know what is.


Both the German and British Lefts were expelled from the Comintern around the same period. I'm not familiar with the details of Pankhurst and the British Lefts expulsion from the CPGB, but basically it seems to me that both the Left Communists and the De Leonists were excluded from the CPGB on the same grounds that they opposed work within the British Labour Party (There was a series of articles in the new CPGB's Weekly Worker which revolved around the theme anyway).

Yes the British Lefts were expelled because they refused to stop being a sect and to combine with CPGB. The same can be said for the Deleonists in America who were invited to attend the Communist International till 1926 I believe when they were formally expelled for not combining with the Communist Party. They were basically the American Left Communists.

Zanthorus' tag:


Dogmatic Marxist

From Lenin to you,


It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life.

I think Karl Korsch repeated something like this..

[Zanthorus]

The Original 21 Conditions for entry were written by Lenin, if that wasn't "Bolshevisation" of the International communist movement, I don't know what is.

Lenin wrote 19 conditions for entry. The 20th condition was tagged on during the debates at the Comintern congress. The 21st condition was proposed by none other than Bordiga himself. The 21 conditions as a whole provided Bordiga with the basis for splitting from the PSI and forming the PCd'I.


They were basically the American Left Communists.

Loren Goldner noted that there was already a Left Communist current within the American socialist party among the Dutch and Latvian immigrant workers familiar with Pannekoek's works. It would be innacurate to say that the De Leonists were 'basically' American Left Communists, they were never called as such and they disagreed with the Left on the parliament issue.

[Android]

Zanthorus, I am generally in agreement with what you have state so far, apart from this bit:


Looking back at the original Left-Communist currents, I think we can say that there were two points on which all the various opposition currents from the Italian Left to the German Left agreed on - the opposition to electoral participation and the opposition to the United Front with the Social-Democratic parties. Of the two positions, it was the latter, the opposition to the United Front, which was the focal point that caused the expulsion of the 'Left' currents from the Communist International.

While I think it is correct to say that the German-Dutch Left were united in their 'opposition to electoral participation', I do not think the same is true of the Italian Left.

My understanding is that the Italian Left was divided on the issue. With Bordiga being opposed and others viewing it as a tactical consideration.

I remember the user Jock telling me that PCInt stood in the local election after the Second World War in order to use the opportunity to address workers in the town square, but with the caution afterwards that they were skeptical that such an opportunity would present itself again due to the role of democratic mystification in contemporary capitalism. And Damen himself was a PCd'I Deputy in the 1920s I read somewhere as well.

[Gorilla]

THanks for your clarifications, Zanthorus. Where was I was trying to go with this:


Basically there was a big drive under Lenin to 'Bolshevize' the non-Russian parties of the Third International and anyone who didn't go along was called 'Left'. So originally it was pretty much a catch-all for everyone who didn't follow the Comintern line in the early years before the Trotsky split, including everyone from the anti-partyist council communists to the hyper-partyist line of Bordiga.


...was the following: You can come away from "Left Communism" with the impression that all of the 3rd international parties were good little bolshevoids except for these idiots on the fringes in Italy and Germany.

My hunch is that impression is not only wrong, but practically the opposite of the truth; my hunch is that the 3rd international attracted all sorts of malcontent and misfit elements practically none of whom fit into either Second International orthodoxy or the modified Second International orthodoxy being propagated by Lenin.

I mean, the Italian party was so weird that Stalin had to recruit from the syndicalist faction in order to displace Bordiga. Wobbly-ish ideas persisted in the American party despite attempts to stamp them out into the 30's - during the Gastonia strike CPUSA organizers were reprimanded by leadership for advocating management by workers' council, and even then William Z. Foster speaks in For Soviet America about organizing government along departments of industry in terms more reminiscent of Father Hagerty's wheel than the Soviet experience. Pretty much the whole Irish party came out of Connollyite syndicalism, and not a small amount of the British party either.

So I'd see the "Left Communism" as only one salvo in a broader campaign to iron out the heterogeneous foreign parties into orthodoxy. The Italian and German "lefts" only happened to be the more stubborn and irreconcilable than the others. But those outside the "lefts", who either weren't abstentionist in the first place or didn't cling to it, were also pretty heretical by the standard of later consensus.

[Zanthorus]

While I think it is correct to say that the German-Dutch Left were united in their 'opposition to electoral participation', I do not think the same is true of the Italian Left.

My understanding is that the Italian Left was divided on the issue. With Bordiga being opposed and others viewing it as a tactical consideration.

I remember the user Jock telling me that PCInt stood in the local election after the Second World War in order to use the opportunity to address workers in the town square. And Damen himself was a PCd'I Deputy.

I'm aware that Damen supported the Partito Comunista Internazionalista participating in the post-war Italian elections, but the ICC book on the Italian Left at least doesn't mention anything about a division in the Italian Left on the electoral question prior to that, so I interpreted it as an individual abberation on Damen's part rather than anything rooted in previous tradition. I'd be interested if you have any sources on attitudes within the Italian left in opposition to Bordiga's on the election question prior to the Damen/Bordiga conflict.

[Paulappaul]

Lenin wrote 19 conditions for entry. The 20th condition was tagged on during the debates at the Comintern congress. The 21st condition was proposed by none other than Bordiga himself. The 21 conditions as a whole provided Bordiga with the basis for splitting from the PSI and forming the PCd'I.So yes, Lenin wrote the real character, the real defining elements of Conditions and Bordiga wrote the one liner at the end. Again from the get go, the project is a really a Russian thing, with Lenin and the Bolshevik experience at its head.


Loren Goldner noted that there was already a Left Communist current within the American socialist party among the Dutch and Latvian immigrant workers familiar with Pannekoek's works. It would be innacurate to say that the De Leonists were 'basically' American Left Communists, they were never called as such and they disagreed with the Left on the parliament issue. I got in this debate on Libcom a long time ago. It matters how you define Left Communist. Is it the decedents of those Communists expelled from the third International, or is it ideological? If it's the former, the Deleonists tendency in America was kicked out of the International. If it's the later, the Deleonists in America held similar principles to that of Pankhurst, namely the rejection of Trade Unions and IWW style Industrial Unionism and agitation for Full Demands in Parliament and the rejection of a United Front. The small sections of Dutch and Latvian workers seem weak in comparrision to the Socialist Labor Party in 20s who aligned themselves with the likes of Luxemburg, Pannekoek and Deleon. Most of these workers were members of the IWW. Loren Goldner also makes note that Left Communists haven't always rejected parliamentary action mind you.

[Alf]

how does it make sense to say that capitalism became decadent in 1914? Clearly capitalism has managed to trundle on for quite a bit since then.
__________________

Because the decadence of the system does not mean a complete halt in material or cultural/scientific development. The question is this: by 1914 capitalism had created the essential foundations for a global communist society. Its survival since then has been at an increasing 'cost' for humanity and has not served any progressive function for it.

[Zanthorus]

So yes, Lenin wrote the real character, the real defining elements of Conditions and Bordiga wrote the one liner at the end. Again from the get go, the project is a really a Russian thing, with Lenin and the Bolshevik experience at its head.

So? That is not what Bolshevisation was. The campaign to Bolshevise the non-Russian Commnist parties was initiated by Zinoviev at the Comintern's fifth congress, at around the same time that the Left Opposition was beggining it's work. The rabid campaign against factionalism and opposition tendencies was used just as much against the Trots as against the Bordigists.

On De Leonism, I think the issue is that the Left-Communist groups really congealed as a coherent tendency only during and after their membership of the Comintern, whereas De Leonism had already formed in, well, the lifetime of De Leon himself. And I still await the evidence to support this assertion:


...Left Communists haven't always rejected parliamentary action mind you.

The only instance I am aware of is, again, the PCInt's utilisation of the post-war elections.


The question is this: by 1914 capitalism had created the essential foundations for a global communist society. Its survival since then has been at an increasing 'cost' for humanity and has not served any progressive function for it.

What does this have to do with the formation of Soviets and Factory Councils?

What does it have to do with opposition to parliament or the united front?

What does it have to do with the possibility of national liberation struggles or of meaningful reforms?

Even if the statement is true, it seems irrelevant to what actually gets called 'decadence' which is specifically a theory designed to justify the ICC, ICT and IP's strategic lines. It seems to me that your average SWP member could quite easily agree with that statement, so why put such an emphasis on decadence as a central plank of communist politics?

In your last post you talk about decadence as being the theory that crises become increasingly devastating, eventually bringing in the social revolution, but it seems to me that if this is true, the whole idea of two distinct phases of capitalism, one ascendent and the other decadent, falls by the wayside. On the other hand if we agree with the view just presented, decadence has nothing to with crises, so why say that capitalism is in a state of permanent crises?

[Android]

To return to this:



Looking back at the original Left-Communist currents, I think we can say that there were two points on which all the various opposition currents from the Italian Left to the German Left agreed on - the opposition to electoral participation and the opposition to the United Front with the Social-Democratic parties. Of the two positions, it was the latter, the opposition to the United Front, which was the focal point that caused the expulsion of the 'Left' currents from the Communist International.

My previous comment was it appears right on parliament. I sent the user Jock a message in order to take advantage of his accumulated knowledge on the subject and provide clarification:


Damen was surrounded by a whole group of the left in 1921 who actively supported using parliament as a tribune (they all agreed on the impossibility of arriving at socialism via parliament). Damen always said Bordiga put the cart before the horse by insisting on "Communist abstentionism" before insisting on the need to form a communist party. It meant that many who supported the idea of using parliament but who were sympathetic stayed out and sided with Serratti (who played a brilliant duplicitous role here). It reduced the numbers at Livorno (and of course when the PCd'I joined the Comintern Bordiga accepted the 21 conditions which called for using parliament!). Damen was one of a number of deputies in the Chamber until his arrest in 1924 (and the decree on illegality of the PCd'I in 1925). For him the question was always not one of principle (which he tended to call strategy) but one of tactics. This is why the PCInt stood in municipal/local elections and in the constituent assembly elections in the period when the bourgeoisie was confused about what kind of regime they wanted. By standing in these elections they could claim the right to speak in the "piazza" in every town where they had candidates. They garnered a tiny percentage nationally but in Calabria (where there was a land reform movement with peasants seizing farms from big landowners) they won hundreds of votes in every town (at least according to the entry in a museum we went to in Calabria).

As far as the United-Front goes you characterisation is technically correct, even if it is bit more complicated then a condensed formulation like that can express, I will quote Jock's comments again as I think they are useful:


Similarly the rejection of the united front is not a LC position per se. Bordiga went to France on orders from the EC of the CI to argue there for the uniited front and argued for the united front from below (i.e practical cooperation with other workers who were still in the SD). And when it went inevitably wrong (since it confused those workers who had previously supported the communists out of contempt for what the Sds had done Bordiga did not turn his polemic against the united front as such but against the even worse call the CI made for "workers' governments" (as in Germany, in Thuringia I think).

[Zanthorus]

When I referred to the opposition to the United Front, I was referring more to the Comintern view of the United Front as a political alliance between Communist and Social-Democratic parties than some of the other more general views of the UF as unity of the workers' movement for various practical demands as in the Italian Left's idea of the trade-union United Front, but yeah thanks for the post :)

[Paulappaul]

On De Leonism, I think the issue is that the Left-Communist groups really congealed as a coherent tendency only during and after their membership of the Comintern, whereas De Leonism had already formed in, well, the lifetime of De Leon himself.Then those Dutch and Latvian workers in America I would think wouldn't be much different. Regardless this is an interesting point, and adds to the fact that it is hard to classify what exactly was "Left Communism" and what wasn't in this time.


So? That is not what Bolshevisation was. The campaign to Bolshevise the non-Russian Commnist parties was initiated by Zinoviev at the Comintern's fifth congress, at around the same time that the Left Opposition was beggining it's work. The rabid campaign against factionalism and opposition tendencies was used just as much against the Trots as against the Bordigists.Which steams from Lenin's 21 conditions. My argument was that the Comintern was Bolshevik from the 2nd congress.


And I still await the evidence to support this assertionYou mentioned one. I was referencing Goldner's mention of it. If I recall correctly Pankhurst supported the principle of "Full Demands" in Parliament. I think she was a member of SPGB for a while, maybe she polarized to the left more.

[Alf]

Zanthorus:

What does this (i.e the decadence of capitalism) have to do with the formation of Soviets and Factory Councils?

Rosa Luxemburg thought the mass strike heralded the dawn of a new epoch in the life of capitalism. The KAPD was sure that the council form was the specific organisational response to class struggle in the new period, and that trade unions no longer were.

What does it have to do with opposition to parliament or the united front?

The Communist International argued at its first Congress that in the new epoch all real life had gone out of parliament. The KAPD, Miasnikov and the Italian left opposed the United Front because they considered that social democracy had been tested by the period of wars and revolution and gone over to the other side of the barricade.

What does it have to do with the possibility of national liberation struggles or of meaningful reforms?

Rosa Luxemburg considered that in the epoch of unbridled imperialism, all 'national' wars served imperialist interests. She also felt that the opening of the new period posed the proletariat with the choice between socialism and barbarism, and no longer a struggle for lasting reforms.

You know all this. The idea that the opening of the epoch of decadence demanded a complete overhaul of the revolutionary programme was not the ICC's invention but was adhered to by all the currents which formed the Third International. But have I missed something in your argument?

[Zanthorus]

My issue is I don't see how any of that has anything to do with this specific idea of 'decadence':


The question is this: by 1914 capitalism had created the essential foundations for a global communist society. Its survival since then has been at an increasing 'cost' for humanity and has not served any progressive function for it.

You seem to have again reverted to the 'permanent crisis' view of decadence, which is not, as Devrim claimed originally, something which all Marxist currents hold to.

[Alf]

No, it's not a matter of whether we define the crisis as permanent in decadence. But is certainly historic in the sense that the system has become a fundamental obstacle to real human progress, and this has fundamentally changed the conditions in which the class struggle takes place: the permanence of inter-imperialist conflicts which destroys the possibility of genuine national wars, the tendency towards totalitarian state capitalism which absorbs the old workers' movement (parties and unions)...these are deeply linked to the underlying social and economic impasse.
But assuming capitalism is not decadent, or in decline, or senile, or obsolete, or in decay, why have the tactics of the old workers' movement, defended tooth and nail by Marx (support for national wars, construction of trade unions, intervention in parliament, alliance with progressive bourgeois fractions), very often against the idealist and atemporal analyses of the anarchists, become obsolete?

[Thirsty Crow]

Thanks to both Zanthorus and Alf (for posing the right kind of question and for answering it) regarding the decadence issue :)

What interests me further is the following: the union issue.

If we consider the fact that in certain countries unions wield prestige and influence and do indeed include not an insignificant amount of workers, but recognizing that they've effectively been co-opted, bordering on outright integration into the state apparatus, what form of organizing would left communists advocate? Creation of independent unions? Other kind of organizations, in declared opposition to class collaborationist unions?

[Alf]

Most left communists would argue that permanent mass defensive organs are no longer possible; mass organisations can only arise in the struggle itself: general assemblies, elected strike committees and coordinating committees...embryonic forms of the future workers' councils. Outside period of open struggle, militant workers tend to form struggle groups,discussion circles, networks linking militants from different sectors. But these kind of groups should not see themselves as 'representing' the mass of workers like trade unions claim to do.

[bezdomni]

Left Communism, in my opinion, is an historical term which today has little meaning or relevance to radical politics.