No home for a libertarian marxist?

[Comrade Jandar]

I posted a few months ago about my search for an appropriate organization in which I could begin to become involved and cease my career as a purely armchair revolutionary. I've recently come to the conclusion that there are no self-proclaimed marxist political parties that I could comfortably be a member of, at least in the states. I'm am not at all interested in joining either marxist-leninist or trotskyist organization, and these two currents seem to have a monopoly on marxism in the states.

I've looked into the ICC and they have seemed somewhat promising, but they seem extremely elitist and grandiose. At this point I'm thinking my best bet would be joining a local IWW branch as they are the only organization in good conscience. I understand that it is "apolitical," but that they have a strong anarchist presence. I guess the third option would be to simply join my campuses "Occupy Club" even though most of the members seem to be very moderate and lack any kind of class consciousness. I'm not exactly the most outspoken person, so attempting to challenge other members or steer the club in another direction would be very difficult for me. Anyway, thank you in advance comrades.

[The Douche]

What area do you live in?

[gorillafuck]

"libertarian marxism" isn't a real thing. also, the ICC are not "libertarian" at all. they are left-communists.

I think you're just an anarchist. and yeah, where do you live?

[Veovis]

Marxism is libertarian, you just can't expect instant gratification in that regard.

[The Idler]

Whats the problem with the ideas of WSPUS (http://www.wspus.org/)?

[daft punk]

What's wrong with Trotskyism? Trotskyism is left communism for the real world. I just made that phrase up so if any Trots think it's shit, well, fair enough.

[thriller]

What's wrong with Trotskyism? Trotskyism is left communism for the real world. I just made that phrase up so if any Trots think it's shit, well, fair enough.

No. Trotskyism is no closer to left communism than Nazism is to socialism. Seriously WTF??

As for the OP: I've had some trouble with this and I've come to realize it's more about the people that make up the local organization than the actual dogma of it. When I joined my local SP-USA chapter, there were Marxists, Leninists, anarchists and all sorts of actual revolutionaries. Now it is made up of more social-democrats than socialists, even though the actual politics of the party was never changed. The people made up the character of the Local.

[gorillafuck]

No. Trotskyism is no closer to left communism than Nazism is to socialism. Seriously WTF??yes, it is closer to left communism than nazism is to socialism. I was going to dispute what he said, but I have much more of an inclination to dispute you here.

[thriller]

yes, it is closer to left communism than nazism is to socialism. I was going to dispute what he said, but I have much more of an inclination to dispute you here.

Ok. Fuck. Nevermind

[Comrade Jandar]

"libertarian marxism" isn't a real thing. also, the ICC are not "libertarian" at all. they are left-communists.

I think you're just an anarchist. and yeah, where do you live?

It is a real thing. The term was first used by Daniel Guerin and describes a number of tendencies from Luxemburgism to Autonomist Marxism. It's basically anti-leninist marxism.

[Comrade Jandar]

Whats the problem with the ideas of WSPUS (http://www.wspus.org/)?

"We believe that democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections is the safest, surest method for the working class to enable itself to establish socialism. "

[Comrade Jandar]

What's wrong with Trotskyism? Trotskyism is left communism for the real world. I just made that phrase up so if any Trots think it's shit, well, fair enough.

I don't see how the leaders of a social-democratic party that instituted state-capitalism in a backward country almost century ago have anything to offer us today.

[ed miliband]

i'm having very serious deja vu with this thread - in particular this post:


What's wrong with Trotskyism? Trotskyism is left communism for the real world. I just made that phrase up so if any Trots think it's shit, well, fair enough.

(this isn't even a joke about daft punk always bigging up the trots - i'm sure i've read this before)

[gorillafuck]

It is a real thing. The term was first used by Daniel Guerin and describes a number of tendencies from Luxemburgism to Autonomist Marxism. It's basically anti-leninist marxism.Left communism is against Marxist-Leninism, but it is definitely not libertarian. So the definition you're giving doesn't work. and Luxembourg was supportive of Vladimir Lenin.

[#FF0000]

It is a real thing. The term was first used by Daniel Guerin and describes a number of tendencies from Luxemburgism to Autonomist Marxism. It's basically anti-leninist marxism.

And he's about the only one to use it. Basically the only time I've ever hear the term used is when individuals use it to describe themselves or ascribing it to organizations that would never in a million years use it themselves.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Seem to recall that there is a Left libertarian current in Europe, I believe in Germany they are called Emanzipartorische Linke. If anyone knows more about this current, I would be grateful if they posted.

[andyx1205]

"libertarian marxism" isn't a real thing. also, the ICC are not "libertarian" at all. they are left-communists.

I think you're just an anarchist. and yeah, where do you live?

There is an umbrella that covers that anti-authoritarian strands of socialism, which includes libertarian Marxism, Luxemburgism, Left-Communism, council communism, libertarian socialism, anarchism, etc. According to the anti-authoritarian or libertarian strands of Marxism (such as Luxemburgism) they are more authentically Marxist than the authoritarian/elitist strands (Leninism,Maoism,etc) which I believe to be correct. Leninists and Maoists have hijacked Marxism and the radical left, Karl Marx is rolling in his grave since he spent his life criticizing these idealists and elitists and Blanquists and said "if they are Marxists I am not a Marxist."

[andyx1205]

Left communism is against Marxist-Leninism, but it is definitely not libertarian. So the definition you're giving doesn't work. and Luxembourg was supportive of Vladimir Lenin.

No she wasn't. She sympathized with the Bolsheviks but did not support them.

Look up Rosa Luxemburg on wiki, and read the section on Criticism of the October Revolution.

I believe Bertrand Russell to be correct when he said:

"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."

The same type of people like Lenin existed in Marx's day, and he criticized them, as did Engels.

This is what Engels said of Blanquism, the ancestor of Leninism:

"Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a "man of action", believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution"

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's a kinda bullshit tendency among some people to try and pull historical figures they may like into their ideological camp. The guys who wrote that book "Black Flame" did it. Noam Chomsky does it too. IIRC Daniel Guerin was a libertarian communist of some variety. Actually I think that Chomsky may have gotten his ideas related to the supposed unity between anarchists and Marxists from Guerin...did Guerin also make a distinction between the "libertarian" young Karl Marx and the grumpy authoritarian old Karl Marx?

[Bronco]

I think the problem is you seem to be looking for an organisation that identifies specifically as "Libertarian Marxist" when really it's just an umbrella term that could potentially apply to various leftist tendencies.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No. Trotskyism is no closer to left communism than Nazism is to socialism. Seriously WTF??

As for the OP: I've had some trouble with this and I've come to realize it's more about the people that make up the local organization than the actual dogma of it. When I joined my local SP-USA chapter, there were Marxists, Leninists, anarchists and all sorts of actual revolutionaries. Now it is made up of more social-democrats than socialists, even though the actual politics of the party was never changed. The people made up the character of the Local.

WTF indeed. That's because the SPUSA is a social democratic anti-communist organization. In keeping with this it can contain any kind of mishmash of ideas on the local level. The idea that it is a revolutionary party is at odds with its propaganda and activities. The fact that some self-described Leninists were around for a while isn't too impressive. The national leadership has always dealt fairly harshly with any coherent left faction.

And saying that Trotskyism is closer to Nazism than Left Communism is both untrue and a vile thing to say. Shame on you.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't see how the leaders of a social-democratic party that instituted state-capitalism in a backward country almost century ago have anything to offer us today.

The guys you appear to be talking about probably would not. Lenin and Trotsky however, most certainly have plenty to offer us. To be precise, they were formally leaders of the RSDLP-Bolshevik, so you might correctly say they were Social Democrats. But they were not social democrats -- they were communists -- and Communists.

[gorillafuck]

No she wasn't. She sympathized with the Bolsheviks but did not support them.she supported the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks. do some research beyond wikipedia.


There is an umbrella that covers that anti-authoritarian strands of socialism, which includes libertarian Marxism, Luxemburgism, Left-Communism, council communism, libertarian socialism, anarchism, etc. According to the anti-authoritarian or libertarian strands of Marxism (such as Luxemburgism) they are more authentically Marxist than the authoritarian/elitist strands (Leninism,Maoism,etc) which I believe to be correct. Leninists and Maoists have hijacked Marxism and the radical left, Karl Marx is rolling in his grave since he spent his life criticizing these idealists and elitists and Blanquists and said "if they are Marxists I am not a Marxist."left communism is not anti-authoritarian. how many times does this need to be repeated?

[Q]

Seem to recall that there is a Left libertarian current in Europe, I believe in Germany they are called Emanzipartorische Linke. If anyone knows more about this current, I would be grateful if they posted.

The Emanzipatorische Linke (Emancipatory Left) is a current in Die Linke. It is, as far as I can see, not centered or initiated by a particular group, but centered around the person of Katja Kipping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katja_Kipping) and the tendency is apparently big on feminism and autonomism.

[Ostrinski]

I never did understand people trying to pigeon hole leftist currents into ideological camps on a scale of authoritarian to libertarian. The problem is that it is too vague. The word 'authoritarianism' implies a certain relationship, but when it is used in this certain political context that relationship is not specified.

[Ostrinski]

No she wasn't. She sympathized with the Bolsheviks but did not support them.

Look up Rosa Luxemburg on wiki, and read the section on Criticism of the October Revolution.

I believe Bertrand Russell to be correct when he said:

"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."

The same type of people like Lenin existed in Marx's day, and he criticized them, as did Engels.

This is what Engels said of Blanquism, the ancestor of Leninism:

"Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a "man of action", believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution"Rosa Luxemburg was a brilliant lady. You'd do well to actually read her. But you equating Blanquism with the ideas of Lenin shows us that you're not a very big fan of that activity.

[NewLeft]

I never did understand people trying to pigeon hole leftist currents into ideological camps on a scale of authoritarian to libertarian. The problem is that it is too vague. The word 'authoritarianism' implies a certain relationship, but when it is used in this certain political context that relationship is not specified.
It's just an anarchist construction..

[andyx1205]

The Leninist ideology is rooted in Blanquism. It might hurt but facts are stubborn facts.

There was no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, in fact it was impossible because such proletariat class was not the majority, duh, Russia was not a developed capitalist state. People like Plekhanov were real Marxists, not revisionists like Lenin who twisted Marxism and Marx's dialectic materialism to justify their actions. They justified their actions by noting that Marxism had to be adapted to the different circumstances in Russia, and while this is understandable, it is not Marxism.

The Leninist doctrine is about an enlightened minority taking over state power and using that state power to develop the state, via, state capitaism, so the state can be ready for a real dictatorship of the proletariat aka the Socialist stage in Marxism.

Even Slavoj Zizek admits that Stalinism was simply an inevitable extension of Leninism.

I understand Lenin's view. Russia would be held in a holding position until the real revolution took place in the industrialized capitalist countries, specifically, Germany. But this didn't happen, and so you had state capitalism...brutal, authoritarian, dictatorial state capitalism. This has nothing to do with Marxism, which holds that the working class can only be emancipated by the working class.

The Bolsheviks were not Marxists at all, they twisted the Marxist ideology to suit their own agenda, their own vision and political goals (which, while understandable given Russia's circumstance, is not Marxism).

Marx said that an end brought through unjustified means is an unjustifiable end. Trotsky took this and said that there is no dualism in dialectic materialism hence the only thing that matters is the end since history is a straight line.

Karl Marx is rolling in his grave as Lenin and adherants of his ideology try to claim to be Marxists.

The failure of the October Revolution and what happened in the Soviet Union actually validates Marxism, interestingly. If we could resurrect him, he'd say "I told you so, fools."

There is absolutely no relevance for Leninism in the industrialized Capitalist West. It can be argued that in the third world, Leninism is a relevant ideology, but it is simply a relevant ideology rather than Marxism (that is, Stalin successfully industrialized Russia in a very short time frame, that is, making Russia closer to being ripe and ready for the Socialist stage, yet, here one must go back to Karl Marx who said that unjustified means cannot bring a justifiable end).

Vanguardism is NOT Marxism.

[Q]

The Leninist doctrine is about an enlightened minority taking over state power and using that state power to develop the state, via, state capitaism, so the state can be ready for a real dictatorship of the proletariat aka the Socialist stage in Marxism.

Yes and no.

What you're describing was an adaptation to a situation where revolution failed and the Bolsheviks had to make a lot of concessions. You could argue that Lenin et al theorised these concessions way too much (so much so, that it hurts the contemporary left). You could even argue that it is correct to call this "Leninism" in that this term became only positive after Lenin died, in 1924, when these retreats were already in full swing.

But keep in mind that this was not at all what Lenin or other Bolsheviks were aiming for. In fact, it is diametrically different in about all aspects of what happened after 1917. So, to say "Leninism is rooted in Blanquism" is historically incorrect, despite somewhat similar outcomes.

[andyx1205]

I'd also like to add that Leninism-inspired parties and movements have played a large role in national liberation movements, and I respect that. That still does not mean that they were in any sense or form socialist.

@ Q

Perhaps you could enlighten me then on why Lenin and his friends crushed other leftist movements, including the anarchists from Ukraine and other leftists that took up insurrection against the Bolsheviks?

Wiki up left wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks.

I can understand "why" in pragmatic terms, considering the counter-revolution and other conditions making it necessary to use authoritarianism to save the "revolution" though IMO there never was a revolution but rather a Bolshevist coup in October.

He also crushed the workers and ruled over them with dictatorial/authoritarian means, with an iron fist.

Lenin IMO can easily be summarized by the same quote I gave of Engels in regards to Blanqui. His heart was in the right place, his sympathies lay in the right place, but he was quasi-religious in his convictions, which is very dangerous (the means, however brutal they may be, justify the ends). This is the cornerstone of all idealist ideologies ranging from Leninism to neoconservatism to the Jihadi movement, the means justify the ends, the enlightened minority must take over power and whip a population into whatever ideology they desire, etc.

Russia would have been much better off progressing under a democracy, paving the way for a gradual capitalist development instead of an authoritarian nightmare which was like a dungeon that offered social services...as long as you're obedient you're ok. Like a prison, rather.

Building a system from the ground-up is what Marxism is about, power to the people, the workers will be emancipated by the workers themselves, and so forth.

Lenin, and the doctrine of Leninism that followed, is elitist. The people are dumb and backwards so an enlightened vanguard must lead the revolution and take over state power to implement its doctrine. Sounds like religion, hence the Bertrand Russell quote I noted earlier.

Lenin was an elitist authoritarian, and whatever "hope" there lay for the future of Russia ended with his death and the consolidation of power by Stalin.

[gorillafuck]

so andy, you will concede that Luxemburg supported the Bolshevik revolution, and that left-communism is not at all anti-authoritarian? you haven't responded to what I said.

[The Idler]

"We believe that democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections is the safest, surest method for the working class to enable itself to establish socialism. "
Yeah, this is the capture of political power, Marx supported it and Marxists support it. Its not authoritarian to do this, its just not nihilism. Why would a Marxist rule out sending delegates to parliament? Especially if they were prepared to send delegates to bodies without political power?

[ed miliband]

whether or not "libertarian marxism" actually exists (and i'd argue it doesn't) many modern class-struggle anarchist / anarchist-communist groups are heavily influenced by both marx and various marxist tendencies (council communism + autonomism + situationism etc)

i'd honestly say the anarchists i've encountered have a better grasp of marx than the (mostly trotskyist) marxists i've met

[MarxSchmarx]

CJ -
I'd look into DeLeonism. There aren't a whole lot of concretely DeLeonist organizations left anymore, but given your interest in industrial unionism and parliamentary role they may be a plausible group.

The Socialist Labor Party is effectively defunct, and from what I gather most DeLeonist organizations in America are little more than glorified websites. But I think the time is ripe for at least one of them reviving it's fortunes. I'd at least contact their website administrators and see if there's anyone else near where you live. You'll start very, very small. One can still build coalitions from small groups, make sure that even if it's say 4 people you carry the banner of the group at a march. But honestly, 4 committed cadre are worth 40 subscribers to a newspaper.

[gorillafuck]

identifying as a DeLeonist is a bad idea, not even communists know what that is.

[MarxSchmarx]

identifying as a DeLeonist is a bad idea, not even communists know what that is.

tbh, I have no idea what libertarian marxism is so maybe it works out just fine.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am aware of Daniel De Leon as an historical figure but am totally unaware of DeLeonism as a still-existing trend in the American Left. Remember taking a course from his great-grandson back in the 70s and even he regarded his great-grandfather as more of an historical curiosity than anything else.

[Ostrinski]

Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarian) aspects of Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism). Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-0) emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-1) and its derivatives, such as Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism), Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism), and Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-2) Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist) positions, such as those held by social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-3) Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundrisse) and The Civil War in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_in_France);[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-4) emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) to mediate or aid its liberation.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-5) Along with anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), Libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-6)

Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgism), council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism), left communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism), Socialisme ou Barbarie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme_ou_Barbarie), the Johnson-Forest tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-Forest_tendency), world socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_socialism), Lettrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettrism)/Situationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International) and operaismo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaismo)/autonomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism), and New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-7) Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchism) and social anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism). Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Pannekoek), Raya Dunayevskaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raya_Dunayevskaya), CLR James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLR_James), Antonio Negri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Negri), Cornelius Castoriadis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis), Maurice Brinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Brinton), Guy Debord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord), Daniel Guérin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gu%C3%A9rin), Ernesto Screpanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Screpanti) and Raoul Vaneigem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Vaneigem).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism


I don't know if all left communists identify as libertarians though.

[Devrim]

Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarian) aspects of Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism). Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-0) emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-1) and its derivatives, such as Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism), Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism), and Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-2) Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist) positions, such as those held by social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-3) Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundrisse) and The Civil War in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_in_France);[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-4) emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) to mediate or aid its liberation.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-5) Along with anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), Libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-6)

Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgism), council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism), left communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism), Socialisme ou Barbarie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme_ou_Barbarie), the Johnson-Forest tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-Forest_tendency), world socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_socialism), Lettrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettrism)/Situationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International) and operaismo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaismo)/autonomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism), and New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism#cite_note-7) Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchism) and social anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism). Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Pannekoek), Raya Dunayevskaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raya_Dunayevskaya), CLR James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLR_James), Antonio Negri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Negri), Cornelius Castoriadis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis), Maurice Brinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Brinton), Guy Debord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord), Daniel Guérin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gu%C3%A9rin), Ernesto Screpanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Screpanti) and Raoul Vaneigem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Vaneigem).[/spoil]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism


I don't know if all left communists identify as libertarians though.

Left communists don't identify as 'libertarian' at all. I don't think that this is necessarily because they are not 'libertarian', but because the whole libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy is not a part of their discourse. I think of the people that your post lists only Guerin would have identified himself that way (and he is the only person I can think of who identified that way). Others wouldn't have chosen the term libertarian, and the people from the SouB current (Castoriadis and Brinton) rejected Marxism.

Basically the term 'Libertarian Marxist' is an anarchist shorthand for 'Marxists we like', not something, which exists as a real current.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"libertarian marxism" isn't a real thing.
Says you. I happen to believe one can be a libertarian Marxist, and it's as valid as labeling oneself a Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Left Communist, or a host of other labels I've seen used on this board.

[#FF0000]

Says you. I happen to believe one can be a libertarian Marxist, and it's as valid as labeling oneself a Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Left Communist, or a host of other labels I've seen used on this board.

except those are actual tendencies with like, history and significant thinkers behind them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

except those are actual tendencies with like, history and significant thinkers behind them.
History hasn't ended, comrade, and those of us who are comfortable with the label of libertarian Marxist are influenced by some of those thinkers. Sectarianism doesn't advance the cause of class struggle.

[gorillafuck]

pretty much every single theorist except Guerin that the "libertarian marxist" tendency tries to present as one of their own not only didn't use that term, but most likely would have rejected it if someone tried to apply it to them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yeah, this is the capture of political power, Marx supported it and Marxists support it.
And we have 130 years of experience since Marx's death to show that "democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections" doesn't work as a method for smashing capitalism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd look into DeLeonism. There aren't a whole lot of concretely DeLeonist organizations left anymore, but given your interest in industrial unionism and parliamentary role they may be a plausible group.
The problem with De Leonism is that it was sectarian, believing it had the sole truth and all other communists were wrong. I say that as a former De Leonist and a former SLP member.

[Devrim]

History hasn't ended, comrade, and those of us who are comfortable with the label of libertarian Marxist are influenced by some of those thinkers. Sectarianism doesn't advance the cause of class struggle.

I don't think it is sectarian at all to point out that there isn't a real existing current which identifies as 'Libertarian Marxist'. It is just a statement of fact.

To be honest, what seems more bizarre to me is that somebody who is a supporter of an Irish nationalist organisation would identify as such given that virtually all of the individuals who have been referred to as 'Libertarian Marxists' in this thread would have certainly rejected the whole idea of national liberation struggles however 'socialist' a banner they wrapped themselves in.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To be honest, what seems more bizarre to me is that somebody who is a supporter of an Irish nationalist organisation
I'm a member of a multi-tendencied working class political party. I don't find that bizarre.


would identify as such given that virtually all of the individuals who have been referred to as 'Libertarian Marxists' in this thread would have certainly rejected the whole idea of national liberation struggles however 'socialist' a banner they wrapped themselves in.
You can't claim on one hand that libertarian Marxism isn't a "real existing current" and then on the other set up rules for who can or can't label themselves as such.

[Caj]

Describing tendencies as "libertarian" and "authoritarian" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't think it clarifies the views of tendencies in any way, but only contributes to the fracturing of the left.

The terms libertarian and authoritarian describe certain relationships. In this case, they describe the relationships of the DotP/revolution to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat respectively. Now, because these terms are describing different class relationships, one can be both an authoritarian with regards to one class and libertarian with regards to another. In fact, with the exception of anarcho-pacifism, none of the tendencies are consistently libertarian.

With regards to the bourgeoisie, we are all authoritarians. We support the violent overthrow and dissolution of their state and the forcible expropriation and collectivization of their private property -- tasks that are impossible without the use of hierarchy and the imposed authority of the proletariat. (Here's where the more moralistic anarchists say that the proletarian revolution is "self-defense," and thus the use of force is "morally justified." Ok, fine, but you still aren't being consistently libertarian; you're just making a loophole through which hierarchy and imposed authority is morally acceptable.)

From the perspective of the proletariat, on the other hand, we are libertarians. We support the liberation of the workers from bourgeois tyranny and the creation of a classless, stateless society free from all oppression.

Anybody who isn't a libertarian in this latter sense is not a real socialist, and anybody who isn't an authoritarian in the former sense is an impractical idealist.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Describing tendencies as "libertarian" and "authoritarian" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I see a difference between self-rule and rule by a vanguard party. To me, that would be one important distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian".

[Caj]

I see a difference between self-rule and rule by a vanguard party. To me, that would be one important distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian".

I think the distinction we should make is not between libertarian and authoritarian but between socialist and non-socialist. Those who don't advocate workers' control and the liberation of the proletariat from exploitation are not socialists. By this standard, many Leninist vanguardists aren't socialists.

[Blake's Baby]

...virtually all of the individuals who have been referred to as 'Libertarian Marxists' in this thread would have certainly rejected the whole idea of national liberation struggles however 'socialist' a banner they wrapped themselves in.

Devrim


You can't claim on one hand that libertarian Marxism isn't a "real existing current" and then on the other set up rules for who can or can't label themselves as such.

You can't tell lies about what other people have said.

1 - Devrim said that the socialists who have been referred to as 'Libertarian Marxists' would have rejected national liberation, he wasn't 'setting rules for who can be a Libertarian Marxist';
2 - the Marxists Devrim is referring to have not 'label(led) themselves', it's other people labelling them. Find me one piece of writing where Rosa calls herself a 'Libertarian Marxist' and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

I don't see that there's any harm in you calling yourself a 'Libertarian Marxist', you can call yourself the Pope of the Cheese Monsters if you wish, but you can't make the rest of us agree with your definitions.

For instance, we don't claim that Rosa was a Left Communist even though she was very influential on Left Communism. Because she wasn't. Equally, it's ridiculous to claim that she was a 'Libertarian Communist' - even though she may have been influential on you. You're re-writing history to suit yourself, like Mormons who claim to have retro-actively baptised the ancestors of their members.


I see a difference between self-rule and rule by a vanguard party. To me, that would be one important distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian".

In that case Left Communists are 'libertarian' by your definition. Even if we reject the idea and the label. So, in your view, it seems that 'self-labelling' actually means 'you telling other people who is or was a Libertarian Marxist'.

[The Idler]

And we have 130 years of experience since Marx's death to show that "democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections" doesn't work as a method for smashing capitalism.
It has never been democratically captured with the working-class committed to the objective of smashing capitalism.

[Desperado]

The Marxian paradigm sees itself moving beyond, or even opposed to such terms as "libertarian" and "authoritarian", which it might deem idealistic - see Engels' "On Authority" for example. The issue is that of class and class power, rather than power (and liberty) as an abstract concept. The universal and abstract quality of such terms tend to be seen as pertaining to the revolutions of the progressive bourgeoisie's liberalism with its legal equality but lacking economic equality and class emancipation. But even so, it's necessary to distinguish from what you might see as not truly class emancipatory, in which case class related terms such as feudal socialism or state capitalism might come in.

Having said that, even Marx himself used vaguer descriptions such as "barracks communism" for what I think many today would see as an "authoritarian" (perversion of) Marxism. I think what matters is that you expand upon your beliefs through class concepts, because pretty much every political description means freedom, happiness and goodness to its adherents. And to do this requires explaining your ideology's relation to various historical and present day examples.

Whether you see things this way or not, so far as a simple description goes I think the one you might be looking for and which is widely used, is libertarian socialist. This will distinguish you from Leninist and reformist tendencies. At the end of the day you have to use something which other people will understand. If I called myself a libertarian Marxist, other Marxists I disagree with might think I'm in agreement with them. For the same reason we don't just call ourselves "goodies".

[gorillafuck]

I see a difference between self-rule and rule by a vanguard party. To me, that would be one important distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian".do you consider the makhnovist secret police to have been libertarian secret police?


You can't claim on one hand that libertarian Marxism isn't a "real existing current" and then on the other set up rules for who can or can't label themselves as such.he is pointing out that every theorist who has been falsely listed as being a proponent of "libertarian marxism" was opposed to national liberation organizations, regardless of whether or not it is a real tendency.


I don't know if all left communists identify as libertarians though.none do.

[Caj]

do you consider the makhnovist secret police to have been libertarian secret police?

I believe I've seen you mention this before. Do you have a link about this? From what I've read, the institutions in "Makhnovist" Ukraine were truly libertarian in the sense that they were voluntarist, democratic, and non-hierarchical.


none do.

I was under the impression that some council communists do? Maybe not?

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communists and Council Communists are different things. We may have had the same roots, in the German/Dutch Left (obviously there are Italian Left Communists too, but the Italian Left is divided very differently to the German/Dutch Left) but the two currents diverged.

German Lefts who support the Party and October Revolution = Left Communists
German Lefts who oppose the Party and October Revolution = Council Communists

[Caj]

Left Communists and Council Communists are different things. We may have had the same roots, in the German/Dutch Left (obviously there are Italian Left Communists too, but the Italian Left is divided very differently to the German/Dutch Left) but the two currents diverged.

German Lefts who support the Party and October Revolution = Left Communists
German Lefts who oppose the Party and October Revolution = Council Communists

I was under the impression that council communism was a variant of left communism, but ok. When exactly did they diverge?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Find me one piece of writing where Rosa calls herself a 'Libertarian Marxist' and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
Since I never claimed she labeled herself a Libertarian Marxist, or Pope of the Cheese Monsters for that matter, why are you asking me to back up a claim I never made?


Equally, it's ridiculous to claim that she was a 'Libertarian Communist' - even though she may have been influential on you. You're re-writing history to suit yourself, like Mormons who claim to have retro-actively baptised the ancestors of their members.
See above.

[Blake's Baby]

I was under the impression that council communism was a variant of left communism, but ok. When exactly did they diverge?

When they decided that all parties (including the parties that they had been members of, the KPD, KAPD, KPH, KAPN, as well as the Bolsheviks) were bourgeois, and that the October Revolution was a state-capitalist coup (not a proletarian revolution that was engulfed by the counter-revolution), and all that was possible in Russia was a bourgeois-democratic revolution to develop capitalism.

Started with Otto Ruhle in the early 1920s, particularly gathered pace among the Dutch Left after 1933, and among the German and Dutch exiles in America fleeing from Nazism.

Council Communism is a 'varient' of Left Communism in that grew from the Left Communist groups in Germany and the Netherlands. But it broke with us (or 'we' broke with it) organisationally and politically in the 1930s. That's why I said the two currents diverged. We still consider them internationalists and revolutionaries, we have many former members and theoreticians in common (principally Anton Pannekoek), but we think they're very wrong about organisation and the history of the Russian Revolution.


Since I never claimed she labeled herself a Libertarian Marxist, or Pope of the Cheese Monsters for that matter, why are you asking me to back up a claim I never made?
...

You are claiming that Devrim is deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a group he doesn't believe in (which his not doing anyway), because that violates the principle that one can 'self-label' as a Libertarian Marxist.

I pointed out that the 'Libertarian Marxists' that had been named had not 'self-labelled' at all, they were being labelled by others, and if there was any 'self-labelling' I asked for evidence.

So, I take it, you agree that Rosa wasn't a Libertarian Marxist, and neither were any of the other people named as such on the grounds that none of them 'self-labelled' as Libertarian Marxists?

I take it you'll also be withdrawing your post that seeks to label Left Communists as Libertarian Marxists? Just because we don't accept that a vanguard party should take power doesn't mean you can label us as you see fit.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In that case Left Communists are 'libertarian' by your definition. Even if we reject the idea and the label. So, in your view, it seems that 'self-labelling' actually means 'you telling other people who is or was a Libertarian Marxist'.
In your view, I'm telling you how to label yourself, but can you point out where I've demanded that Left Communism as a tendency call itself a form of Libertarian Marxism?

[Thirsty Crow]

I see a difference between self-rule and rule by a vanguard party. To me, that would be one important distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian".
Historically, Marxists have had an excellent term denoting the latter, that being substitutionism. I think this term has more merit to it than the libertarian/authoritarian divide, namely, it correctly implies the political problem of a political organization substituting itself for the class, both in the struggle for political power prior to DotP and to the political structure of the society in transition, when the working class is the ruling class. What I also find useful is that it doesn't bring fruitless philosophical, speculative notions of authority and hierarchy into focus.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It has never been democratically captured with the working-class committed to the objective of smashing capitalism.
If the working class as a whole is committed to that objective, then why would they need to bother with capturing the state through parliamentary elections?

[Blake's Baby]

In your view, I'm telling you how to label yourself, but can you point out where I've demanded that Left Communism as a tendency call itself a form of Libertarian Marxism?

You said that Libertarian Marxists reject a vanguard party siezing state power. Left Communists (except Bordigists, but never mind) reject a vanguard party siezing state power. Therefore you label us Libertarian Marxists.

Left Communists reject the notion of Libertarian Marxism, as it implies that there is 'Slavertarian Marxism'. We don't accept that, we don't see Stalinism and other forms of class rule in state capitalism as being Marxist.

Personally, I don't agree with your right to determine that other people belong to your tendency. You told Devrim he couldn't say who was in it because that violated people's right to 'self-label'. And yet your tendency is built around labelling others - all those that have been listed (none of whom, except Guerin, called themselves Libertarian Marxists) have like retro-active Mormon baptisms been 'brought into the fold' by decree (not 'self-labelling' at all) and your definition also includes Left Communsits who reject the theoretical foundations of your political philosophy (and consider, at least in my case, the attempt to drag us into it, to label us as Libertarian Marxists, to be darned rude).

[Ocean Seal]

Try joining the IWW. I'm not a libertarian and I can attest that they are pretty awesome.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So, I take it, you agree that Rosa wasn't a Libertarian Marxist, and neither were any of the other people named as such on the grounds that none of them 'self-labelled' as Libertarian Marxists?
I agree that they didn't identify as such, but based on how one defines libertarian Marxism, or how broadly, one could conceivably place them in such a category. I will note that I'm less interested in categorizing them and more interested in learning from them.


I take it you'll also be withdrawing your post that seeks to label Left Communists as Libertarian Marxists?
Which post?

[Blake's Baby]

The one where you defined Libertarian Marxism in such a way that it included a lot of people who don't believe Libertarian Marxism exists.

[Leo]

Marxism can't be defined as either libertarian or authoritarian. We are for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which does mean liberty for the working class and better conditions in general for the other non-exploiting strata in the society. But it also means no less than a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and the exploiters as the name implies.

For the communist left, the dictatorship of the proletariat means what it is, the dictatorship of the workers' councils: not the dictatorship of individual leaders or a vanguard party no matter how revolutionary it claims to be. In this sense, our problem with what went on in Russia is not that the party used violence as critical as we are of the Red Terror for it didn't and couldn't lead to anywhere positive, but that they used violence against the workers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You said that Libertarian Marxists reject a vanguard party siezing state power. Left Communists (except Bordigists, but never mind) reject a vanguard party siezing state power. Therefore you label us Libertarian Marxists.
I was providing one example of a difference between "libertarian" (with a small l) and "authoritarian". I didn't say Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists, or demand that they identify as such.

[gorillafuck]

I believe I've seen you mention this before. Do you have a link about this? From what I've read, the institutions in "Makhnovist" Ukraine were truly libertarian in the sense that they were voluntarist, democratic, and non-hierarchical.yes, they are how kontrrazvedka got his name. if you google kontrrazvedka you will find out who they were.

no secret policed force acts upon the ideals that you mentioned in this post.

[Blake's Baby]

I was providing one example of a difference between "libertarian" (with a small l) and "authoritarian". I didn't say Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists, or demand that they identify as such.

So, are you now saying you don't believe there is a Libertarian Marxist tendency?

Or are you saying you think there is a Libertarian Marxist tendency, but Left Communists aren't part of it?

Or are you saying there is a Libertarian Marxist tendency and Left Communists are in it, but you're not going to mention it, because it seems to annoy them?

In short, what are your criteria for deciding who or what is a 'Libertarian Marxist', given that only you and Guerin out all of the individuals and groups so far mentioned accept that terminology (and according to you an important principle of who is or isn't a Libertarian Marxist is about 'self-labelling')?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In short, what are your criteria for deciding who or what is a 'Libertarian Marxist', given that only you and Guerin out all of the individuals and groups so far mentioned accept that terminology (and according to you an important principle of who is or isn't a Libertarian Marxist is about 'self-labelling')?
I've met a small number of people online and offline who identified as Libertarian Marxists, and we've had similar views on the nature of revolution and post-revolutionary organization, and similar political influences. It's also the case that we would probably agree with Left Communists on many issues, but Left Communists seem to prefer focusing on differences. And I fully expect you'll twist that to mean I'm saying that Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists.

[gorillafuck]

I've met a small number of people online and offline who identified as Libertarian Marxists, and we've had similar views on the nature of revolution and post-revolutionary organization, and similar political influences. It's also the case that we would probably agree with Left Communists on many issues, but Left Communists seem to prefer focusing on differences. And I fully expect you'll twist that to mean I'm saying that Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists.if you are a member of the IRSP I doubt you and left coms would get along politically.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

if you are a member of the IRSP I doubt you and left coms would get along politically.
I've worked with Left Coms before because we could agree to disagree on some issues while still working together on what we did agree on.

[GoddessCleoLover]

What Danielle just posted ought to be something for which all of us strive.

[Blake's Baby]

I've met a small number of people online and offline who identified as Libertarian Marxists, and we've had similar views on the nature of revolution and post-revolutionary organization, and similar political influences. It's also the case that we would probably agree with Left Communists on many issues, but Left Communists seem to prefer focusing on differences. And I fully expect you'll twist that to mean I'm saying that Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists.

Not at all. As I've said, I don't object to you or anyone else self-labelling as Libertarian Marxists. I object to you defining Libertarian Marxism in such a way as to include:
1-a whole bunch of people that don't believe Libertarian Marxism exists;
2-a whole bunch of dead people who never identified as Libertarian Marxists

- especially as you claimed earlier that it was invalid for a Left Comm to tell you that dead people would have rejected your politics, and claimed this violated a principle of 'self-labelling'.

So; if Libertarian Marxism supports 'self-labelling' then I support your philosophical right for you, Daniel Guerin, and any other Libertarian Marxists whom you might meet to identify yourselves as such. What I don't support is attempts to drag other people into your tendency retroactively (like Rosa) or through setting up definitions that don't differentiate between different ('self-labelled') currents (like any currents that don't think the Party should take power).

I tried to make this point in relation to Rosa. She's not a Left Communist, even though she massively influenced Left Communism. Lenin and Trotsky also influenced Left Communism - they're not Left Communists either. We don't retroactively baptise them into our cult. Nor do we claim that really De Leonists are Left Communists just because they don't want the Party to take power, and SPGBers are Left Communists because they don't take sides in bourgeoise wars, and Anarcho-syndicalists are Left Communists because they believe that the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class. I think that's a poor method.

Obviously, as a side issue, I also take objection to your statement that 'Left Communists seem to prefer focussing on differences' because I think it's dishonest. If you mean, 'Blake's Baby insists on disagreeing with someone he disagrees with', then yes certainly. I don't agree with your method and I'm challenging it. I really don't know why you think I'd do anything else. But I'm not all Left Communists. You've got to provide some evidence for your claims if you want people to believe them.

[The Idler]

If the working class as a whole is committed to that objective, then why would they need to bother with capturing the state through parliamentary elections?
To minimise casualties of armed ruling class resistance.
To demonstrate with a degree of certainty an overwhelming majority.
To stop ruling-class justifying actions with "defense of democracy" (as Edward Heath put it in October 1974 "Who rules the country?").
If power doesn't reside in Parliament as anarchists claim, then why object to capturing it?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Not at all. As I've said, I don't object to you or anyone else self-labelling as Libertarian Marxists. I object to you defining Libertarian Marxism in such a way as to include:
1-a whole bunch of people that don't believe Libertarian Marxism exists;
2-a whole bunch of dead people who never identified as Libertarian Marxists
I try to not claim activists or theorists as Libertarian Marxists even if I think they meet my definition, but I might claim them as an influence on LM, which is a different matter. I think LM, by its very nature, has fuzzier boundaries as a tendency, but your logic is fuzzier still.


What I don't support is attempts to drag other people into your tendency retroactively (like Rosa)
Where have I done this? You're the one taking what you think my definition is and proclaiming it includes Rosa, whereas I would say she's an influence on LM. Your point would be better applied to the Wikipedia article quoted earlier in the thread by someone else.


Obviously, as a side issue, I also take objection to your statement that 'Left Communists seem to prefer focussing on differences' because I think it's dishonest.
Dishonest? Your arguments are all based on strawmen. So, please, don't even use the word dishonest.

[bricolage]

To stop ruling-class justifying actions with "defense of democracy" (as Edward Heath put it in October 1974 "Who rules the country?").
Except Edward Heath didn't get to justify anything because he lost the election and the miners won the strike.

If power doesn't reside in Parliament as anarchists claim, then why object to capturing it?
Power doesn't reside in Ben Nevis either, are you gonna make a political point of capturing that too?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To minimise casualties of armed ruling class resistance.
To demonstrate with a degree of certainty an overwhelming majority.
To stop ruling-class justifying actions with "defense of democracy" (as Edward Heath put it in October 1974 "Who rules the country?").
The ruling class is going to resist, whether Parliament is captured, or whether a majority is demonstrated in such a fashion. You might stop them from using that particular justification, but would it change their resistance?


If power doesn't reside in Parliament as anarchists claim, then why object to capturing it?
If power doesn't reside in Parliament, then why bother to capture it?

[Искра]

yes, they are how kontrrazvedka got his name. if you google kontrrazvedka you will find out who they were.

no secret policed force acts upon the ideals that you mentioned in this post.
I've posted whole book on Kontrrazvedka here... if anyone is interested just search history forum until you find Kontrrazvedka thread (you can also search libcom.org). Basically what zeekloid says is true ;) Kontrrazvedka was basicaly organised as Cheka... I doubt that whole comunity votes killing of Lenin for example ;)

And regarding "libertarian marxism"... According to anarchists Marx was authoritarian. Bakunin and his crew in IWMA said so... So, how could authoritarians become libertarians over the night? Did Rosa, Bordiga, Pannekoek used anarchists theory? Fuck no... you can find numerous their texts where they kicked anarchist ass... So, what is it then? It's just that anarchists make difference between Marxists they like and they don't like...

[Blake's Baby]

I try to not claim activists or theorists as Libertarian Marxists even if I think they meet my definition, but I might claim them as an influence on LM, which is a different matter. I think LM, by its very nature, has fuzzier boundaries as a tendency, but your logic is fuzzier still...

As I'm obviously not explaining my logic then (as it's both hard as steel and clear as glass, of course) I'll try again:
1 - you claim that it's invalid for people who don't believe in Libertarian Marxism to decide who wouldn't be in it because this violates the principle of 'self-labelling';
2 - you do not however criticise the attempt to co-opt a whole load of people from Rosa to the Council Communists into a Libertarian Marxist tendency, even though this violates the principle of 'self-labelling';
3 - you offer a definiiton of what constitutes 'libertarian' which would include Left Communists who reject the notion of Libertarian Marxism, which violates the principle of 'self-labelling'.
4 - I support your self-labelling as a Libertarian Marxist, but oppose any attempt to drag others into it.



Where have I done this? You're the one taking what you think my definition is and proclaiming it includes Rosa, whereas I would say she's an influence on LM. Your point would be better applied to the Wikipedia article quoted earlier in the thread by someone else...

Good, I'm perfectly happy that she's an influence on Libertarian Marxism, as she is on Left Communism, without having been a Left Communist. However, what I'm actually doing is using your definition of what 'libertarian' means and demonstrating it includes Left Communists, rather than Rosa, she was mentioned in the wiki quote as you say but nowhere did I make any connection between your definition and Rosa; and as to the wiki article itself... do you reject the list of 'Libertarian Marxists'? If so, then I apologise unresearvedly for misunderstanding your position.




Dishonest? Your arguments are all based on strawmen. So, please, don't even use the word dishonest.

No not really. I think all the stuff in the first paragraph is pretty clear. You make a claim based on 'self-labelling' (which is also a fundamental misreading of what Devrim was saying, massive 'strawman' there if I was going to assume you'd done it on purpose), and then proceed to label other people and support the labelling of other people... or at least not criticise it.

My claim that you're being dishonest is based on your statement that 'Left Comms just want to concentrate on differences' that you offer as a sectarian point without evidence. So, back it up, or admit you're wrong; one or the other. Anything else is being dishonest.

[human strike]

Raan

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

you do not however criticise the attempt to co-opt a whole load of people from Rosa to the Council Communists into a Libertarian Marxist tendency, even though this violates the principle of 'self-labelling';
My criticism is that it's more accurate to call them influences (or to say some had ideas which could be described as libertarian with a small l) than to make it sound as if they identified as Libertarian Marxists.


3 - you offer a definiiton of what constitutes 'libertarian' which would include Left Communists who reject the notion of Libertarian Marxism, which violates the principle of 'self-labelling'.
I've said before that I usually agree with a majority of positions taken by Left Communists, and my impression from previous conversations with other Libertarian Marxists is they might feel similarly, so is it surprising that the definition given would include those commonalities? That's not an attempt to claim LCs as LMs, nor is anyone asking or demanding that LCs define themselves as LMs.


do you reject the list of 'Libertarian Marxists'?
I think the article would be on firmer ground if instead of speaking of "Notable libertarian marxist tendencies" it instead spoke of "Notable libertarian marxist influences."


My claim that you're being dishonest is based on your statement that 'Left Comms just want to concentrate on differences' that you offer as a sectarian point without evidence.
It was unfair of me to tar all LCs with the same brush. I was tired and frustrated when I wrote that.

[The Idler]

The ruling class is going to resist, whether Parliament is captured, or whether a majority is demonstrated in such a fashion. You might stop them from using that particular justification, but would it change their resistance?

Yes it undermines that tenet of justification for resistance, which would be the main one used as their rallying cry throughout their press and television persuading the millions of workers who read and watch their media. Even propaganda from 1974 which didn't work then, will get recycled and presented more slickly especially since less people have any time for trade unions these days.


If power doesn't reside in Parliament, then why bother to capture it?Bad way of putting it probably, but mentioned this because I disagree with it because power does reside in Parliament, particularly the armed forces carry out the will of Parliament.
because the levers of power over the state are pulled in parliament and workers regularly hand over their votes to put capitalist policies in power via parliament.

[Binh]

I think to a large extent the socialist left has to start over from (almost) scratch. For why, see:
http://links.org.au/node/2657 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://links.org.au/node/2657)
http://links.org.au/node/2735

You could always start your own group. Lots of people identify with Marxism and/or left-libertarianism. I also think Occupy is the best place for American revolutionaries at the moment.

[Devrim]

I'm a member of a multi-tendencied working class political party. I don't find that bizarre.

What is bizarre is that it is a party that virtually all of those who you typify as 'Libertarian Marxists' would have considered to be bourgeois (with the exception of CLR James. Also the people from the SouB tradition, Cardan, and Brinton, would have probably termed it capitalist or anti-working class, and not bourgeois, but that is just semantics. The communist left today would charecterise it in the same way.


I've met a small number of people online and offline who identified as Libertarian Marxists, and we've had similar views on the nature of revolution and post-revolutionary organization, and similar political influences.

I have never met anybody in person who identified as a 'Libertarian Marxist'. There certainly aren't any political organisations who do. My whole point here is that the term is generally a creation used by anarchists to sort of include 'Marxists who they like within their own tradition. As such it is a sort of attempt at political grave robbing. The other people I have heard use it (only online never in person) are basically confused kids who don't have much of an idea what they are talking about.


I try to not claim activists or theorists as Libertarian Marxists even if I think they meet my definition, but I might claim them as an influence on LM, which is a different matter. I think LM, by its very nature, has fuzzier boundaries as a tendency, but your logic is fuzzier still.

There isn't a tendency of 'Libertarian Marxism'. There aren't any 'Libertarian Marxist organisations.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What is bizarre is that it is a party that virtually all of those who you typify as 'Libertarian Marxists' would have considered to be bourgeois
1. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I haven't claimed them as Libertarian Marxists, merely as influences.

2. The IRSP believes socialism can only be established through the mass revolutionary action of the working class, and administered democratically by the working class itself. Not to mention, its membership is almost entirely working class. So, yes, clearly bourgeois. :rolleyes:

3. I disagree with Left Coms and Council Coms on the issue of national liberation, but I also believe it's a secondary issue to the primary issue of demolishing capitalism and establishing socialism. Allowing secondary issues to divide us is fruitless.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There isn't a tendency of 'Libertarian Marxism'.
Does your belief one way or the other prevent you from working with me on issues we agree on?

[Devrim]

1. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I haven't claimed them as Libertarian Marxists, merely as influences.

Yet in your pix and mix sort of politics, you ignore much of what they themselves would have felt were crucial contributions.


2. The IRSP believes socialism can only be established through the mass revolutionary action of the working class, and administered democratically by the working class itself. Not to mention, its membership is almost entirely working class. So, yes, clearly bourgeois. :rolleyes:

The vast majority in nearly all political organisations is working class. This applies equally to the Ulster Unionists, the UK Conservative Party, and the IRSP. It merely reflects the sociological balance within society, and effectively means nothing. Marxists charecterise parties on a class base due to what interests they represent, not the sociological composition of their membership,and most of the people that you referred to as being influences on 'Libertarian Marxism' would have charecterised the IRSP as a petit-bourgeois party based upon its Irish nationalism.


3. I disagree with Left Coms and Council Coms on the issue of national liberation, but I also believe it's a secondary issue to the primary issue of demolishing capitalism and establishing socialism. Allowing secondary issues to divide us is fruitless.

It is quite obvious that you disagree, given that you are a member of a nationalist organisation. What you seem to fail to recognise is that for those you seem to claim as influences this has not been a 'secondary issue', but one that is intrinsically part of the primary question, and tied to the entire political development of what you might call 'Libertarian Marxist' ideas going back to Luxemborg's critique of the Polish Socialist Party in 1893.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Does your belief one way or the other prevent you from working with me on issues we agree on?

I presume that you don't mean on a personal level as we live on different continents, and are hardly likely to ever come into contact.

If you do mean in a hypothetical sense, to be honest I don't think that there would be many issues that we would actually agree on.

However, we don't refuse to work with people who were consider to be members of bourgeois organisations on any sort of principal, though we would exclude working with their actual organisations.

Personally, I have worked with people who are Kurdish nationalists for example, but only around actual workers struggles that we have been involved in.

I hope that answers your question.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The vast majority in nearly all political organisations is working class. This applies equally to the Ulster Unionists, the UK Conservative Party, and the IRSP.
And do the Ulster Unionists or the UK Conservative Party advocate that socialism can only be established through the mass revolutionary action of the working class, and administered democratically by the working class itself?


What you seem to fail to recognise is that for those you seem to claim as influences this has not been a 'secondary issue'
No, I recognize it, but I don't agree with it. I don't think I need to agree with it unless I'm explicitly part of their tendencies.

[Blake's Baby]

My criticism is that it's more accurate to call them influences (or to say some had ideas which could be described as libertarian with a small l) than to make it sound as if they identified as Libertarian Marxists.

I've said before that I usually agree with a majority of positions taken by Left Communists, and my impression from previous conversations with other Libertarian Marxists is they might feel similarly, so is it surprising that the definition given would include those commonalities? That's not an attempt to claim LCs as LMs, nor is anyone asking or demanding that LCs define themselves as LMs.

I think the article would be on firmer ground if instead of speaking of "Notable libertarian marxist tendencies" it instead spoke of "Notable libertarian marxist influences."

It was unfair of me to tar all LCs with the same brush. I was tired and frustrated when I wrote that.

In which case I'm going to withdraw any and all objections, except insofar as I think the definition of 'Libertarian Marxist' tendency implies that there can be a 'Slavertarian Marxist' tendency which I don't think is true.

Obviously we disagree a lot on certain issues (and like Devrim I think what are 'secondary issues' to you are primary issues to us, and to most of the people that are held up as 'Libertarian Marxists' also, especially Rosa); but as long as you're not claiming that Rosa and the rest were Libertarian Marxists, or Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists, or that any of those would support nationalist organisations, I don't really have an issue with you calling yourself what you like.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you do mean in a hypothetical sense, to be honest I don't think that there would be many issues that we would actually agree on.
Fair enough. I think we'd probably agree on more than you think, though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think the definition of 'Libertarian Marxist' tendency implies that there can be a 'Slavertarian Marxist' tendency which I don't think is true.
I agree, but I also agree with a quote from a Red and Black Notes article about the term 'communist', but would substitute 'Marxist': In most of the world, however, we face a serious problem in using the word 'communist.' Due in part to the propaganda of the ruling-class, based on Leninist deviations, this word has become synonymous with state-controlled capitalism, and the totalitarian tendencies and structures therein. Thus, people have thought of several adjectives to use to modify the term, so that it takes on its true character.


but as long as you're not claiming that Rosa and the rest were Libertarian Marxists, or Left Communists are Libertarian Marxists, or that any of those would support nationalist organisations, I don't really have an issue with you calling yourself what you like.
Fair enough.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree, but I also agree with a quote from a Red and Black Notes article about the term 'communist', but would substitute 'Marxist': In most of the world, however, we face a serious problem in using the word 'communist.' Due in part to the propaganda of the ruling-class, based on Leninist deviations, this word has become synonymous with state-controlled capitalism, and the totalitarian tendencies and structures therein. Thus, people have thought of several adjectives to use to modify the term, so that it takes on its true character...

If a duck calls itself a Catholic, it doesn't mean other Catholics have to call themselves Human Catholics. If a murderer calls himself a nice person, it doesn't mean other nice people have to call themselves non-murdering nice people.

Stop handing over words and concepts to those you disagree with, I'd argue. You tacitly give them the right to use those terms and situate themselves in continuity with people who disagreed with their positions if you don't contest it.

Much as I have been doing with perceived attempts to retro-actively redefine the positions of Rosa et al. If words have meanings, and those meanings are important, then stand up for them. If they don't, it doesn't matter, call yourself a trifle if you like.