Left communists

[4th supporter]

Iv been looking for a clear description on the ideas of "left communism for a while now and the internet has failed me. if anyone would be so kind to explain the big differences id appreciate it.no im not trying to troll marxist-Leninist or Stalinists.(which ever title you prefer)

[Polyphonic Foxes]

There definining belief is that they can't seem to agree on anything :P
j/k

They are a form of vanguard party based Marxism that is heavily critical of the Leninists in the USSR, they believe the vanguard party should never take part in state politics.

Other then that, I don't know, I thought they were libertarian socialists but apparently they're not.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There definining belief is that they can't seem to agree on anything :P
j/k

They are a form of vanguard party based Marxism that is heavily critical of the Leninists in the USSR, they believe the vanguard party should never take part in state politics.

Other then that, I don't know, I thought they were libertarian socialists but apparently they're not.

Left communists reject the idea of a vanguard.

Left-communism is an inclusive, unspecific term for orthodox marxists who see themselves to the left of lenninism. While there's plenty of theoretical disagreements within the movement, there are some unifying ideas.

1. The workers state is not something separate from the working class. A dictatorship of the party and proletarian dictatorship are to different things.
2. A successful proletarian revolution is necessarily global.
3. A proletarian revolution is spontaneous.
4. Internationalism is more genuinely revolutionary then national liberation. The workers of different races and nations should collaborate in solidarity towards the end goal of liberation, rather than be divided by nationalism.
5. Marxist-Leninist party dictatorships failed to accomplish socialism for reasons more complicated than "THOSE DARN REVISIONISTS" or not enough people believing in Trotsky's magic.
6. Participation in bourgeois electoralism and conventional trade unionism should be avoided, as they lead to the gentrification and hijacking of labor movements.

There are probably others but I'm tired and groggy and those are the ones that come to head right now. Left Communists are dived on topics such as the nature of democracy and central planning vs. mutual aid/parecon/councilism(all compatible in my opinion).
3.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Left communists reject the idea of a vanguard.

Left-communism is an inclusive, unspecific term for orthodox marxists who see themselves to the left of lenninism.

Actually, there's not much Orthodox-Marxist about left communism.

1. A dictatorship of a "party" and class rule are two different things, but a dictatorship of a mass party-movement and class rule are identical.
2) OK.
3) This is a slippery slope. Durable organs of class rule don't spring up overnight.
4) OK.
5) OK.
6) Define "participation in bourgeois electoralism." There are nuances.

[Yuppie Grinder]

By participating in bourgeois electoralism I mean attempting to enter the bourgeois state or use it as a tool for social change. Participation in parliament, specifically.

[4th supporter]

I don't agree completely with the idea of a vanguard i.e as in holding power after a revolution, would this make me a left communist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what do you make of the distinction between completely abstaining from elections and campaigning for spoilage?

[Yuppie Grinder]

So what do you make of the distinction between completely abstaining from elections and campaigning for spoilage?
What do you mean by "campaigning for spoilage"?
Also, are you arguing that these positions are incorrect or that they aren't unifying positions of left communism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do you mean by "campaigning for spoilage"?
Also, are you arguing that these positions are incorrect or that they aren't unifying positions of left communism?

Spoiled ballots. You go to the polls and spoil your ballot.

What I'm saying is that "bourgeois electoralism" in left-com discourse is not very clear-cut.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Perhaps it'd be easier if we narrowed down the question a bit.

If forced into a sectarian grouping I'd call myself a Marxist-Leninist, but I think that many of the best Revleft posters are ICC members or supporters. Though I certainly don't agree with them on everything, their understanding of Marx and Engels is always on point.

I'd like to know what specific figures (and works) are of most importance to the ICC's thought. I figure that will be as good an intro to left communism as any, and help me to understand how modern left-comms differ from Leninists.

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure what you mean by the 'big differences' but I presume as you're a '4th Supporter' (I presume you mean the Trotskyist 4th International not the Communist Workers' 4th International of the 1920s) and you mention Stalinists/Marxist Leninists, I presume you mean where Left Communism disagrees with those other currents.

Left Communists in general see Russia as having been capitalist and imperialist, at least after some point in the early-mid 1920s when the revolution was crushed by the counter-revolution, which the Bolsheviks presided over; so notions like the 'deformed workers' state' (not to mention 'actually existing socialism') were merely an ideological cover for Russian imperialism - this makes Stalinists and Trotskyists who support (even critically) the Soviet Union into apologists of imperialism and the left wing of capital.

That is the major point seperating the Communist Left from Stalinism/Trotskyism.

Probably the best way to get an understanding of Left Communism is to look at the Left Communist organisations.

The International Communist Current's website: http://en.internationalism.org/

The Internationalist Communist Tendency's website: http://www.leftcom.org/en

These are the two largest and most internationally-spread groups. There are other groups (different factions of the International Communist Party mostly) but these are mostly in Italy and have little presence outside it as far as I can tell. There are other groups that reference Left Communism but don't necessarily consider themselves to be 'Left Communists' - Internationalist Perspectives is one of these - http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-index.html

Main influential writers (excluding Marx and Engels obviously) would be Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bukharin, Gorter, Pannekoek, Bordiga; other notable figures (perhaps more for a practical than theoretical input) would include Jan Appel and Sylvia Pankhurst. There were Left Communist groups in the 1920s in Russia (Bukharin & Ossinsky's original Left Communist group, the later Workers' Group around Miasnikov); Germany (where the majority of KPD was expelled and formed the KAPD); Netherlands; Italy (around Bordiga and Onorato Damen); Britain (around Pankhurst's 'Workers' Dreadnaught' paper) and less well-known groups in Bulgaria and a few other place

[Leo]

Perhaps it'd be easier if we narrowed down the question a bit.

If forced into a sectarian grouping I'd call myself a Marxist-Leninist, but I think that many of the best Revleft posters are ICC members or supporters. Though I certainly don't agree with them on everything, their understanding of Marx and Engels is always on point.

I'd like to know what specific figures (and works) are of most importance to the ICC's thought. I figure that will be as good an intro to left communism as any, and help me to understand how modern left-comms differ from Leninists. I'd say the most important figure of the twentieth century for the ICC would be Rosa Luxemburg. She's followed by others, such as Lenin, Bordiga, Gorter, Pannekoek and Trotsky, probably in that order. Other, lesser known figures, such as Myasnikov and Sapranov (Russia), Stinas (Greece), Pankhurst (England), Kichoff (Mexico), Munis (Spain), Ginzberg (Turkey), Sultanzade (Iran), Chaolin (China) among others are considered to be a part of the general tradition. The ICC was founded by Marc Chirik, who lived through the October Revolution as a child and was the brother of a Bolshevik, and later became one of the founding members of the Communist Party of Palestine, an then a member of the French opposition groups until he eventually joined the organization of Italian left communists in exile. Also present at the founding congress of the ICC was Jan Appel, a member of the KAPD (the Communist Workers Party of Germany) and a delegate to the Third Congress of the Communist International. I would recommend this article (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left) for a more detailed history of the ICC and the communist left.

Since you say you'd describe yourself as a Marxist-Leninist, I suppose you'd be interested in this two-part article describing how our organization regards Lenin: Have we become Leninists? part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) and part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2).

In regards to its positions which separate it from Marxist-Leninism, the ICC:
- Is against all forms of nationalism, including national liberation and does not uphold the rights of nations to self-determination, basing itself on not Lenin's but Rosa Luxemburg's understanding of the national question and imperialism.
- Regards the USSR after the declaration of socialism in one country to be a capitalist and imperialist state, not a degenerated workers' state. In fact The ICC sees the term "workers' state" as an oxymoron and has an original position developed by Marc Chirik about the state after the revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) with its roots in the theoretical studies of the magazine called Bilan of the Italian left communists if France in the thirties.
- Does not think that the party should, in any way, take power. This is one of the principle lessons of the October Revolution, according to the ICC, as something not only against the principle of the dictatorship of the workers' councils, but also a relationship poisoning and eventually killing the party itself. This said, the ICC does have a conception of a vanguard party, the organization of the most advanced, conscious and militant section of the proletariat, although the task of this vanguard is to guide, to politically intervene in the struggles with the positions taken, not to direct or command.
- Is against trade-unionism and does not do political work within the trade-unions. Obviously this doesn't mean the ICC doesn't do any political/agitational work towards unionized workers.
- Is against all forms of parliamentarianism, does not participate in any elections nor supports any candidates. We consider revolutionary parliamentarianism to be an oxymoron.
- Last but not least, has an original conception of state capitalism seeing it as a tendency of international capitalism, the capitalist state having to expand to more and more areas of social life, having fully integrated organs such as the parliaments and the trade-unions. This is due to the ICC's specific understanding of the epoch of the decay of capitalism, given that the state, as an organ, is forced to take a more important role in all decaying class societies. This concept of the decadence of capitalism is characterized with the idea that the world revolution has become a real possibility as well as an absolute necessity, for humanity is faced with the dilemma of communism or barbarism.

Hope this makes things clear.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Thank you both for the very informative responses. All of the reading I've done outside of Marx and Engles themselves has been in the tradition of Lenin, so it's high time I take a look at Luxemburg and Bordiga, among others.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

DNZ, why do you always mention spoiling ballots so much when it's a non-existent tactic? No one practices it en mass. Hell, no one even talks about it except you (and maybe some of the guys you worship).
I'm seriously confused why you mention it often.

[Omsk]

Hello,Leo,can you answer a short question for me?

-What is the opinion of the ICC on Bukharin?

(If there is no general stance on him as a figure and his decisions,how about your personal opinion on him?)

[I am sorry if this is derailing,but on the other hand,i am not starting a debate,i just want some information,and it can be seen {The answer Leo,i hope,will provide} as aditional information on Left-Communism.]

[Leo]

Hello Omsk. I don't think we have an official position on Bukharin but he is generally regarded to be a tragic figure by the ICC, a quite brilliant and insightful militant on the one hand, and a desperate man crushed by the events happening around him on the other.

As much as we regard his position and that of the left communists on the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as a mistake, agreeing more with Lenin about it than with his faction, we think that in regards to most of the other positions held by Bukharin from the beginning of his militancy to the trade-union debate to be mostly positive. His position on the national question at the time, we regard as fundamentally correct, his position on the state was at the roots of Lenin's State and Revolution and the warnings his faction made of the danger of state capitalism in 1918 were spot on. After 1920, however, aside from a single stand on the Georgian question against Stalin and occasional declarations of solidarity with Trotsky, Bukharin was basically inactive until he emerged as the main theoretician of the new right wing of the party and the ideologue of Stalin's socialism in one country. Even afterwards, though, and especially after he broke with Stalin, there were insights in what he was saying, especially about the question of super-industrialization.

I made a post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1074325&postcount=15) about Bukharin's political trajectory some years ago, so that might be of interest if you are looking for a more in-depth analysis. And here's an article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3888) dealing with his theoretical positions.

[Sasha]

I'd say the most important figure of the twentieth century for the ICC would be Rosa Luxemburg. He's followed by others,

:lol:

[citizen of industry]

DNZ, why do you always mention spoiling ballots so much when it's a non-existent tactic? No one practices it en mass. Hell, no one even talks about it except you (and maybe some of the guys you worship).
I'm seriously confused why you mention it often.

I don't even know what it means. I know, like in Australia it is a legal requirement to vote. But in the countries I've lived in it isn't. I don't know what "spoiling" one's vote is when most of the people eligible to vote where I'm from don't vote. There's a space in there for writing whatever you want. Some parties do write-in campaigns because the state wont let you on the ballot unless you have a ton of signatures. So the option is don't vote, or write in whoever you want. What is "spoilage"? If I want to wait in line at the crack of dawn to write in "Jesus" or "My cock" I can, or write in another candidate/party. Is this spoilage?

[Leo]

:lol:

Oops :blushing:

[Искра]

Thanx for those articles on Bukharin Leo! :)

[gorillafuck]

didn't Rosa Luxembourg support parliamentary politics?:confused:

[Искра]

didn't Rosa Luxembourg support parliamentary politics?:confused:Yes she did. Many of Left Communists supported parialmentary politics before 1914. With 1914 we can talk about period of decadence of capitalism, so there was no more reforms which working class could fight for but there was only one question: socialism or barbarism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't even know what it means. I know, like in Australia it is a legal requirement to vote. But in the countries I've lived in it isn't. I don't know what "spoiling" one's vote is when most of the people eligible to vote where I'm from don't vote. There's a space in there for writing whatever you want. Some parties do write-in campaigns because the state wont let you on the ballot unless you have a ton of signatures. So the option is don't vote, or write in whoever you want. What is "spoilage"? If I want to wait in line at the crack of dawn to write in "Jesus" or "My cock" I can, or write in another candidate/party. Is this spoilage?

Re. the last question, yes. You can cross out all the candidates' names, write anything, etc.; everything done to the ballot except deforming or destroying it, and except marking the ballot properly, is considered spoilage.


DNZ, why do you always mention spoiling ballots so much when it's a non-existent tactic? No one practices it en mass. Hell, no one even talks about it except you (and maybe some of the guys you worship).
I'm seriously confused why you mention it often.

It needs to be promoted more. Those (abstentionists) who say otherwise have no right to complain about those elected to office.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Rosa Luxemburg's support for participation in electoral politics ought to lift the stigma against said participation. Didn't Lenin favor at least limited participation in electoral politics in the aftermath of the 1905 Revolution?

[Per Levy]

Those (abstentionists) who say otherwise have no right to complain about those elected to office.

xIraCchPDhk

in short, if you're voting you legitimate the system and therefore you are the one who cant complain about it.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It needs to be promoted more. Those (abstentionists) who say otherwise have no right to complain about those elected to office.
You're doing the same thing, except wasting your time by registering to vote, waiting in line, driving there, etc. A lot of oridinary people have noted how the system is flawed by massive vote-abstention, so why would they believe in spoiling the ballots? It's a ridiculous idea that you are spewing. You have hope for it?

[citizen of industry]

You're doing the same thing, except wasting your time by registering to vote, waiting in line, driving there, etc. A lot of oridinary people have noted how the system is flawed by massive vote-abstention, so why would they believe in spoiling the ballots? It's a ridiculous idea that you are spewing. You have hope for it?

I don't see how it is any different than abstentation. If you don't vote, or vote for Mickey Mouse, what is the difference. The latter is more amusing, but is it worth the registering, waiting, driving, etc.?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I don't see how it is any different than abstentation. If you don't vote, or vote for Mickey Mouse, what is the difference. The latter is more amusing, but is it worth the registering, waiting, driving, etc.?
Kautsky probably mentioned it once, so now he's riding it hard, even if he himself doesn't completely understand it (which he won't admit).
Then again, Kautsky was the one who said participation in Parliament is the true force of change.

Point is, spoiling ballots indirectly confronts an issue, to which it does not even solve by a slight chance. It's hopeless. Even done on a mass scale, it will resemble the same thing as a normal election day: "HEADLINE: Many upset over candidates and/or system, nothing new here... ALSO: A slow news day..."

[blake 3:17]

I don't even know what it means. I know, like in Australia it is a legal requirement to vote. But in the countries I've lived in it isn't. I don't know what "spoiling" one's vote is when most of the people eligible to vote where I'm from don't vote. There's a space in there for writing whatever you want. Some parties do write-in campaigns because the state wont let you on the ballot unless you have a ton of signatures. So the option is don't vote, or write in whoever you want. What is "spoilage"? If I want to wait in line at the crack of dawn to write in "Jesus" or "My cock" I can, or write in another candidate/party. Is this spoilage?


In Canada, yes.

An electoral reform I'd like to see happen is a None Of The Above appear on each ballot. I think interesting campaigns could be run on a NOTA platform.

I'm generally in favour of an MMP system, a limited but substantive reform.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Didn't Lenin initially support boycotting elections to the Duma, but later come to see the efficacy of participating in electoral politics? If revolutionaries such as Lenin and Luxemburg saw the value in participating in electoral politics ought we not follow their precedent? They saw electoral participation as a means to solidify support among the working class without losing sight of the revolutionary goal, while Karl Kautsky and his followers fame to see electoral politics as the goal.

[blake 3:17]

It needs to be promoted more. Those (abstentionists) who say otherwise have no right to complain about those elected to office.

??? I abstained last election. I've abstained twice and spoilt my ballot once.

I don't get it.:confused:

[Искра]

Didn't Lenin initially support boycotting elections to the Duma, but later come to see the efficacy of participating in electoral politics? If revolutionaries such as Lenin and Luxemburg saw the value in participating in electoral politics ought we not follow their precedent? They saw electoral participation as a means to solidify support among the working class without losing sight of the revolutionary goal, while Karl Kautsky and his followers fame to see electoral politics as the goal.
Capitalism has quite changed since Rosa Luxemburg supported electoral politcs. I mean, cave man used to cut woods with stone axe, but today we use chainsaws. Left is using parliamentarism for a realy long time and only thing parliamnetarism has produced after 1900's was counter-revolution. So, you can bragg with your stone axe of parlamentarism, but working class will cut you open with chainsaw of revolution.

[The Young Pioneer]

lol I'm curious here, what exactly would be considered a Right-communist, and who would ever claim to be one?

[Искра]

lol I'm curious here, what exactly would be considered a Right-communist, and who would ever claim to be one?If you take Bolshevik party, Bukharin's group was left, Stalin's right, Trotsky was Trotsky and Lenin was middle... Left communists is actually just a name for historical fraction within socialdemocratic and communist parties until 1920's. Today we should probably call ourseves "internationalist communists", because internationalism is core of our position.

[gorillafuck]

Yes she did. Many of Left Communists supported parialmentary politics before 1914. With 1914 we can talk about period of decadence of capitalism, so there was no more reforms which working class could fight for but there was only one question: socialism or barbarism.why is it more futile now then it was then? was participating in capitalist parliaments then less a part of the bourgeois political process as it is now?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I do not believe that history has vindicated the "left communists". On the narrow issue of the Treaty of Brest-Litivsk IMO history vindicated Lenin's position, since Russia was able to repudiate the onerous provisions of that treaty. It has been some time since I have read Left-wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder, but I distinctly recollect Lenin taking the left communists to task for refusing to participate in what they considered to be "bourgeois" institutions of civil society. As a Gramscian I endorse Lenin's position because the hegemony of a ruling class has to be confronted in terms of the existing national-popular culture. In rather schematic terms this means that we have to meet the working class at their institutions of civil society and there galvanize their class consciousness. The history of the twentieth century teaches us that, at least in industrialized countries, failure to take national-popular cultural into account only leads to a small and isolated revolutionary movement that has no relationship to the masses.

[Искра]

Before 1900's, especially 1914, capitalism was in its ascent, but with saturation of markets capitalism entered in its decline. Only way out for capitalists is to create imperialist wars. So, with decline of capitalism every idea of "progressive forces" among capitalist class have fallen into water and thus all permanent reforms become just a wet dream. So, if you can't make a reform why should you be in parliament? But Leftists are still in parliament and what exactly are they doing there? Well, today they are promoting state capitalism and national soverignity against "neoliberalism"...

[GoddessCleoLover]

That may be an accurate representation of Karl Kautsky's reasoning behind engaging in electoral politics, but Lenin and Luxemburg realized that even revolutionaries ought to be engaged in parliamentary politics, but to maintain principled revolutionary positions and not to fall under any illusions as to the limits of reform. I am not a Marxist-Leninst, but Lenin's writings in opposition to the left communists have always seemed persuasive.

[Искра]

I do not believe that history has vindicated the "left communists". On the narrow issue of the Treaty of Brest-Litivsk IMO history vindicated Lenin's position, since Russia was able to repudiate the onerous provisions of that treaty. It has been some time since I have read Left-wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder, but I distinctly recollect Lenin taking the left communists to task for refusing to participate in what they considered to be "bourgeois" institutions of civil society. As a Gramscian I endorse Lenin's position because the hegemony of a ruling class has to be confronted in terms of the existing national-popular culture. In rather schematic terms this means that we have to meet the working class at their institutions of civil society and there galvanize their class consciousness. The history of the twentieth century teaches us that, at least in industrialized countries, failure to take national-popular cultural into account only leads to a small and isolated revolutionary movement that has no relationship to the masses.Left Communists existed years and years before Brest-Litovski, where they were for Worlds revolution.

I don't see how could popular fronts with socialdemocrats which betrayed revolution and working class lead to revolution. Hm... did communists did that? Yes they did... and what happened? Nothing. Years of failure and shit politics and jet people still wanna repeat same shit. Learn from that history you are all talking about.

As Gramscian you have no politics. Just funny words.

[gorillafuck]

Before 1900's, especially 1914, capitalism was in its ascent, but with saturation of markets capitalism entered in its decline. Only way out for capitalists is to create imperialist wars. So, with decline of capitalism every idea of "progressive forces" among capitalist class have fallen into water and thus all permanent reforms become just a wet dream. So, if you can't make a reform why should you be in parliament? But Leftists are still in parliament and what exactly are they doing there? Well, today they are promoting state capitalism and national soverignity against "neoliberalism"...:confused:

capitalism was having all it's ups and down even in those times, I think. and even then, permanent reforms were just as much a pipe dream as they are today. see how free speech, something supposedly granted to workers against capitalism, went away with the start of WWI in the United States, lost the right to assemble or strike, etc.

rights were just as hollow then as they are today.

[Искра]

:confused:

capitalism was having all it's ups and down even in those times, I think. and even then, permanent reforms were just as much a pipe dream as they are today. see how free speech, something supposedly granted to workers against capitalism, went away with the start of WWI in the United States, lost the right to assemble or strike, etc.

rights were just as hollow then as they are today.
It's not about ups and downs... it's about saturation of market (decline of capitalism). Before you still used to have places where capitalism wasn't present. Today capitalism is global mode of production and you have different interests of bourgeuisie which want to sell their products etc... Since all markets are "taken" they create wars such as WW1 or WW2... or Cold War... or what we have today.

Problem with parliamentarism today is that it tend to promisse some small reforms for protection of Capital. During the period of Second International capitalist system wasn't as global as today and there were still progressive forces amongs bourgeuisie.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Blaming the strategy of the Popular Front for the failure of the anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi movement is a fundamental misreading of history. Hitler came to power because the German Communist Party refused to ally with the SPD in a anti-Hitler front, calling the SPD social-fascists and proceeding under the tragic delusion that they could overthrow the Nazi regime after it came to power. It seems to me that left communists would have made the same error in isolating the communist parties from the working class at large as did the Comintern. By this time left communism was basically defunct since its leading advocate, Nikolai Bukharin, became a right communist in the late 1920s and most other left communists aligned with Trotsky.

[Искра]

Blaming the strategy of the Popular Front for the failure of the anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi movement is a fundamental misreading of history. Hitler came to power because the German Communist Party refused to ally with the SPD in a anti-Hitler front, calling the SPD social-fascists and proceeding under the tragic delusion that they could overthrow the Nazi regime after it came to power. It seems to me that left communists would have made the same error in isolating the communist parties from the working class at large as did the Comintern. By this time left communism was basically defunct since its leading advocate, Nikolai Bukharin, became a right communist in the late 1920s and most other left communists aligned with Trotsky.
1) Problem of popular front strategy is not because it failed, but because it protects capital. This strategy is saying: democracy or fascism, whille communist answer is communism or capitalism. Still Leftists are advocating these strategies with same old arguments while they defend Capital. You don't have to be A+ in logic to realise that working with forces which suppresed a revolution and killed communists militants such as Rosa Luxemburg, is working against communism and interests of working class.
2) Nikolai Bukharin was never a leading advocate of "left communism". Also, you missed KAPD (which was large movement), Bordiga's "maximalists", Dutch and English "ultra-left" etc.

[GoddessCleoLover]

My understanding is that the KAPD began to decline in the early 1920s when its positions were critiqued by Lenin in his work on Left-Wing Communism; an Infantile Disorder. While I agree with the substance of Lenin's critique I do not agree with the manner in which Lenin, Zinoviev, Stalin and Bukharin used the Comintern apparatus to squelch Communists who did not toe the Soviet line. With respect to Bordiga, didn't he drop out of politics by the mid to late 1920s and become a rather obscure figure until he tried to revive "left Communism" in the post-Fascist era?

[Искра]

My understanding is that the KAPD began to decline in the early 1920s when its positions were critiqued by Lenin in his work on Left-Wing Communism; an Infantile Disorder.
KAPD was formed in 1921.


While I agree with the substance of Lenin's critique I do not agree with the manner in which Lenin, Zinoviev, Stalin and Bukharin used the Comintern apparatus to squelch Communists who did not toe the Soviet line.
Substance of Lenin's critique was that movement should return to positions of minimal programe of social democracy which can't be used in era of capitalist decay.


With respect to Bordiga, didn't he drop out of politics by the mid to late 1920s and become a rather obscure figure until he tried to revive "left Communism" in the post-Fascist era?He droped out of politics with arival of fascism and after a struggle against opportunists and Stalinists within PCI.

[citizen of industry]

Left Communists existed years and years before Brest-Litovski, where they were for Worlds revolution.

I don't see how could popular fronts with socialdemocrats which betrayed revolution and working class lead to revolution. Hm... did communists did that? Yes they did... and what happened? Nothing. Years of failure and shit politics and jet people still wanna repeat same shit. Learn from that history you are all talking about.

As Gramscian you have no politics. Just funny words.

As a left communist, you have no practice, just a bunch of funny words. No party, no unions, no electoral politics, no workplace struggle, no organization at all, no political program, just lots of rhetoric about the "chainsaw of revolution" and spontaniuoity to a degree Luxemburg would have been ashamed of. What's this about capitalism being more "global" today? It is global in nature, it has always been global and cannot exist in a closed system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see how it is any different than abstentation. If you don't vote, or vote for Mickey Mouse, what is the difference. The latter is more amusing, but is it worth the registering, waiting, driving, etc.?

Comrade, you are actively expressing political disillusionment by going through all that by trying to put in something like "none of the above." There are too many apolitical reasons, on the other hand, for merely abstaining.

It's the difference between political action and apolitical abstention.


As a left communist, you have no practice, just a bunch of funny words. No party, no unions, no electoral politics, no workplace struggle, no organization at all, no political program, just lots of rhetoric about the "chainsaw of revolution" and spontaniuoity to a degree Luxemburg would have been ashamed of. What's this about capitalism being more "global" today? It is global in nature, it has always been global and cannot exist in a closed system.

That's all great and good, except for one word. They don't have any politics this side of any revolutionary situation, period.


In Canada, yes.

An electoral reform I'd like to see happen is a None Of The Above appear on each ballot. I think interesting campaigns could be run on a NOTA platform.

I'm generally in favour of an MMP system, a limited but substantive reform.

Comrade, I personally abstain from municipal elections, but unlike some here I know I don't have any right to complain about the perpetual municipal mismanagement of local finances and "development" conflicts with NIMBY localism. I also know that the local level isn't the appropriate level for change, anyway. HINT: Which levels of government make constitutional amendments and other fundamental laws?


Point is, spoiling ballots indirectly confronts an issue, to which it does not even solve by a slight chance. It's hopeless. Even done on a mass scale, it will resemble the same thing as a normal election day: "HEADLINE: Many upset over candidates and/or system, nothing new here... ALSO: A slow news day..."

Who said anything about relying on the mainstream media?

Political disillusionment can have quite a range. It can be as simply as "they're all corrupt" to "we don't have a better voting system," as comrade Blake noted above.

[Искра]

As a left communist, you have no practice, just a bunch of funny words. No party, no unions, no electoral politics, no workplace struggle, no organization at all, no political program, just lots of rhetoric about the "chainsaw of revolution" and spontaniuoity to a degree Luxemburg would have been ashamed of. What's this about capitalism being more "global" today? It is global in nature, it has always been global and cannot exist in a closed system.Yes, we are against all present parties, unions, parliamentarism etc. Why? Because we are against capitalism. Since you are all full of yourself and you interpretation of Luxemburg I'll quote her on you organisational fetish shit: "To fix beforehand the cause and the moment from and in which the mass strikes in Germany will break out is not in the power of Social Democracy, because it is not in its power to bring about historical situations by resolutions at party congresses"

Which is exactly what we stand for and which history in 1905 and 1917 has showed to be correct.

Now, why are we against that? Because those organisations serve Capital - which is why we call them the left of Capital. Unions today are not "fighting organisations of working class" - they serve to bring on discipline upon working class. Various shit parties and organisations only promote themselves and to work i parties interest which has nothing to do with class struggle. We could see how "revolutionary" are those organisations when KKE attacked working class to protect parliament. We could probably find a lot of simmilar examples (PCF in 1968 comes to mind). But we left-communists are not against organising as such. Look at organisations such as ICC and ICT... they have political programs and platforms, so your "argument" is nothing. Also, there's really big diference between left communist organisation today and any other. We don't consider ourselves as organisation of proletariat, as working class movement and any of that rubbish. Working class organisations are product of class struggle (by which I don't mean on labour dispute ;)) and not a product of some nerds with Che Guevara t-shirts gettin' together. We are an organisation of communists and our job is to promote Marxism and to participate in class struggle. We stand strongly against opportunism and populism which have fucked up workers movement and class struggle with its nationalist and pro-capitalist politics for almost 100 years!

Now, stop flaming... because you know shit about me. Yes, I don't participate in parties and unions but that because I'm not a liberal. Also, parties and unions have nothing to do with class struggle. I've participated in various grass roots struggles in Croatia... They fucked with goverment and capital, because there wasn't anyone (such as party or union) behind them to tell them to sit and watch...

Capitalism is global from the moment it reached all the markets. Because there are not enough markets there will be wars all the time. Now, I really doubt that capitalism was global from the moment that French bourgeuisie fucked up their king, because Japanese people, for example, still used to live in feudalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

As a left communist, you have no practice, just a bunch of funny words. No party, no unions, no electoral politics, no workplace struggle, no organization at all, no political program, just lots of rhetoric about the "chainsaw of revolution" and spontaniuoity to a degree Luxemburg would have been ashamed of. What's this about capitalism being more "global" today? It is global in nature, it has always been global and cannot exist in a closed system.
I don't think you're aware of how contradictory your accusation it is, especially when criticizing left communists for lack of participation in permanent orgs and a lack of intervention, and at the same time claiming we lack a political program.
Left communists are not spontaneists. We merely think that permanent organizations, especially political ones, can't create class struggle out of thin air, when there are no conditions for it to arise as a mass struggle, conditions both objective and subjective. We don't pretend that we're masters of history.
Now, if you toned down your inflammatory rhetoric, we might just have a nice talk about the organizational aspects of the theoy lef communists put forward nowadays, but again, something miraculous should happen for that to be a real option, something like every fool (btw. I'm not referring to you, you might guess which social proletoidiot here is the fool) stopping with all the straw men.

[GallowsBird]

If you take Bolshevik party, Bukharin's group was left, Stalin's right, Trotsky was Trotsky and Lenin was middle...

Actually Trotsky was Left (hence Left Opposition) and Bukharin and Rykov were Right (hence Right Opposition); Stalin was Centre. At least that is how they (Trotsky, Stalin et cetera) saw it at the time.

Obviously none of them are Right-wing or Central in the sense we would use for politics in general; these were wings of the Bolshevik party which is of course Leftist.

[Blake's Baby]

In Russia in the 1920s there was the Trotskyist 'Left' (hence 'International Left Opposition' and Zinovievist 'Right' (hence 'International Right Opposition'). Bukharin had moved from being a 'Left Communist' in 1918 to being a rightist by 1924.

But the Left Communists outside of Russia were from 1919 onwards (at the latest, you can see the beginings of the Dutch Left as early as 1912). What Trotsky was calling himself in 1927 has little bearing on what the German, Dutch, Italian, British and Bulgarian Left Communists were doing in 1921, or even what Miasnikov and the Workers' Group of the RCP were doing in 1924. Trotsky acknowleged this in 1935 or thereabouts when the Bolshevik-Leninist group in Spain decided to change its name to the 'Left Communists' and he criticised them for it. He was well aware that 'Left Communism' was a current seperate from his 'International Left Opposition'. Lenin didn't write 'An Infantile Disorder' as an attack on Trotsky.

Bordiga and many of the Italian Left continued to refer to Stalin as a 'centrist' but the German Left had a different view. The Italian Left thought until the 1930s that there was a 'way back' from Stalinism. History, in the view of most modern Left Communist groups I think, would say that they were being over-optimistic.

[Искра]

Actually Trotsky was Left (hence Left Opposition) and Bukharin and Rykov were Right (hence Right Opposition); Stalin was Centre. At least that is how they (Trotsky, Stalin et cetera) saw it at the time.

Obviously none of them are Right-wing or Central in the sense we would use for politics in general; these were wings of the Bolshevik party which is of course Leftist.
I gave division from Brest-Litovski i.e. 1918. Later ultra-left was pruged when Workers Opposition was silenced and some of left-communists, like Iron Felix and Bukharin become rightists, while some of left-communists joined Trotsky because of his "internationalists" position.

[blake 3:17]

Comrade, I personally abstain from municipal elections, but unlike some here I know I don't have any right to complain about the perpetual municipal mismanagement of local finances and "development" conflicts with NIMBY localism. I also know that the local level isn't the appropriate level for change, anyway. HINT: Which levels of government make constitutional amendments and other fundamental laws?

Abstain from municipal but not others? Due to lack of party structure?

Hostility to the COPE front? Or lacking in executive power?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Abstain from municipal but not others? Due to lack of party structure?

Hostility to the COPE front? Or lacking in executive power?

There are many reasons to abstain from, but not complain about, municipal "politics."

1) Staying away from illusions in UK-style "municipal socialism" (in the 1980s, this before I go into UK Militant's municipal antics) and from Die Linke's participation in cuts-oriented municipal governments (Berlin) - the worst part being that municipal cuts receive the least public attention in any country

2) NIMBY vs. "development" are the only two substantial municipal "ideologies"

3) Lack of party structure (as you said)

4) Budget impact - check these examples out:

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2011/2011_budget_summary/pdf/cbo/2011operatingsummary.pdf (from p. 2, 20% of Toronto's revenues come from provincial grants and subsidies)

http://vancouver.ca/fs/budgetServices/operatingBudget/pdf/BudgetBasics_2012.pdf (from p. 5, less than 10% of taxes go to the cities)

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/files/2011AdoptedOperatingBudget.pdf (from p. 17, another example of government grants, this time at 12.5%)

5) And again, most important, municipal governments can't participate in changing the constitutions or fundamental laws of higher levels of government (which goes back to the first point above).

[Alf]

Sailorjay wrote: As a left communist, you have no practice, just a bunch of funny words. No party, no unions, no electoral politics, no workplace struggle, no organization at all, no political program, just lots of rhetoric about the "chainsaw of revolution" and spontaniuoity to a degree Luxemburg would have been ashamed of. What's this about capitalism being more "global" today? It is global in nature, it has always been global and cannot exist in a closed system.

At the risk of repeating what other comrades have already expressed very well:

This list is indiscriminate. Speaking for the ICC, we are certainly in favour of forming an international communist party. We are just not megalomaniac enough to think it already exists. No workplace struggle? What is your evidence? We have written at great length about the role our militants have played in strikes, pickets, strike committees, or militant groups at the workplace. No political programme? We certainly have a political platform and an organisation. We are not spontaneists. We are for the ‘spontaneous’ struggle giving rise to new forms of organisation (as was Luxemburg) and for the active presence of revolutionary organisations inside the struggle.

As for capital always being global: that’s true as an immanent tendency, and it’s what allowed Marx in the 1840s or 50s to look at the one properly industrialised nation, Britain, and say that is the future of the world. And that future came very fast: by the end of the century there was a real world economy and most of the non-capitalist areas of the world had been conquered by the capitalist powers (some of whom had hardly existed in the 1840s, such Germany). This is precisely what prompted Bukharin to write Imperialism and World Economy and Luxemburg to write The Accumulation of Capital: both had indeed glimpsed that capitalism could not exist as a closed system and that its actual conquest of the globe was now plunging it into a profound and historic crisis, manifested by the first world war and all that followed (and at the same time compelling revolutionaries to revise all the tactics that had been valid in the ascendant period).

[MarxSchmarx]

You're doing the same thing, except wasting your time by registering to vote, waiting in line, driving there, etc.

This isn't so much the case anymore; to their credit, the capitalists have made voting marginally easier. My ballot gets delivered via international mail actually to the country where I live and it's a matter of affixing postage and sending it back to the consulate. Of course I have to be registered as a voter in the first place but that's usually a one time thing. Anyways local elections are also conducted similarly in many places now via mail.

[zimmerwald1915]

What, this topic again? Oy.
Are you really going to fault someone their curiosity?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Are you really going to fault someone their curiosity?
Not at all. It just seems to be a topic that is renewed at least once a month, and never seems to end in enlightenment.

Also, didn't realize until just now that this thread was in the Learning forum. My bad.

[daft punk]

I'd say the most important figure of the twentieth century for the ICC would be Rosa Luxemburg. She's followed by others, such as Lenin, Bordiga, Gorter, Pannekoek and Trotsky, probably in that order. Other, lesser known figures, such as Myasnikov and Sapranov (Russia), Stinas (Greece), Pankhurst (England), Kichoff (Mexico), Munis (Spain), Ginzberg (Turkey), Sultanzade (Iran), Chaolin (China) among others are considered to be a part of the general tradition. The ICC was founded by Marc Chirik, who lived through the October Revolution as a child and was the brother of a Bolshevik, and later became one of the founding members of the Communist Party of Palestine, an then a member of the French opposition groups until he eventually joined the organization of Italian left communists in exile. Also present at the founding congress of the ICC was Jan Appel, a member of the KAPD (the Communist Workers Party of Germany) and a delegate to the Third Congress of the Communist International. I would recommend this article (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left) for a more detailed history of the ICC and the communist left.

Since you say you'd describe yourself as a Marxist-Leninist, I suppose you'd be interested in this two-part article describing how our organization regards Lenin: Have we become Leninists? part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) and part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2).

In regards to its positions which separate it from Marxist-Leninism, the ICC:
- Is against all forms of nationalism, including national liberation and does not uphold the rights of nations to self-determination, basing itself on not Lenin's but Rosa Luxemburg's understanding of the national question and imperialism.
- Regards the USSR after the declaration of socialism in one country to be a capitalist and imperialist state, not a degenerated workers' state. In fact The ICC sees the term "workers' state" as an oxymoron and has an original position developed by Marc Chirik about the state after the revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) with its roots in the theoretical studies of the magazine called Bilan of the Italian left communists if France in the thirties.
- Does not think that the party should, in any way, take power. This is one of the principle lessons of the October Revolution, according to the ICC, as something not only against the principle of the dictatorship of the workers' councils, but also a relationship poisoning and eventually killing the party itself. This said, the ICC does have a conception of a vanguard party, the organization of the most advanced, conscious and militant section of the proletariat, although the task of this vanguard is to guide, to politically intervene in the struggles with the positions taken, not to direct or command.
- Is against trade-unionism and does not do political work within the trade-unions. Obviously this doesn't mean the ICC doesn't do any political/agitational work towards unionized workers.
- Is against all forms of parliamentarianism, does not participate in any elections nor supports any candidates. We consider revolutionary parliamentarianism to be an oxymoron.
- Last but not least, has an original conception of state capitalism seeing it as a tendency of international capitalism, the capitalist state having to expand to more and more areas of social life, having fully integrated organs such as the parliaments and the trade-unions. This is due to the ICC's specific understanding of the epoch of the decay of capitalism, given that the state, as an organ, is forced to take a more important role in all decaying class societies. This concept of the decadence of capitalism is characterized with the idea that the world revolution has become a real possibility as well as an absolute necessity, for humanity is faced with the dilemma of communism or barbarism.

Hope this makes things clear.

so how do you achieve socialism?

[zimmerwald1915]

so how do you achieve socialism?
"We", if by "we" you mean left communist militants or organizations oriented toward left communism, do not. We're too weak and dispersed to substitute ourselves for the working class, and it's not that good an idea anyway.

[daft punk]

So how does socialism get to exist then, and what role do the ultralefts play in it?

[Blake's Baby]

The working class creates socialism.

Do you mean 'what role do the 'ultralefts' (by which I assume you mean 'Left Communists') play in creating socialism?'?

The same role other workers play in it, because we're workers. Hopefully, we'll be arguing in the workers' councils most clearly for the interests of the working class. Of course, there isn't any guarantee, because though of course we think we're right, we aren't magic. The party is the working class's tool for political combat. It's not a general staff and it's not a government in waiting. Our task is to elaborate the programme that corresponds to the working class's best interests. But we don't implement it. That's the job of the wortking class as a whole.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Noticed use of party in the singular. IMO the notion that a single party can best represent the working class ought to be discarded along with Chairman Mao's little red book and memorabilia of the Soviet era. Although I am not explicitly a Left Communist, I do regard that lack of pluralism on the part of the Comintern that marginalized the KAPD in favor of the KPD as a symptom of a lack of democracy that lead straight to the Stalinist dictatorship. The best antidote to party dictatorship IMO is for there to be multiple working class parties competing for the support of the working class. This is what workers' democracy looks like.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd rather see the different organisations of the Communist Left in a single party, to be honest (one with tendencies) but assume that this (or these) would be politically 'competing' with Anarchists, Impossiblists, hell even Trotskyists and Stalinists for the attention of the proletariat.

That's why I said "we'll be arguing in the workers' councils most clearly" - the other tendencies and currents that will be represented will not, I think, argue as clearly for the interests of the working class. If I thought they would, I would be one of them. The fact I identify as a Left Communist is because I think Left Communism is closer to being 'right' than other tendencies, opinions, ideologies or whatever else.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Noticed use of party in the singular. IMO the notion that a single party can best represent the working class ought to be discarded along with Chairman Mao's little red book and memorabilia of the Soviet era. Although I am not explicitly a Left Communist, I do regard that lack of pluralism on the part of the Comintern that marginalized the KAPD in favor of the KPD as a symptom of a lack of democracy that lead straight to the Stalinist dictatorship. The best antidote to party dictatorship IMO is for there to be multiple working class parties competing for the support of the working class. This is what workers' democracy looks like.

That, however, ignores two things, properly defining a "political party" and Marx's statements on the relationship between a class for itself and a "political party."

[blake 3:17]

There are many reasons to abstain from, but not complain about, municipal "politics."

1) Staying away from illusions in UK-style "municipal socialism" (in the 1980s, this before I go into UK Militant's municipal antics) and from Die Linke's participation in cuts-oriented municipal governments (Berlin) - the worst part being that municipal cuts receive the least public attention in any country

If we can't do shit on a local level -- whether as municipal government, or school trustees, or union executives why the working class trust us? I know there are limits and some on the left have been coy about this, but the only way we win credibility is through the process.



2) NIMBY vs. "development" are the only two substantial municipal "ideologies"

Hm?


3) Lack of party structure (as you said)

And so?

Going to skip 4 because it is substantive regarding specific policies I don't know at all and can't respond properly at present.


5) And again, most important, municipal governments can't participate in changing the constitutions or fundamental laws of higher levels of government (which goes back to the first point above).

The thing is they can. Not in current forms. David Miller and Adam Giambrone TOTALLY EFFED UP when they played chicken with the province of Ontario & screwed over the most vulnerable city workers and most vulnerable users of city programs. I couldn't understand why they did that (having a thorough analysis of reformism AND municipal-provincial politics) until I realized they were plain stupid on the issue and politics in general.


I'd rather see the different organisations of the Communist Left in a single party, to be honest (one with tendencies) but assume that this (or these) would be politically 'competing' with Anarchists, Impossiblists, hell even Trotskyists and Stalinists for the attention of the proletariat.

Yes except for the Impossibists? Who are they? Do they have any base? I looked at their Canadian and international websites and found nothing of value. I come from a USFI background and work with many anarchists, CPers, and folks from a variety of Trot backgrounds. I also work with people from different Maoist currents that are basically independents.

In Toronto socialists and anarchists are trying to do this through the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly http://www.workersassembly.ca/ I hope that it'llbe successful enough that others may emulate it. We also have a lot to learn from other anticapitalist unity projects.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Yes except for the Impossibists? Who are they? Do they have any base? I looked at their Canadian and international websites and found nothing of value. I come from a USFI background and work with many anarchists, CPers, and folks from a variety of Trot backgrounds. I also work with people from different Maoist currents that are basically independents...

Are you serious? Or are you being sectarian? Do you really not know who the Impossiblists are, even though you can apparently find their websites? We've certainly had more SPGBers turn up to our meetings than we have Maoists.

We'll have to disagree about the importance of the impossiblists. Personally I think about 80% of their material is extremely valuable. They have a weird idea of class consciousness and a bizarre attachment to parliamentary methods, but the rest of their material is way ahead of almost any of the offspring of 'Marxism-Leninism' or Trotskyism either.

[Искра]

Although I am not explicitly a Left Communist, I do regard that lack of pluralism on the part of the Comintern that marginalized the KAPD in favor of the KPD as a symptom of a lack of democracy that lead straight to the Stalinist dictatorship. The best antidote to party dictatorship IMO is for there to be multiple working class parties competing for the support of the working class. This is what workers' democracy looks like.
We advocate one party, because this is an organistion of working class which should unite all different struggles into one - establishing a proletarian dictatorship and then communism. Even we also advocate centrist party, we also recognise fractions in party, which create "pluralism". What is important here is that party maintains functional and that discusions contribute to evolution of party and not splits.

The big problem with pluralism and too much federalism is that you infect whole movement with individualism.

In proeltariat dictatorship proeltariat should rule trought its bodies such as soviets. It is a class not party dictatorship.

If we were to implement "multiple party dictatorship" we would get democracy which we have under capitalism.

I recomend you this article on that subject: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

If we can't do shit on a local level -- whether as municipal government, or school trustees, or union executives why the working class trust us? I know there are limits and some on the left have been coy about this, but the only way we win credibility is through the process.

I just think Alternative Culture is a far superior route to municipalism. It's the difference between governmentalism and opposition.


Hm?

Not In My Backyard vs. real estate and commercial "development."


The thing is they can. Not in current forms. David Miller and Adam Giambrone TOTALLY EFFED UP when they played chicken with the province of Ontario & screwed over the most vulnerable city workers and most vulnerable users of city programs. I couldn't understand why they did that (having a thorough analysis of reformism AND municipal-provincial politics) until I realized they were plain stupid on the issue and politics in general.

From the former Soviet Union to today's Venezuela, again municipal governments can't participate in changing their national constitutions.


Yes except for the Impossibists? Who are they? Do they have any base? I looked at their Canadian and international websites and found nothing of value. I come from a USFI background and work with many anarchists, CPers, and folks from a variety of Trot backgrounds. I also work with people from different Maoist currents that are basically independents.

In Toronto socialists and anarchists are trying to do this through the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly http://www.workersassembly.ca/ I hope that it'll be successful enough that others may emulate it. We also have a lot to learn from other anticapitalist unity projects.

That wasn't my post you responded to, comrade, but the GTWA would be served best by following Leo Panitch's advice and having a membership dues structure (i.e., being a party in all but name).

[Ballyfornia]

Sorry to get off topic, but could some recommend some Left Communist books

[daft punk]

The working class creates socialism.

Do you mean 'what role do the 'ultralefts' (by which I assume you mean 'Left Communists') play in creating socialism?'?

The same role other workers play in it, because we're workers. Hopefully, we'll be arguing in the workers' councils most clearly for the interests of the working class. Of course, there isn't any guarantee, because though of course we think we're right, we aren't magic. The party is the working class's tool for political combat. It's not a general staff and it's not a government in waiting. Our task is to elaborate the programme that corresponds to the working class's best interests. But we don't implement it. That's the job of the wortking class as a whole.

Sounds pretty vague to me. My guess is, you would be a tiny voice, drowned out.


Noticed use of party in the singular. IMO the notion that a single party can best represent the working class ought to be discarded along with Chairman Mao's little red book and memorabilia of the Soviet era. Although I am not explicitly a Left Communist, I do regard that lack of pluralism on the part of the Comintern that marginalized the KAPD in favor of the KPD as a symptom of a lack of democracy that lead straight to the Stalinist dictatorship. The best antidote to party dictatorship IMO is for there to be multiple working class parties competing for the support of the working class. This is what workers' democracy looks like.

But there is nothing to stop workers parties uniting to form a big workers party with factions within it, operating on a federal structure so even small groups get a say (not sure how that works but other people do).


I'd rather see the different organisations of the Communist Left in a single party, to be honest (one with tendencies) but assume that this (or these) would be politically 'competing' with Anarchists, Impossiblists, hell even Trotskyists and Stalinists for the attention of the proletariat.

That's why I said "we'll be arguing in the workers' councils most clearly" - the other tendencies and currents that will be represented will not, I think, argue as clearly for the interests of the working class. If I thought they would, I would be one of them. The fact I identify as a Left Communist is because I think Left Communism is closer to being 'right' than other tendencies, opinions, ideologies or whatever else.

Are you for real? 'Even Trotskyists'? Trotskyism is the main left tendency in most countries, it is in the UK anyway. I have never even heard of Impossiblists, and dont want to. And anarchists do not join parties. Stalinists, er well. Cough!

[Искра]

Sorry to get off topic, but could some recommend some Left Communist books
Bourrinet, Philippe
The Bordigist Current (http://libcom.org/files/p.bourrinet%20-%20the%20%27bordigist%27%20current.pdf)
The German/Dutch Communist Left (http://libcom.org/files/dutchleft.pdf)


Trotskyism is the main left tendency in most countries, it is in the UK anyway.
Sure, so are social democrats.

[Blake's Baby]

In reply to Daft Punk:

1 - yet again you demonstrate your incapacity for reading. At what point did I say anarchists joined parties?

2 - of course Trotskyists are the biggest UK tendency to the left of social-democracy. That's why, unfortunately, they (you) will be infecting the workers' councils. We'll have better arguments of course, but you're right you may be able to flood the councils with your supporters, something that Trotskyist groups do with almost every organisation they're involved with. Except the Labour Party, of course.

3 - you might well cough at Stalinists. But for most of us, Trotskyists and Stalinists are two faces of the same beast. And if you think that they're not going to be any Stalinists in the workers' councils, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

[daft punk]

In reply to Daft Punk:

1 - yet again you demonstrate your incapacity for reading. At what point did I say anarchists joined parties?
I misread your post. I have a short attention span.



2 - of course Trotskyists are the biggest UK tendency to the left of social-democracy. That's why, unfortunately, they (you) will be infecting the workers' councils. We'll have better arguments of course, but you're right you may be able to flood the councils with your supporters, something that Trotskyist groups do with almost every organisation they're involved with. Except the Labour Party, of course.

And what will your arguments be?



3 - you might well cough at Stalinists. But for most of us, Trotskyists and Stalinists are two faces of the same beast. And if you think that they're not going to be any Stalinists in the workers' councils, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
Not two faces of the same beast at all. You have spectacularly misunderstood the history of the Russian revolution and the USSR.

Stalin was the negation of Bolshevism.

Stalinists will die out because there is no point to them existing any more. They simply parrot a formula developed to justify the destruction of socialism.

I just feel sorry for young ones, what a waste.


I met this young lad recently from a part of India controlled on and off by Stalinists for decades. He wasnt particularly political, but his opinion was 'they arent real communists'.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In reply to Daft Punk's point; if it is the freely expressed choice of the working class to have one big party, I wouldn't dare to object. OTOH, what if a substantial number of workers want to have a second workers' party?

In reply to Kontrrazvedka; Thanks for the link and I will read the article when I have time, but it is hard for me to imagine a revolution stemming from the efforts a single, correct vanguard in today's world. There are so many political tendencies on the left that it seems more likely to envision a coalition of revolutionary groups than one party. Where did the Comintern get the right to anoint the KPD as the vanguard and marginalize the KAPD? We must learn from the errors of the past in order to avoid repeating them.

[Искра]

In reply to Kontrrazvedka; Thanks for the link and I will read the article when I have time, but it is hard for me to imagine a revolution stemming from the efforts a single, correct vanguard in today's world. There are so many political tendencies on the left that it seems more likely to envision a coalition of revolutionary groups than one party. Where did the Comintern get the right to anoint the KPD as the vanguard and marginalize the KAPD? We must learn from the errors of the past in order to avoid repeating them.
Those tendencies are irrelevant. Political organisations, unions, shit parties and groups of revolutionaries will never bring revolution. They are irrelevant and their only point is their own existance. Revolution will be prouduct of class struggle of working class. This class struggle will create class organisation of proletariat. Present day political organisations of left can only join this organisation and submit themselves to discipline of organisation/party or they can continue to act as "workers movement" and use class struggle for their own promotion (like they do now).

We left communists recognise the need for such organisation and we will participate in it. But we will not create it, because we are not silly people who believe that they can or that they should create movements, revolutions etc. Also, we don't wanna be in charge of revolutionary movement and the problem with the Left (from anarchists to Stalinists) is that they want that... they want to tell working class what to do...

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with the general point that a major vice of the 20th century revolutionary movement was the tendency to dictate to the workers' on the part of the "vanguard" organizations. In the most general terms, I see a multiplicity of revolutionary workers' groups that are organic to the revolutionary working class as the remedy to the errors of the past. I am happy to participate in organizations that are organic to the working class, but am wary of top-down parties based upon models that have failed in the past.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those tendencies are irrelevant. Political organisations, unions, shit parties and groups of revolutionaries will never bring revolution. They are irrelevant and their only point is their own existance. Revolution will be prouduct of class struggle of working class. This class struggle will create class organisation of proletariat. Present day political organisations of left can only join this organisation and submit themselves to discipline of organisation/party or they can continue to act as "workers movement" and use class struggle for their own promotion (like they do now).

We left communists recognise the need for such organisation and we will participate in it. But we will not create it, because we are not silly people who believe that they can or that they should create movements, revolutions etc. Also, we don't wanna be in charge of revolutionary movement and the problem with the Left (from anarchists to Stalinists) is that they want that... they want to tell working class what to do...

Therein lies a strategic left-com problem.

1) Councils don't "make revolutions," let alone sustainable ones.
2) Not "wanting to be in charge" even in the best-case scenario is political abstentionism. Even if the mass movement doesn't want to "tell the class as a whole what to do," the class usually demands leadership from its mass movement. Why do you think masses of workers turned to the Portuguese CP instead of "making revolution" (not my post) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-conquest-poweri-t167699/index.html?p=2355842)?

[daft punk]

In reply to Daft Punk's point; if it is the freely expressed choice of the working class to have one big party, I wouldn't dare to object. OTOH, what if a substantial number of workers want to have a second workers' party?

In reply to Kontrrazvedka; Thanks for the link and I will read the article when I have time, but it is hard for me to imagine a revolution stemming from the efforts a single, correct vanguard in today's world. There are so many political tendencies on the left that it seems more likely to envision a coalition of revolutionary groups than one party. Where did the Comintern get the right to anoint the KPD as the vanguard and marginalize the KAPD? We must learn from the errors of the past in order to avoid repeating them.

Doesnt matter how many parties there are as long as they can operate in a block. No good having two socialist parties standing against each other in an election and splitting the vote.

[Искра]

Doesnt matter how many parties there are as long as they can operate in a block. No good having two socialist parties standing against each other in an election and splitting the vote.
Because elections are so important... :rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

Therein lies a strategic left-com problem.

1) Councils don't "make revolutions," let alone sustainable ones.

Please, show me where the user you quoted asserts that councils "make revolutions".
To help you out with that, nowhere. It's your own extrapolation based on the misconception of the political positions of the contemporary communist left.

[Искра]

Reading DNZ's posts is like reading Eugène Ionesco, even Ionesco makes more sense and is less absurd...

[daft punk]

Because elections are so important... :rolleyes:

"Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention."

Karl Marx

[Lanky Wanker]

I keep meaning to read up on left communism. What exactly is the difference between unions and councils? I'e heard people comparing it to anarcho-syndicalism, which I know the left communists probably won't appreciate.

[Искра]

"Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention."

Karl Marx
LOL :D

Have you read this thread from the begining? Cause I've answered to this shit long time ago ;)

[Blake's Baby]

I keep meaning to read up on left communism. What exactly is the difference between unions and councils? I'e heard people comparing it to anarcho-syndicalism, which I know the left communists probably won't appreciate.

The Left Communists in Germany were regarded as being a bit Anarcho-syndicalist. There are really I think main three reasons for this which fundamentally don't have that much to do with each other:

1 - Rosa Luxemburg (who wasn't a Left Communist, but was very influential on them) was accused of anarcho-syndicalist deviations (after her death) because she supposedly had a 'spontaneous' conception of revolution - and therefore, her 'followers' must be anarcho-syndicalists;
2 - some of the Left Communists who became Council Communists - particularly the group round Ruhle which was one of those that went on to form the AAUD - really were influenced by syndicalism, especially having seen the degeneration of the Russian revolution which led them to adopt a very anti-party stance (the origins of 'Council Communism' as distinct from more generally 'Left Communism' - the KAPD were 'Left Communists', the GIK were 'Council Communists');
3 - there was a movement among the anarcho-syndicalists in Russia, particularly in the group around Grigory Maximov (or Gregori Maximoff)... I can't remember what their paper was called, 'Workers' Truth' I think... that developed a position that the workers' councils had replaced unions as the revolutionary vehicle for the working class; because it is in some ways a kind of 'council anarchism' I think it probably influenced the idea that councils = syndicalism, especially when the 'Soviet State' was based on the soviets not the workers' councils, and the Party - not the working class.

The differences betwen unions and councils... councils are the revolutionary organs of the working class. Unions are bureacratic structures whose function now (not 150 years ago however) is to bind the worker to national capitalism.

[Lanky Wanker]

The Left Communists in Germany were regarded as being a bit Anarcho-syndicalist. There are really I think main three reasons for this which fundamentally don't have that much to do with each other:

1 - Rosa Luxemburg (who wasn't a Left Communist, but was very influential on them) was accused of anarcho-syndicalist deviations (after her death) because she supposedly had a 'spontaneous' conception of revolution - and therefore, her 'followers' must be anarcho-syndicalists;
2 - some of the Left Communists who became Council Communists - particularly the group round Ruhle which was one of those that went on to form the AAUD - really were influenced by syndicalism, especially having seen the degeneration of the Russian revolution which led them to adopt a very anti-party stance (the origins of 'Council Communism' as distinct from more generally 'Left Communism' - the KAPD were 'Left Communists', the GIK were 'Council Communists');
3 - there was a movement among the anarcho-syndicalists in Russia, particularly in the group around Grigory Maximov (or Gregori Maximoff)... I can't remember what their paper was called, 'Workers' Truth' I think... that developed a position that the workers' councils had replaced unions as the revolutionary vehicle for the working class; because it is in some ways a kind of 'council anarchism' I think it probably influenced the idea that councils = syndicalism, especially when the 'Soviet State' was based on the soviets not the workers' councils, and the Party - not the working class.

The differences betwen unions and councils... councils are the revolutionary organs of the working class. Unions are bureacratic structures whose function now (not 150 years ago however) is to bind the worker to national capitalism.

Ah right, thanks. I don't know why but my brain always confuses the terms 'left communist' and 'council communist' as though they're the same thing. I understand that unions are (currently) pretty dead and even anarcho-syndicalists reject them, but how exactly do they bind workers to national capitalism? I sound like I've just joined the site asking things like this lol.

[Искра]

but how exactly do they bind workers to national capitalism?
Because their task right now is to bring discipline to workers so that workers don't rebel against capital. They make contracts and deals with bosses and they costantly stand up for defence of bosses who "produce something", who employ workers etc. against, for example, "evil forces of EU capitalism" or "evil forces of neoliberalism"... i.e. they side with one fraction of Capital.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The differences betwen unions and councils... councils are the revolutionary organs of the working class.

That is a myth, I'm afraid. Within an ad hoc but nonetheless unsustainable framework, the real "revolutionary" organs have always been the committees elected by and formally accountable to those large-sized councils (i.e., military revolutionary committees, executive committees, governmental de facto committees like Sovnarkom, etc.). The Paris Communal Council was an exception because of its small size of 92 members.

[Blake's Baby]

'...a myth'.

Yes, you're right, the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was the actual group that announced the October Revolution.

But, the actual people who carried out the October revolution were detachments of Red Guards, and revolutionary soldiers and sailors. Are these not then really the 'revolutionary organs' of the proletariat?

So not so much a 'myth' as an unclear formulation. The workers' councils are the base organisations of working class self-organisation, which appoint/delegate subcommittes to overssee the actions of armed detachments.

[ernie2]

To add to the reply about books on Left Communisn. The International Communist Current has published books and pamphlets on the history of Communist Left in:
- Russia
- Italy
- Britain
- Turkey

[ernie2]

On the question of the unions and their role for national capital. Their integration into the mobilization for wars since the First World War -in which the unions were one of the main recruiting Sargent for the ruling class- was and is an expression of their integration into the capitalist state.

[daft punk]

LOL :D

Have you read this thread from the begining? Cause I've answered to this shit long time ago ;)

you mean this?


Yes she did. Many of Left Communists supported parialmentary politics before 1914. With 1914 we can talk about period of decadence of capitalism, so there was no more reforms which working class could fight for but there was only one question: socialism or barbarism.

[Blake's Baby]

After I posted this:


'...a myth'.

Yes, you're right, the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was the actual group that announced the October Revolution.

But, the actual people who carried out the October revolution were detachments of Red Guards, and revolutionary soldiers and sailors. Are these not then really the 'revolutionary organs' of the proletariat?

So not so much a 'myth' as an unclear formulation. The workers' councils are the base organisations of working class self-organisation, which appoint/delegate subcommittes to overssee the actions of armed detachments.


DNZ posted this to my profile: I think it's interesting enough to be placed here -

"Since you (not I) brought up the subject of workers paramilitary organizations / paramilitias (more than mere "militias"): http://www.revleft.com/vb/organization-party-movements-t160008/index.html

On their own, they are more capable of handling immediate political issues, during and outside a revolutionary situation, than non-party councils. Since the base soviets themselves passed less than a handful of decrees, (from a more "ad hoc" perspective) only Milrevkoms, Sovnarkoms, and the base paramilitaries themselves are really necessary."

I have a problem with this:

to me the soviets are the organs of class rule because (though DNZ may be absolutely correct that they pass few decrees) the bring the workers together. What DNZ is arguing looks to me very like a system of 'every factory a state (with a gang of 'men armed in defence of property relations')'. The idea that each factory and party controls a paramilitary unit, without any counter-tendency embodied in a kind of grand assembly (ie, a soviet) looks like a terrible idea to me.

The working class, because it is a class of associated producers, and has common interests, is stronger when it's united. The committees that DNZ rightly refers to, and indeed the paramilitary groups that are the source of interest here, need to be subordianted to... something. That is the soviet, the expression, the forum, the assembly, of the working class, not a party sub-committee or a factory committee.

DNZ proposes a Military Revolutionary Committee of ... not the Petrograd Soviet. An independent, freelance, Military Revolutionary Committee? A Military Revolutionary Committee of the Putilov Works? A Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Bolshevik Party? No thank you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I posted that on your profile because I didn't want to be seen as derailing this thread. However, since you reproduced the discussion:

Realistically, I see only two viable forms of sustainable workers organization:

1) The party-movement (i.e., real parties are real movements and vice versa) encompassing an official party-movement and perhaps even a parallel sociopolitical syndicate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sociopolitical-syndicalism-additional-t143119/index.html), because


to me the soviets are the organs of class rule because (though DNZ may be absolutely correct that they pass few decrees) the bring the workers together

Because Marx and Engels pointed to the party-movement as that form of organization that truly "brings the workers together." Even workers councils should be direct party organs, and by this I mean re-labelling party committees and commissions as workers councils and bureaus.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-power-rule-t160796/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/deleon-vs-khrushchev-t161755/index.html

2) Workers' paramilitaries (http://www.revleft.com/vb/organization-party-movements-t160008/index.html)

No, I'm not arguing in favour of any system being "every factory a state." The base paramilitaries I have in mind are inspired by the Paris Commune's National Guard but taken to a societal level, also by the Russian Red Guards but without any party influence. So it's like the paramilitary organizations organized by the Cuban revolutionaries (then separate from the Communist Party of Cuba), or like the Civil War-era People's Liberation Army but without party influence, in either case with a much more decidedly working-class orientation.


DNZ proposes a Military Revolutionary Committee of ... not the Petrograd Soviet. An independent, freelance, Military Revolutionary Committee?

Believe it or not, it has occurred before: In 1871 Paris, the Central Committee of the National Guard threatened a coup against the Communal Council (http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html). In that thread, I suggested that the Paris Commune could have been saved had the CCNG itself carried out its threat and pre-emptively become the proposed Committee of Public Safety.

In short, the only two viable forms of sustainable workers' organization are a genuine workers' party-state or a paramilitary dictatorship of the proletariat.