Left Communism

[The Man]

What is the difference between Left Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism?

[06hurdwp]

As far as I know, very little.

[black magick hustla]

there are many "anarchosyndicalisms" some are closer to us (IWA AIT) while some are further from us. there are many differences, they are two entirely different traditions, anarcho syndicalism sprang from the struggles of trade unions and left communism was a break from the unions. i think the main difference that is not just theoretical abstractions is that anarcho syndicalists think mass permanent revolutionary orgs are a possibility today and there is a benefit in trying to build them, we left communists dont.

[Ocean Seal]

What is the difference between Left Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism?
Left Communism is based on the theories of Marx and thus asserts that there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarcho-Syndicalism is against a state of any kind. However, left-communists believe in what is termed a semi-state.
The reason that I believe it is called a semi-state is because left-communists assert that there exists a state because classes do exist during the period of transition from capitalism to communism. It is not a state in the Leninist sense because the workers maintain control through the use of worker's councils and mass assemblies. Moreover, the state is not aligned with any particular class, or any particular party. The state mainly exists to preserve the interests of the working class and there is a consent from the workers to allow the state its given power. Or perhaps the state exists as a republican concept to avoid the persecution of minorities.

However under Left-Communism

The workers MAY have their own party (Bordigism asserts that there is an international workers party, but Council Communism does not believe in a party)

The workers form their own military independent of the state

The workers directly control their means of production

The worker's actively work to disestablish the state in order to procure the end of all classes and the beginning of communism.

Anarcho-syndicalism also organizes itself around unions (industrial) which are not accepted under left-communism as revolutionary vehicles. The reason being is that the unions don't really grant the workers all that much autonomy. Left-comms prefer worker's councils as revolutionary vehicles. Left-Communists also sometimes believe in an international worker's party which anarcho-syndicalists don't believe in.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that any state will deform in an authoritarian structure which will preserve classes and degenerate back into capitalism.

Also anarcho-syndicalists believe in complete direct democracy which is something that left-communists mediate with the use of the state.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

What is the difference between Left Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism?
Hrmmmm left comm's use any opportunity to bash unions? Lawlz jk (I'm looking at you, Paulappaul)
But yes, it seems as though most, if not all, Left Comm's hold a lot of reservations and spite towards any union, whether reformist/bureaucratic or revolutionary.

[jake williams]

there are many "anarchosyndicalisms" some are closer to us (IWA AIT) while some are further from us. there are many differences, they are two entirely different traditions, anarcho syndicalism sprang from the struggles of trade unions and left communism was a break from the unions. i think the main difference that is not just theoretical abstractions is that anarcho syndicalists think mass permanent revolutionary orgs are a possibility today and there is a benefit in trying to build them, we left communists dont.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do left communists actually support or advocate?

[Savage]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do left communists actually support or advocate?

well, what do you mean? left communists support communism as the proletarian class movement, the negation of capital born out of capital; something that is beyond the control of any individual. Most leftists see left communism and similar tendencies to be inactive and basically hopeless, due to their incredibly small numbers, but what these people do not understand is that movements cannot be built be any sort of group; parties are the result of the workers' struggle, not the cause for it. We see things like activism and guerrilla warfare as completely detached from any class position, and that things like electoral participation and unionism are no longer progressive avenues and basically serve the purpose of distracting and derailing the working class movement. All that militants can do is provide political orientation for others and participate in class struggle as much as possible, moving with international material conditions to the point that class struggle is culminating in proletarian revolution.

[Forward Union]

Yes, Anarcho Syndicalists believe they can out-organise the wider Union movement, recruit more workers to their union than any other, and then, when they have enough industry organised, overthrow capitalism by means of a General strike (which may turn into a violent revolutionary situation)

Left Communists don't believe in organising workers into unions, be they revolutionary, industrial, craft, or reformist (though I will be fair and point out that the leftcommies do distinguish between them, and have different criticisms for each formation). They believe in abstract notions of "the class" overthrowing "capitalism" in a kind of broad organic sense which they can't influence. Because they don't organise economically, nor do they see their particular parties as being vanguards, they essentially act as critics of other peoples organising efforts.

Take for example the SAC (Swedish Central Workers Organisation) being granted the right to provide its members with unemployment benefit money allocated by the state. This had absolutely no real world practical drawbacks, it gave the SAC a greater role in Swedish Society and provided its members with better job security, it also gave Swedish workers more reason to join. The Left Communists (and Anarcho Syndicalists) reject this on abstract philosophical terms as it being "collaboration with the state". Even if it did warrant such hyperbolic terminology, so what. What do they offer instead of hard cash, influence, power, the ability to help workers financially and greater political relevance for the SAC? - Ideological purity. Well I'm sorry, too much is at stake for this kind of righteousness. They are not prepared to do whatever it takes. If the SAC didn't do it they would have been losing out.

[Blake's Baby]

Hrmmmm left comm's use any opportunity to bash unions? Lawlz jk (I'm looking at you, Paulappaul)...

Paulappaul isn't a Left Communist.


...But yes, it seems as though most, if not all, Left Comm's hold a lot of reservations and spite towards any union, whether reformist/bureaucratic or revolutionary.

I'm a Left Communist and I certainly don't hold any spite towards revolutionary syndicalism.

I don't hold any 'spite' towards the traitor unions who betrayed the working class in 1914 either, I just regard them as part of the apparatus of capitalism.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I'm a Left Communist and I certainly don't hold any spite towards revolutionary syndicalism.
Ah, good. I thought I had read Paulappaul, and maybe a few others, who I thought identified with Left-Communism bashing unionism at any moment. Plus, I'm pretty sure the I.C.C. regards all unions in a fairly negative light.

Take for example the SAC (Swedish Central Workers Organisation) being granted the right to provide its members with unemployment benefit money allocated by the state. This had absolutely no real world practical drawbacks, it gave the SAC a greater role in Swedish Society and provided its members with better job security, it also gave Swedish workers more reason to join. The Left Communists (and Anarcho Syndicalists) reject this on abstract philosophical terms as it being "collaboration with the state". Even if it did warrant such hyperbolic terminology, so what. What do they offer instead of hard cash, influence, power, the ability to help workers financially and greater political relevance for the SAC? - Ideological purity. Well I'm sorry, too much is at stake for this kind of righteousness. They are not prepared to do whatever it takes. If the SAC didn't do it they would have been losing out.
I don't see what the big deal is with the SAC and collecting unemployment funds from the state. Due to the complex nature of the Swedish laws, this is the situation we arrive at. If SAC were to drop it, I could guarantee the SAC would either A) cease to exist by the end of the decade, or B) be a ghost of it's former self and be mere numbers of "pure anarchists" :rolleyes: Yes, as much as it sucks to have to deal with complications of the bourgeois state and it's laws, the SAC's unemployment fund are extremely beneficial to the workers. Plus, from what I've read, the SAC has taken a more radical (anarcho-syndicalist) approach growing since the 70s, and they stressed the importance of class struggle at their last convention/congress.
I see no problems here, a revolutionary union that stresses class struggle, has a foothold in certain industries, and can give benefits for when misfortune happens to it's members. That's great :cool:

[Zanthorus]

maldoror is wrong when he says that Left-Communism emerged in struggles against the union. In fact, the Italian Left was originally not only not opposed to communists working in trade unions, but their proposed alternative to the United Front between the Social-Democratic and Communist parties was a United Front between the Social-Democratic and syndicalist unions which would unite the entire working-class around economic demands while leaving the political arms of the labour movement free to duke it out with one another. The German-Dutch Left emerged in a struggle against the unions, not because of some abstract theory but because of the concrete role played by the German trade-unions in bringing the struggles of the German working-class in 1918-19 back onto the peaceful and parliamentary terrain (One of the KAPD delegates at the third congress of the Comintern even remarked that what was true for Germany was not necessarily true everywhere, and pointed to the example of IWW militants working in 'Yellow' unions as showing how in some places conditions made it so that work in the unions was still feasible).

Most modern Left Communists have some form of critique of trade unionism, but the nature of that critique has subtle differences from theorist to theorist. Loren Goldner for example would probably agree with the posts by 'Forward Union' and 'NoOneisIllegal' giving examples of gains made by the unions in Sweden, but he would also probably say (I think so, I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, but this seems to be the gist of his thinking as evidenced by his critiques of the ICC and also some of his remarks in the debate on the Internationalist Discussion Network about the role of the unions in the struggle in Wisconsin) that the unions are not and cannot be made into revolutionary instruments, and need to be superceeded by factory councils etc rather than negated as such. The Internationalist Communist Tendency seems to have a similar position in that they are not opposed to people becoming members of the unions and they have no problem going to union meetings and arguing their perspectives with rank and file union activists (Again, working off their FAQ here and wary of putting words in their mouths. Would be nice if someone like Stagger Lee could clarify) but they don't believe that the unions can be transformed into organs of revolutionary struggle but need to be superceeded in practice.

maldoror is correct in noting that some syndicalists are closer to Left Communism than others. For example, I doubt that many of the Solfed members who post on libcom would agree with the posters here saying that the Left Communist position on unions is based entirely on some kind of philosophical abstractionism.

[Android]

maldoror is wrong when he says that Left-Communism emerged in struggles against the union. In fact, the Italian Left was originally not only not opposed to communists working in trade unions, but their proposed alternative to the United Front between the Social-Democratic and Communist parties was a United Front between the Social-Democratic and syndicalist unions which would unite the entire working-class around economic demands while leaving the political arms of the labour movement free to duke it out with one another. The German-Dutch Left emerged in a struggle against the unions, not because of some abstract theory but because of the concrete role played by the German trade-unions in bringing the struggles of the German working-class in 1918-19 back onto the peaceful and parliamentary terrain (One of the KAPD delegates at the third congress of the Comintern even remarked that what was true for Germany was not necessarily true everywhere, and pointed to the example of IWW militants working in 'Yellow' unions as showing how in some places conditions made it so that work in the unions was still feasible).

Exactly. I even think Bordiga referred to his united-front-from-below formulation as a trade-union-front as you identified.


Most modern Left Communists have some form of critique of trade unionism, but the nature of that critique has subtle differences from theorist to theorist. Loren Goldner for example would probably agree with the posts by 'Forward Union' and 'NoOneisIllegal' giving examples of gains made by the unions in Sweden, but he would also probably say (I think so, I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, but this seems to be the gist of his thinking as evidenced by his critiques of the ICC and also some of his remarks in the debate on the Internationalist Discussion Network about the role of the unions in the struggle in Wisconsin) that the unions are not and cannot be made into revolutionary instruments, and need to be superceeded by factory councils etc rather than negated as such. The Internationalist Communist Tendency seems to have a similar position in that they are not opposed to people becoming members of the unions and they have no problem going to union meetings and arguing their perspectives with rank and file union activists (Again, working off their FAQ here and wary of putting words in their mouths. Would be nice if someone like Stagger Lee could clarify) but they don't believe that the unions can be transformed into organs of revolutionary struggle but need to be superceeded in practice.

Yeah I think you have accurately outlined in a condensed way Goldner's and the ICT's approach, even if I think they are not the same.

Just to expand on your point about the ICT's approach; they do not have the moralism of the ICC regarding the unionism, which can be seen from the very fact that workplace groups that Battaglia Comunista established in the 1960s were called Internationalist Communist Union Groups (see 'Platform of Internationalist Communist Union Groups (1963)' (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/1963-11-01/platform-of-internationalist-communist-union-groups).

[Rafiq]

Left Communists are Marxists, Anarcho Syndicalists are.... Well, anarchists.

Left communists are not all libertarians as well.

[Blake's Baby]

... I'm pretty sure the I.C.C. regards all unions in a fairly negative light...

I think it's probably true that of all the groups and positions of the Communist Left the ICC's is the most consistently anti-union, but even the ICC aren't as dogmatic as people make them out to be. The see differences between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism, and between both these currents and trades unionism; the latter they regard as part of capitalism, the former (certainly revolutionary syndicalism in theory, and in practice I think anarcho-syndicalism too) as being genuine working class responses to the problems of the early 20th century socialist movement.

However, they do see unions (whatever their ideology) as being outdated - workers' councils rather than unions being the form that embodies the workers' struggle.

But they don't forbid their members to join unions, as has been claimed, they just have a perspective that workers can't use them for effective struggle.

[JustMovement]

I have a couple of questions, first of all is there a unified left -communist position on democratic centralism? second what do left-communists see the role of the party as? They reject vanguardism right? Do they see it merely as a forum to inform workers and conduct discussion? Are left-communists against trade unions even as instruments for economic struggle? Or do they just reject them in so far as they are not revolutionary, but can have other legitimate functions?

[jake williams]

well, what do you mean? left communists support communism as the proletarian class movement, the negation of capital born out of capital; something that is beyond the control of any individual. Most leftists see left communism and similar tendencies to be inactive and basically hopeless, due to their incredibly small numbers, but what these people do not understand is that movements cannot be built be any sort of group; parties are the result of the workers' struggle, not the cause for it. We see things like activism and guerrilla warfare as completely detached from any class position, and that things like electoral participation and unionism are no longer progressive avenues and basically serve the purpose of distracting and derailing the working class movement. All that militants can do is provide political orientation for others and participate in class struggle as much as possible, moving with international material conditions to the point that class struggle is culminating in proletarian revolution.
Yeah, you still haven't given anything close to a concrete example of anything going on in the world that you support.

[Blake's Baby]

We support the struggles of the working class.

Sometimes they're economic struggles; sometimes they're political struggles. We're generally very into strikes, even if there are varying degrees of emphasis on the idea that workers need to extend the struggle outside their own workplaces and link up with other workers, while fighting the divisions that the unions place on struggle. We also support anti-austerity struggles, such as in the Middle East and North Africa, Spain and Greece at the moment, while again warning of the dangers of isolation and recuperation. Most of the Left Communists in the UK, I mean seriously almost all of them, not just groups but actual individuals, were involved in the 'No War but Class War' groups around the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

JustMovement - I haven't heard of any Left Communist group that defines itself as 'democratic centralist' but there really is no unified position on I'd think any of the questions you pose. The 'Bordigist' groups of the (various) International Communist Parties have a different conception to the International Communist Tendency who have a different conception to the International Communist Current. But on 'vanguardism' - all the Left Communist groups I know of are in favour of the organisation of the proletarian vanguard into a world communist party. So no they don't reject that 'vanguardism'. On the other hand I think all the non-Bordigist groups reject the idea that the world party siezes power on behalf of the working class, so they reject that 'vanguardism'. Depends what you mean, really.

[Madvillainy]

But they don't forbid their members to join unions, as has been claimed, they just have a perspective that workers can't use them for effective struggle.

im pretty sure u cant be a member of a union and the icc, actually im positive. except in the case of closed shops but they're kinda rare nowadays.

[Forward Union]

Ah, good. I thought I had read Paulappaul, and maybe a few others, who I thought identified with Left-Communism bashing unionism at any moment. Plus, I'm pretty sure the I.C.C. regards all unions in a fairly negative light.

I don't see what the big deal is with the SAC and collecting unemployment funds from the state. Due to the complex nature of the Swedish laws, this is the situation we arrive at. If SAC were to drop it, I could guarantee the SAC would either A) cease to exist by the end of the decade, or B) be a ghost of it's former self and be mere numbers of "pure anarchists" :rolleyes: Yes, as much as it sucks to have to deal with complications of the bourgeois state and it's laws, the SAC's unemployment fund are extremely beneficial to the workers. Plus, from what I've read, the SAC has taken a more radical (anarcho-syndicalist) approach growing since the 70s, and they stressed the importance of class struggle at their last convention/congress.
I see no problems here, a revolutionary union that stresses class struggle, has a foothold in certain industries, and can give benefits for when misfortune happens to it's members. That's great :cool:

Agree with all of this but I would add that the SAC has been quite explicit on not being anarcho-syndicalist. Its members are always keen to point that out, and its made moves to wipe that term from all its documents and publications.

[Blake's Baby]

im pretty sure u cant be a member of a union and the icc, actually im positive. except in the case of closed shops but they're kinda rare nowadays.

I'm pretty sure Devrim has said that the ICC don't ban members from being in unions.

[Android]

I'm pretty sure Devrim has said that the ICC don't ban members from being in unions.

My understanding was that it is agreed policy for members of the ICC not to join a union, their thinking being it will make their anti-union position clearer. But that if a member job depended on joining the union like in a closed shop situation then they are allowed to.

[Paulappaul]

Hrmmmm left comm's use any opportunity to bash unions? Lawlz jk (I'm looking at you, Paulappaul)Fucking Unions
Hate em
they suck
:bored:


Paulappaul isn't a Left Communist.Hmm.. and I suppose you're a Nationalist. Oh wait that would be talking out of my ass!


. Loren Goldner for example would probably agree with the posts by 'Forward Union' and 'NoOneisIllegal' giving examples of gains made by the unions in Sweden, but he would also probably say (I think so, I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, but this seems to be the gist of his thinking as evidenced by his critiques of the ICC and also some of his remarks in the debate on the Internationalist Discussion Network about the role of the unions in the struggle in Wisconsin) that the unions are not and cannot be made into revolutionary instruments, and need to be superceeded by factory councils etc rather than negated as such. I wouldn't take Goldner as an authority figure on left communism. He calls himself a Luxemburgist too and generally rejects Council Communism, while espousing the JFT.


For example, I doubt that many of the Solfed members who post on libcom would agree with the posters here saying that the Left Communist position on unions is based entirely on some kind of philosophical abstractionism. I think this is key. As apposed to elements of say, Anarchism, which reject Unionism on a philosophical principle rather then on Historical and Material conditions.


Left communists are not all libertarians as well. I call myself a Libertarian. I think it's these kind of generalization which the left com movement tried to get away from i.e. all Communists being synonymous with Bolshevism.


What is the difference between Left Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism? I think the big thing is the negation of this idea that you can build the kernel of the new society in the shell of old. Gilles Dauve writes a good little piece on Anarchist - Syndicalism here,

“‘You can’t destroy a society by using the organs which are there to preserve it (..) any class who wants to liberate itself must create its own organ’, H. Lagardelle wrote in 1908, without realizing that his critique could be applied as much to the unions (including a supposed revolutionary syndicalist French CGT on a fast road to bureaucratisation and class collaboration) as to the parties of the Second International. Revolutionary syndicalism discarded the voter and preferred the producer: it forgot that bourgeois society creates and lives off both. Communism will go beyond both.”

Furthermore he argues that “the purpose of the old labour movement was to take over the same world and manage it in a new way: putting the idle to work, developing production, introducing workers’ democracy (in principle, at least). Only a tiny minority, ‘anarchist’ as well as ‘marxist’, held that a different society meant the destruction of the State, commodity and wage labour, although it rarely defined this as a process, rather as a programme to be put into practice after the seizure of power.

I have my own ideas on Anarchist - Syndicalism, you can message me if you want to debate or talk.

Here is a lengthy chronological sample of statements on anarchism coming out of the council communist tradition. Ask me if something is unclear. (My comments are not meant to express agreement or disagreement on my part.)

1) Pannekoek's 1909 article “Tactical differences in the Labor Movement” talked about anarchism at some length in the context of discussing Marxist revisionism, rejecting both anarchism and revisionism as one-sided in the sense that revisionism focuses solely on "day to day action" while anarchism looks only toward the "final objective" and simply sees reforms as dangerous for lulling the workers into submission. (Bricianer, Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils, 86) Pannekoek is critical of both "individualistic" and "revolutionary unionist" anarchism for proclaiming “the perfect autonomy of the individual” as their goal. Summing up, he claims that

Pannekoek wrote:

Anarchism is lower middle class ideology gone mad; revisionism, the same ideology with its teeth drawn. (92)2) Here is Gorter, in “Imperialism, the World War and Social Democracy” (1914):
Gorter wrote:

There are social democrats who call our position on the national and international general strike syndicalist and even anarchosyndicalist, because such a strike was defended by these tendencies. The difference between us and the syndicalists and anarchosyndicalists is as follows: in the parliamentary struggle, we have seen and still see a powerful weapon, the same as in the political struggle, the proletarian struggle which embraces everything. This is so, naturally, as long as the struggle is waged in a strictly revolutionary way and in harmony and cooperation with mass action. There is also one other difference: the anarchists and syndicalists were propagandizing for the general strike when neither the productive forces nor the conditions of production, nor the workers organizations, were mature; we, on the other hand, are propagandizing for the general strike now, when England and Germany are materially ripe and world imperialism is attacking the world proletariat—against the consortia and the trusts, against the imperialism of all governments, with millions of organized workers. The value and the importance of a propaganda campaign and of its ideas depend only upon the moment when the campaign is conducted. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/gort2.htm)3) Here is Pannekoek in "World Revolution and Communist Tactics" (1920) on anarchists and the Second International:
Pannekoek wrote:

When the Second International arose as a loose federation of the latter [trade unions and Social Democratic parties] , it did in fact still have to combat tradition in the form of anarchism; but the legacy of the First International already formed its undisputed tactical base. Today, every communist knows why these methods of struggle were necessary and productive at that time: when the working class is developing within ascendant capitalism, it is not yet capable of creating organs which would enable it to control and order society, nor can it even conceive the necessity of doing so. It must first orientate itself mentally and learn to understand capitalism and its class rule. The vanguard of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party, must reveal the nature of the system through its propaganda and show the masses their goals by raising class demands. It was therefore necessary for its spokesmen to enter the parliaments, the centres of bourgeois rule, in order to raise their voices on the tribunes and take part in conflicts between the political parties. (http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm)Despite his criticism of the anarchists here, Paul Mattick claims that Pannekoek did not push for their expulsion from the Second International:

Mattick wrote:

He opposed the exclusion of the Anarchists from the International and his experiences as a member of Parliament led him to reject parliamentarism as a weapon of social emancipation. (http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/2379/pmpann.htm)4) Here is Jan Appel of the KAPD at the Third Congress of the Third International (1921):
Appel wrote:

In France, in Spain, in Italy, even in America we find syndicalists and anarchists. Perhaps someone will cry out: 'Yes! You are an anarchist, a syndicalist!' Let us dwell for a moment on these matters. It will be necessary to recognise that the most revolutionary elements of the working class have for many years been found amongst such people. We know of course, that they do not recognise the class struggle in conscious terms, the organised class struggle. But is it not the case, Comrades, that they entered history prematurely, their tactics were predated by decades? The methods adopted by the old workers' movement in Germany etc. were correct for that time but now, in the period of collapse, now the method of direct struggle is relevant. And these workers, these anarchists and syndicalists of the world, they do not have the experience of the collective strength and support that a workers' movement can bring to bear. In such a situation it is necessary for the Communists to intervene and to teach them how to lead the struggle, how to concentrate their forces. It is they who should bring them the form of organisation which they need in order that they may combine their ranks and within which they can unite. These same elements, however, demand that such a thorough break is made with all bourgeois remnants, that it will no longer be possible to return to the bourgeois path. All those workers who have joined the anarchist and syndicalist camp have been provoked by the betrayal of the parliamentary leaders. But at least they have recognised how serious have been the errors committed by the parliamentary workers' movement. Our task therefore must be to draw them once again out of their present allegiance, and that means that it should be a matter of concern for Communists if they find themselves unable to devote themselves to this work. Indeed it is not even a matter just of this, since for Communists it is no longer merely a question of principle whether or not one rejects parliamentarism, whether or not one rejects the trades union movement: today these matters have become to a far greater degree than ever before, practical questions, and today history has placed them firmly on the agenda, has presented them for solution. If we observe matters in this way, we can see that it is precisely in America and the West European countries that large workers' organisations are to be found which demand an anti-parliamentary policy and a break with the trades union movement. (http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm)5) Here is a KAPD report on the Third Congress of the Third International (1921):
KAPD wrote:

We devoted our greatest efforts to the second task mentioned above (establishing an opposition). In the course of our discussions with the delegations from Bulgaria, Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, England, Glasgow, the Bulgarian Group and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), it became clear that we share some points in common with all these groups. The “Bulgarian Lefts” are closest to our positions. Their understanding of the Mexican situation is exactly the same as ours. The Bulgarian organizations are not actual “unions”, but coordinating bodies composed of syndicalists, anarchists and shop stewards. The relation between these organizations and the party is more or less such as we have tried to achieve: it is the party which directs the movement. After the Bulgarian comrades, it was the Spanish comrades [CNT] whose positions were closest to ours. They understood us perfectly. There is just one problem: the concept of the need for a political organization has yet to be generally accepted in Spain; but it is gaining ground. The comrades find themselves beyond trade unionism, on the road to communism. Their organization has 1,100,000 members: approximately 50% of all the organized workers in Spain. (http://us.share.geocities.com/collectiveact/dauve11.htm)6) The article “Marxism and Anarchism” from International Council Correspondence (edited by Paul Mattick) from 1935 is signed "W.R.B." I don't know who this is. In any case, it seems to represent the general council communist view in the 1930's. It criticizes anarchist federalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with labor-time accounting throughout a rationally planned economy:
W.R.B. wrote:

By federalism the anarchists conceive a society based on collectivism, e.g. they visualize economic independence and personal liberty as existing only in the loose connection of autonomous communities. No government or council shall have the right to intervene in or question the management of any community or the methods of production and distribution. (International Council Correspondence No. 9, July 1935, 7.)7) Paul Mattick's “The Civil War in Spain” (1936) is an extended analysis of the Spanish situation. Mattick's analysis is different from that of the Italian Left journal Bilan in that he sees the anti-fascist struggle as forced on the workers and does not call for desertion:
Mattick wrote:

. . . it is idle to ask whether the Spanish workers under the present conditions should fight against fascism and for bourgeois democracy or not. So far as the workers are concerned, regardless of the organization to which they belong or of their ideological position, regardless of whether they take up for bourgeois-democratic, state-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist or communist goals, they are obliged to fight against fascism if they want not only to ward off the further worsening of their wretched position, but even to remain alive. (International Council Correspondence 2(11), October 1936, 13-14)Mattick wrote:

Anchored in this organization [CNT] is the conception, however often it may have been violated, that the revolution can be made only from below, thru the spontaneous action and the self-initiative of the workers. Parliamentarism and labor-leader economy is looked upon as labor fakery, and state capitalism is set on the same plane with any other kind of exploitation society. In the course of the present civil war, anarcho-syndicalism has been the most forward-driving revolutionary element, endeavoring to convert the revolutionary phrase into reality. (21) 8) The council communist Group of International Communists of Holland (GIC), in their 1937 article “Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution," took up the theme of anarchist federalism, which the council communists linked to the backward conditions of Spain. The article criticized a utopian federalism that was giving way to a dangerous form of centralism (the power of union leaders) in response to actual conditions. Also, the GIC's focus on economic reorganization is typical in that the GIC's 1930 text Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution (http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm) was considered fundamental by both the GIC and the American Groups of Council Communists:
GIC wrote:

There is a close relationship between the syndicalists and the bolsheviki in this respect: their main interest centers around the technical organization of production. The only difference between the two conceptions is the greater naivete of the syndicalists. Both try to evade the question of the formation of new economic laws of motion. The bolsheviki are only capable of answering concretely the question of technical organization, which means absolute centralization under the management of a dictatorial apparatus. The syndicalists, on the other hand, in their desire for “independence of single enterprises” cannot solve even this problem. In reality, when encountering this problem, they sacrifice the right of self-determination of the workers in trying to solve it. (International Council Correspondence 3(5&6), June 1937, 22)9) Henk Canne-Meijer's 1938 text "The Origins of the Movement for Workers' Councils in Germany" mentions anarchism:
Canne-Meijer wrote:

The leadership of the KPD saw in this anti-parliamentarism, not a revival of revolutionary thought, but a 'regression' to Trade Unionist and even Anarchist ideas, which in their mind belonged to the beginnings of industrial capitalism. But in truth the anti-parliamentarism of the new current had not much in common with 'revolutionary syndicalism' and 'anarchism'. It even represented its negation. While the anti-parliamentarism of the libertarians centred on the rejection of political power, and in particular, rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat, the new current considered anti-parliamentarism a necessary condition for the taking of political power . . . . The history of our times has shown that the suppression of private property does not necessarily mean the end of exploitation.

The Anarchist movement understood this fact much sooner than the Marxists, and its theoreticians have given it careful attention. In the last analysis, they came to the same conclusion. But whereas the Marxists (Social Democrats or Bolsheviks) wanted to put capitalism, which had reached the monopoly stage, under the so called workers state, without changing anything fundamental in its mechanism, the Anarchists advocated a federation of free communes and rejected every form of state. (http://www.kurasje.org/arkiv/3000t.htm)10) In 1939 Paul Mattick revisited the experience of the Spanish revolution, attributing the failure of the Spanish anarchists much more to the conditions of the civil war than to any flaws of anarchist ideology:
Mattick wrote:

It is often thought that the anarchists had to retreat before the governmental forces, and cooperate with them, because they failed to establish their own political power instruments. It is assumed that the anarchists did not pay sufficient attention to the political needs of the revolution, because they were convinced that whoever controls industry also controls society, and that the real power was already transferred to the workers and their syndicates, and that, under such conditions, even the participation in the government was no break with anarchist principles, as this political government had already been reduced to a mere extension of the economic government. However, the truth of the matter is that in the beginning, the anarchists had both political and economic power, the former being expressed in the armed workers and the temporary disappearance of the official government. They did not choose between the one or the other set of powers, but sacrificed both in the interest of anti-fascist harmony. (“The Concentration Camp Grows.” Living Marxism 4(6), April 1939, 172.)11) Pannekoek, in a 1948 letter to the Australian publisher of his book Workers' Councils, writes about anarchism in a way that is somewhat reminiscent of his more traditional 1909 comments, but also somewhat more open to what he sees as the growing appeal of anarchism. He nonetheless comments that

Pannekoek wrote:

the old pure anarchist doctrine is too narrow to be of value for the workers’ class struggle now. (Bricianer, 259)

[Savage]

I wouldn't take Goldner as an authority figure on left communism. He calls himself a Luxemburgist too and generally rejects Council Communism, while espousing the JFT.

To be fare, it's probably best to take the 'Luxemburgist' stuff in context,

''I think I would probably come pretty close to calling myself a Luxemburgist as well. But there are important differences between left communism and Luxemburgism, so I stick with left communism.''

And it seems he also later called himself a Bordigist. I think it's pretty certain that he is a left communist, rejecting council communism doesn't expel you from the order, bordigists generally rejected council communism (and vice versa).

[Paulappaul]

My point being Savage is that Goldner isn't a pure Left Communist. Not like some of the folks in the ICC, ICT or the other number of Internationals who actually do care alot about keeping theory as clean and dogmatic as possible. The fact that he is pretty flexible, level headed, the qualities of any good writter who recongizes that any one idelogy isn't right puts him on the sidelines of the current. Contrary to alot of Left Coms who shriek at the thought of incorporating the Johnson Forester Tendency or a number of other Post - Trotskyists groups (Socialisme ou Barbarie as well as alot of other groups around the New Left and the May 68 and "autonomist events"), Goldner incorporates them into his analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Hmm.. and I suppose you're a Nationalist. Oh wait that would be talking out of my ass!

Hey Paulappaul.

I wasn't aware that you'd changed you tendency. Last I heard you were a De Leonist.

I haven't been a nationalist since 1979, I don't think. You however have been both a De Leonist and a 'Libertarian Marxist' (whatever one of those is) in the last 12 months.

With regards to this then:

Paulappaul: "...with regards to this,
Quote:
Left communists trace their origins to the fractions expelled from the CI. I don't know any who don't. Why the question, has someone been calling you names?
No I defiantly consider my self a Libertarian Marxist, but I am frequently confused with the qualifications for being "left communist" i.e. does it mean you have to be expelled from the Third International? Or is it ideological?..."

from 3 months ago, I guess you've sorted out your confusions and changed your stance then?




To whoever I said that Paulappaul wasn't a Left Communist to, apparently I was wrong and he is, having recently become one.

[black magick hustla]

Johnson Forester Tendency

I don't think this is true. I for one, sympathisize with the early johnsonites, especially on the race question.

[Paulappaul]

What's not true? I totally agree with their points. I've meet many ICC members online and in person who flip shit whenever you try to combine this kind of Trots with Left Communism.

[black magick hustla]

i think the point is that a lot of trot splits were very confused in many issues. i think sometimes a lot of people have problems with "eclectisism". i didnt understand why people flipped the shit out of it, until i went to college and saw black panther anarchists.

[Paulappaul]

Hmm.. we have alot of Black Panther Anarchists in Portland, except they are usually in there 30s and 40s. I don't see what the big deal is. Honestly, I'm not one to judge, I don't consider myself a hardline anything.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, you still haven't given anything close to a concrete example of anything going on in the world that you support.

How has the left's habit of giving "concrete examples" abstractly that they "support" gone over? These sects trying to compete over the radical chic student millieu over the right moralism in Libya is surely helping the workers in Libya and elsewhere, you are absolutely correct. Why, I can't possibly see why any thinker would regard this self-serving, fully-isolated-from-the-class, airily-abstract "position-taking" to be pointless. Nope, nosiree.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One is a branch of Marxism. The other is not.

[Leo]

My understanding was that it is agreed policy for members of the ICC not to join a union, their thinking being it will make their anti-union position clearer. But that if a member job depended on joining the union like in a closed shop situation then they are allowed to.

Well, members can join for professional reasons in general although if this is not the case they are expected not to. What we categorically reject is doing political work within the unions.


What's not true? I totally agree with their points. I've meet many ICC members online and in person who flip shit whenever you try to combine this kind of Trots with Left Communism.


The Johnson-Forest Tendency split from Trotskyism over the question of the Trotskyism's support of WW2. In this sense the ICC does and always has regarded this historical current as a part of the internationalist movement. I personally found the book called the Black Jacobins written by C.L.R James (Johnson) to be quite a valuable work. Organizationally, Raya Dunayevskaya's (Forest) current has proven to be the more enduring one. Our organization in the United States had some organic roots in Dunayevskaya's group when it was formed (similarly to our organization in Britain having some organic roots in Dunayevskaya groups sorta counterpart in the UK - Solidarity). Even today we have fraternal relationships with at least one of the groups coming from the self-described Marxist-Humanist groups in the US. Obviously this historical current is one we have many criticisms of and they were certainly not left communists, we would regard them as revolutionaries.

So I don't know who the ICC members you've encountered "flipping shit" about the Johnson-Forest tendency here, and I am extremely curious to who it was you met in person in Portland - being the only ICC member who've been there in the recent years to my knowledge, and not having met you or talked to anyone about the Johnson-Forest tendency.

[jake williams]

How has the left's habit of giving "concrete examples" abstractly that they "support" gone over? These sects trying to compete over the radical chic student millieu over the right moralism in Libya is surely helping the workers in Libya and elsewhere, you are absolutely correct. Why, I can't possibly see why any thinker would regard this self-serving, fully-isolated-from-the-class, airily-abstract "position-taking" to be pointless. Nope, nosiree.
Well, given that left communists don't seem to actually do anything, "position-taking" seemed to be about as good as it got. That said, I appreciated being given an actual answer.

[Paulappaul]

Obviously this historical current is one we have many criticisms of and they were certainly not left communists, we would regard them as revolutionaries.I think turns it into a more personal debate, the original point was, can someone be an authority figure or a leading theoretician within the current if they have extreme sympathies with other Communist groups. This is why Noam Chomsky is scarcely regarded as a leading theoretical figure of Anarchism, because he has alot of sympathies with Liberalism and with Council Communism.


So I don't know who the ICC members you've encountered "flipping shit" about the Johnson-Forest tendency here, and I am extremely curious to who it was you met in person in Portland - being the only ICC member who've been there in the recent years to my knowledge, and not having met you or talked to anyone about the Johnson-Forest tendency. Libcom's profile thing isn't working to well so I can't pull up comments I have mostly seen there. When I said "flipping shit" I meant not as a theory for its content, but whether or not it can be tied or placed alongside Left Communism.

[Kadir Ateş]

I would be more curious to know the different influences the left communists of RevLeft draw from, as it is a fairly rich tendency theoretically-speaking. Why not say a few words and what attracted you to a particular theorist or theorists?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, given that left communists don't seem to actually do anything, "position-taking" seemed to be about as good as it got. That said, I appreciated being given an actual answer.

I think that left communists do things. They have organizations and literature and i've read about them agitating in certain strikes and stuff.

[Paulappaul]

I would be more curious to know the different influences the left communists of RevLeft draw from, as it is a fairly rich tendency theoretically-speaking. Why not say a few words and what attracted you to a particular theorist or theorists?

I think it is important to recognize Left Communism as a current which is not entirely consistent or fluid. This has to I think with the contradictory conditions for which it arose. It's important to understand this when looking at the way in which we approach Class Struggle. For example when Explosive Situation says,


I think that left communists do things. They have organizations and literature and i've read about them agitating in certain strikes and stuff.

This is certainty true, but because we aren't really consistent we approach Strikes in different fashions. From what I read the ICC does alot of these open assemblies and educational seminars characteristic I think of the British group "the commune". Loren Goldner writes a good piece on an ICC member which inspired workers' to pursue forms outside Union jurisdiction. I think its called Boston Public Workers in ferment or something. Alot of their activities here were educational and agitational rather then organizational.

When public workers in a school threatened to go on Strike here in Portland the Left Com group I from was much more organizational then educational. We went to the Students and set up a Student government with them, provided them with supplies and tools necessary for their future self action. We dropped Banners and inspired them to do Direct Actions of their own. We went to the Workers and agitatied them to take up Direct Action tactics, to yell down the administration and to not give into Austerity Measures. The Union freaked out over our activity's, they told them " don't talk to outside Political Groups". The administrative faculty hired security and scabs to keep us off the campus.

So what happened? The students organized their own Walk out march through the campus. We organized the Left Wing of other unions, as well as a number of Political groups into a flying picket. The workers went to the 11th hour before the Strike and the school capitulated to their demands plus more.

Was it Left Communist to do that? Maybe. We didn't have to educate much on the character of the Union, the workers knew their Union was shit. It wasn't that it wasn't in their interests, contrary I think, it was in their interests but it was scared. It was to tied to regulations, it was to scared of losing more so it could settle for keeping the same lousy conditions the workers had. Marx said the duty of Communists was to draw together the activity's and interests of the Working Class beyond their individual workplaces. This is what we did. We contributed here in small way to the development of class in and for itself, by uniting it in its common principles. Paul Mattick in the United Workers' Party I think had the most enlightned perspective on the duty of Communists. For the UWP, the job of the Vanguard was to tell the working class of their historical legacy and to provide them with the tools to achieve that legacy. He said it is their job simply to say to the workers, that it will be your own self activity that will get you the goods. To quote "the job the revolutionary communist party is to show by example". This is the principle of our Left Communist group, to show solidarity by example.

So Kadir, to your original question, Pannekoek was my first Introduction to Communism outside of Marx. I fell in life love with his style and have been a Left Communist ever since.

[Savage]

I think turns it into a more personal debate, the original point was, can someone be an authority figure or a leading theoretician within the current if they have extreme sympathies with other Communist groups. This is why Noam Chomsky is scarcely regarded as a leading theoretical figure of Anarchism, because he has alot of sympathies with Liberalism and with Council Communism.

I don't think this is an adequate comparison, Loren Goldner maintains left communist positions and is widely considered to be the most prominent left communist theoretician, basically since the death of Paul Mattick. I've never seen anyone (other than maybe you in this thread) deny the left communist character of Goldner's politics, the left communist groups that have gotten into hostile relations with him have not done so from an anti-dogmatic position. Chomsky isn't a considered a class struggle (or communist) anarchist for obvious reasons.

[Paulappaul]

I don't think this is an adequate comparison, Loren Goldner maintains left communist positions and is widely considered to be the most prominent left communist theoretician, basically since the death of Paul Mattick.Where? I would think you know, Cajo Brendel, would have been the most prominent.


I've never seen anyone (other than maybe you in this thread) deny the left communist character of Goldner's politicsThe fuck you talking about? I never said that. I think my exact words which you skimmed over was


Goldner isn't a pure Left Communist.... The fact that he is pretty flexible, level headed, the qualities of any good writter who recongizes that any one idelogy isn't right puts him on the sidelines of the current.To continue,


Chomsky isn't a considered a class struggle (or communist) anarchist for obvious reasons. Many Anarchists defend Chomsky as one of the best modern Anarchists.

[Savage]

Where? I would think you know, Cajo Brendel, would have been the most prominent.

I guess that's a fair point about Brendal but I've seen plently of left coms praise Goldner, I have never seen anyone question the nature of his politics until you said that he wasn't a 'pure' left communist.


Many Anarchists defend Chomsky as one of the best modern Anarchists.

You: ''This is why Noam Chomsky is scarcely regarded as a leading theoretical figure of Anarchism, because he has alot of sympathies with Liberalism and with Council Communism.''

[Paulappaul]

My point on Goldner is that he doesn't accept Bordiga or the German/Dutch Communist Left, nor the ICC, ICT or IP as any divine figures. This puts him on the sidelines of the movement. I don't see what is rocket science about this for you.

[Savage]

My point on Goldner is that he doesn't accept Bordiga or the German/Dutch Communist Left, nor the ICC, ICT or IP as any divine figures. This puts him on the sidelines of the movement. I don't see what is rocket science about this for you.

I don't see these people as divine figures, does that mean that I'm not a left communist? The ICC and ICT aren't bordigist or council communist, most modern left communist groups seek to combine left communist thought, Gilles Dauve is a good example. These groups also don't isolate themselves from other communists, maybe you should read some of the ICC's texts on internationalist anarchism throughout the 20th century and get a better idea of their position on such groups (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/336/anarchism). You yourself have said that left communism is a broad label, there is no definitive left communist or left communist group, my point is that it's ridiculous to say that not upholding any 'divine figures' puts one 'on the side line' of left communism.

[black magick hustla]

Where? I would think you know, Cajo Brendel, would have been the most prominent.


brendel is dead lol. i dont think he was the most prominent. he was certainly the last of the old dutch current of council communists though.

[Devrim]

My point on Goldner is that he doesn't accept Bordiga or the German/Dutch Communist Left, nor the ICC, ICT or IP as any divine figures.

Neither do I and I am a member of one of those groups.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

You: ''This is why Noam Chomsky is scarcely regarded as a leading theoretical figure of Anarchism, because he has alot of sympathies with Liberalism and with Council Communism.''

No I think he has explicit support for Syndicalism, at least in practice, anti-imperialism and moral conservatism. He's, broadly speaking, a Libertarian Socialist of some variety. He's described himself as a "fellow traveller" of Anarchism, as anyone left of Trotsky might say.

[Leo]

I think turns it into a more personal debate, the original point was, can someone be an authority figure or a leading theoretician within the current if they have extreme sympathies with other Communist groups.I don't think any individuals can become authority figures or leading theoreticians within the left communist movement in general. Left communism is a pretty organized current with an emphasis on collective work, in general it is quite cautious not to promote individuals as authorities or leading theoreticians.


This is why Noam Chomsky is scarcely regarded as a leading theoretical figure of Anarchism, because he has alot of sympathies with Liberalism and with Council Communism.Any anarchist who understands anarchism would position him outside anarchism and characterize him as a liberal.

Nothing like this can be said about Goldner in relation to left communism. He is an internationalist. I don't however think that he is either an authority or a leading theoretician of left communism. He is an interesting left communist intellectual and contributer, one who I am rather fond of personally.


Many Anarchists defend Chomsky as one of the best modern Anarchists. And many "anarchists", like the "anarchist" Chomsky, call for participation in bourgeois elections. Now, being a marxist, it is not my place to say who is an anarchist and who isn't, but I'll say that these "anarchists" do not have a clue where anarchism is coming from and its historical roots and positions, and I would expect any decent anarchist to denounce them on the grounds that they are not anarchists and only would regard the anarchists who do that as revolutionaries and comrades.

[Kadir Ateş]

My point on Goldner is that he doesn't accept Bordiga or the German/Dutch Communist Left, nor the ICC, ICT or IP as any divine figures. This puts him on the sidelines of the movement. I don't see what is rocket science about this for you.
Goldner is definitely not on the side lines of left communism--he is a left communist, he'll even tell you so. But you're right that he does draw from different influences and doesn't see anyone as necessarily divine in that sense. Luxemburg is one of his bigger inspirations, but I'll let him speak for himself.

[Forward Union]

Any anarchist who understands anarchism would position him outside anarchism and characterize him as a liberal.

I disagree. If you ever read his work, he has one major criticism of Liberalism, that it considers itself a left-opposition to say, Republicanism, but in fact fails to escape certain parameters of discussion. So it can't question fundamental aspects of society. Its objections to war are that it is "costly" or "misguided" rather than considering the human cost, its criticism of corporations if limited to their "responsibility", both environmental and ethical, rather than question their right to exist.

These comments, and his advocacy of the overthrow of capitalism by Trade Unions, pretty much mean that the liberal shoe is a bit of an uncomfortable fit on his foot.


And many "anarchists", like the "anarchist" Chomsky, call for participation in bourgeois elections. Now, being a marxist, it is not my place to say who is an anarchist and who isn't, but I'll say that these "anarchists" do not have a clue where anarchism is coming from and its historical roots and positions, and I would expect any decent anarchist to denounce them on the grounds that they are not anarchists and only would regard the anarchists who do that as revolutionaries and comrades.

But Chomskys reason for voting Democrat, is that the Democratic party responds better to the demands of working class organisations (because groups like acord constitute their base) often making tangible benefits. Now, I don't support this political approach - however, it's not a liberal position on his part because he still sees the working class as being the engine which will overthrow capitalism.

But more importantly, Chomsky is hesitant to actually call himself an Anarchist. He considers Anarcho-Syndicalism a good example of the kind of approach he prefers (at least in historical terms) but has had close association with the Syndicalist IWW. In fact, I recently had the fortune to meet and speak with Chomsky over a glass of wine or two, and after questioning him on a paper I am writing at the moment it became quite clear to me that he was, in practical terms, a Syndicalist. Interested in rebuilding the basic organic organs of class power, Unions, Community/Tenants associations etc.

Though that's my personal view. The point stands though; strong and militant labour unions would force bourgeois partys to reposition themselves on left-platforms. The further left their campaign platform, the better. This however, is little more than a by-product of our activities. An attempt to regain support and to undermine the basic demands of the unions in order to prevent them becoming revolutionary. As Roosevelt told the Unions, he wanted to make Keynesian reforms but could only pass them through congress if the Unions caused enough trouble to "make" him do it.

[SHORAS]

I think what is being contested here is whether Chomsky is revolutionary or not. I don't think he is whether he's an anarchist or not I don't really care. He sows illusions in bourgeois democracy and reformism. He will always be a challenge for marxists seeing as his world view rests on the belief that we aren't all living in slavery or feudalism still because there were struggles and the powers that be were challenged which is only partly true of course. Practically, he wants to build popular organs which he believes will be able to challenge policy at home and abroad (in my view largely out of sympathy for the people horribly oppressed by US foreign policy). I think he once said something like he doesn't have any interest in marxism cos it is the theories of one man, which again is partly true but we all know it is much more. Materialist philosophy, conception of history, critque of capital and so on. As far as I'm aware he's had these basic ideas and practice for decades and hasn't changed. It's logical he sees bourgeois regimes like Venezuela as progressive in some way due to the apparent participation of the population at large in democratic institutions or whatever.

[Forward Union]

I think what is being contested here is whether Chomsky is revolutionary or not. I don't think he is whether he's an anarchist or not I don't really care. He sows illusions in bourgeois democracy and reformism. He will always be a challenge for marxists seeing as his world view rests on the belief that we aren't all living in slavery or feudalism still because there were struggles and the powers that be were challenged which is only partly true of course.

We aren't living in Slavery of Feudalism. And that is thanks to the Bourgeois Liberal revolutions of the 1700s, and the Labour Movement.


Practically, he wants to build popular organs which he believes will be able to challenge policy at home and abroad (in my view largely out of sympathy for the people horribly oppressed by US foreign policy).

An excellent goal. And no, I don't think its out of sympathy entirely (although sympathy is a perfectly legitimate feeling to have). He made it quite clear that he opposed say, the genocide of poll pot, but that he can't really do much about it because he doesn't live there. He can however, have an impact in the US, so he focuses on attacking US domestic and foreign policy. He made the comparison with, say, a Nazi commentator in 1938/39 who spent his time criticising the domestic and foreign policy of Poland. The guy might be completely right, but his historical role is meaningless at best, and dangerous at worst. If he were to criticise the third reich in which he lived, his actions would be more notable.


I think he once said something like he doesn't have any interest in marxism cos it is the theories of one man, which again is partly true but we all know it is much more. Materialist philosophy, conception of history, critque of capital and so on. As far as I'm aware he's had these basic ideas and practice for decades and hasn't changed. It's logical he sees bourgeois regimes like Venezuela as progressive in some way due to the apparent participation of the population at large in democratic institutions or whatever.

Well often, when someone calls themselves a Marxist, the skeleton definition they provide is one I agree with. But I don't refer to myself as a Marxist for a large body of reasons.

Only thing I would add about Venezuela is that, it is far more progresive than Colombia. Just look at the facts. I don't think anything more needs to be said, neither Chomsky nor I see Venezuela a revolutionary or even workers state, but to point out its social superiority to corrupt, murderous US satalites is an exercise of fact finding.

[Leo]

But Chomskys reason for voting DemocratIs utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is that he votes Democrat and calls for others to do so as well. I am not interested in how he justifies it. This disqualifies him as a political figure from being a revolutionary.


If you ever read his work, he has one major criticism of Liberalism, that it considers itself a left-opposition to say, RepublicanismHe himself in this way is a sort of "left-opposition" to mainstream liberalism, still remaining within its general framework.


his advocacy of the overthrow of capitalism by Trade UnionsIs simply pseudo-radicalism. Other than being utterly unrealistic, of course, his daily politics has got nothing to do with such a goal, aside from a symbolic membership of the IWW.


I think what is being contested here is whether Chomsky is revolutionary or not.Indeed.

[Rowan Duffy]

How has the left's habit of giving "concrete examples" abstractly that they "support" gone over? These sects trying to compete over the radical chic student millieu over the right moralism in Libya is surely helping the workers in Libya and elsewhere, you are absolutely correct. Why, I can't possibly see why any thinker would regard this self-serving, fully-isolated-from-the-class, airily-abstract "position-taking" to be pointless. Nope, nosiree.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I take your point about the uselessness of many of the abstract positions which political groups take. It clearly doesn't serve much purpose for any political sect to have the right line with respect to Naxalites or Napalese Maoists or even the Arab Spring.

But why?

The reason is that we have almost no power to impact it at all. If we did, as when the dock workers in the UK refused to help ship arms for the suppression of the Russian revolution, it would become relevant. At that point it actually does matter.

We do have the power to organise in our workplace, fight struggles on the basis of community organisations, obtain platforms and media for the promulgation of socialist world views. These are real activities that we can be involved in. These matter and they will potentiate other socialist positions mattering.

The ICC has a habit of seeing everything in the world as tainted with the impurity that must necessarily arise in struggle. Struggle is never-ever clean - it never has been in any historical epoch, and it never will be. If we wait until it is, we may as well be waiting for the rapture.

[HEAD ICE]

Most modern Left Communists have some form of critique of trade unionism, but the nature of that critique has subtle differences from theorist to theorist. Loren Goldner for example would probably agree with the posts by 'Forward Union' and 'NoOneisIllegal' giving examples of gains made by the unions in Sweden, but he would also probably say (I think so, I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, but this seems to be the gist of his thinking as evidenced by his critiques of the ICC and also some of his remarks in the debate on the Internationalist Discussion Network about the role of the unions in the struggle in Wisconsin) that the unions are not and cannot be made into revolutionary instruments, and need to be superceeded by factory councils etc rather than negated as such. The Internationalist Communist Tendency seems to have a similar position in that they are not opposed to people becoming members of the unions and they have no problem going to union meetings and arguing their perspectives with rank and file union activists (Again, working off their FAQ here and wary of putting words in their mouths. Would be nice if someone like Stagger Lee could clarify) but they don't believe that the unions can be transformed into organs of revolutionary struggle but need to be superceeded in practice.

I posed a thought experiment to one of the senior members of the CWO on the possibility of running in union elections to be used as a "tribune" to defend independent class positions against the encroachments of capital and their labor lieutenants in the trade union. This is what he said:

I don't think your imaginative leap would work (certainly not here since no-one would understand what you were up to). We have had sympathisers who have been elected shop stewards on the basis of a defence of the ordinary union members. They have done some good work for a time but the unions (and leftists it has to be said) always rig the next election to remove any independent voice. This is because you cannot have a revolutionary in permanent organs which exist within the capitalist framework. What we try to do is for our ordinary union members to get a reputation for independent defence of class activity in times of quiet so that they are then trusted in times of struggle. This has not been without its tensions since the pressure is always on for you to be a shop steward but I found that it also gave an opportunity to explain to everyone more of our politics (even if then some sneered at this).