Leftcoms - are you ever wrong? [Archive]

MarxSchmarx

3rd March 2012, 03:33

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd March 2012, 03:38

Os Cangaceiros

3rd March 2012, 03:39

I'm not a left communist, but I've seen users on this site (who come from a left communist tradition) criticize certain aspects of Bordiga and his body of thought.

Os Cangaceiros

3rd March 2012, 03:42

Also, historically speaking, the Dutch-German communist left and the Italian communist left didn't exactly march in lock-step...

MarxSchmarx

3rd March 2012, 03:44

The sheer uniformity of the leftcoms on virtually everything Right. That's why there are countless "International Communist Parties," bureaus, the ICC and the several splits that came out of it, and a number of grouplets, circles and journals in Europe and the U.S. :rolleyes:

well, like i said:

there may be incredibly acrimonious internal debates for all I know (actually that's quite likely given the plethora of "left communist" groups).

I guess it would be kinda nice if the rest of us had any idea why these splinters appear like rabbits.

ProletariatPraetorian

3rd March 2012, 04:15

Solely commenting from my experiences here i disagree with the revolutionary lefts right wing-like response towards any stance not staunchly in agreement with theirs. There seems to be a hostile attitude towards diversity in revolutionary leftism, on this site at least. In the end this issue is the root cause of why the revolutionary left is getting nothing accomplished.

l'EnfermÃ©

3rd March 2012, 04:23

I'm not a left communist, but I've seen users on this site (who come from a left communist tradition) criticize certain aspects of Bordiga and his body of thought.
Same Bordiga that called himself a "Leninist" until his death, right?

The Douche

3rd March 2012, 04:23

I'm definitely not a huge fan of the Dutch-German school of thought.

But I am by no means a strict left-communist. I'd say the left-coms would call me an anarchist and a lot of anarchists would call me a left-com.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 04:53

Same Bordiga that called himself a "Leninist" until his death, right?
Yeah, that's him. After all there's only one Amadeo Bordiga. So, what's your point here? Leftcom organisations and users here do not reject Lenin. It's not like leftcommunist position is defined by do we or not support Lenin or whatever... Question of Lenin's tought is more that yes/no...

Solely commenting from my experiences here i disagree with the revolutionary lefts right wing-like response towards any stance not staunchly in agreement with theirs. There seems to be a hostile attitude towards diversity in revolutionary leftism, on this site at least.
"Right wing's like response"... :rolleyes: I really don't think that this kind of comment deserves more than ":rolleyes:", but yeah...

Leftcoms on this board (except me and BMH ;)) tend to be one of most reasonable and polite users who respond only with arguments. If you can not deal with arguments and if you can't accept that somebody haves arguments you can not beat in discussion then you shouldn't discuss in the first place.

Yes, leftcommunists think that "revolutionary" left is reformist, even this is not so black and white... for example leftcoms support all internationalist anarchists. Leftcomunist critique is not based on some shit names of some shit communist superstars you tend to support, but on principles of organisation and politics which organisation or tendency promotes. So, if most of "revolutionary" left is pro-reformist politics I don't see how could you accept from tendency such as left communist not to criticize it.

In the end this issue is the root cause of why the revolutionary left is getting nothing accomplished.
No. Root is in reformism, populism and opportunism.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 04:59

Also, if you check site of, for example ICC and ICT, you'll be able to find a lot of critiques of left communist groups, organisations etc. both from present and from the past. Also, these are not only two groups/websites where you can read cirtiques of left communism.

It's truth that left communists should criticize themselves more and try to correct certain positions, which doesn't have to necessery be connected with politics, but more with how do organisations function etc., but you can not say that critiques do not exist.

Also, you can find critiques of Left Communism or its organisations from left communist perspective in "left communist" tendency group here on revleft. You can also check libcom.org which has serveral topics on left communists etc.

And regarding differences between German/Dutch and Italian current, well there are books, articles, magazines on that topic.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd March 2012, 05:14

As a non-left communist, I am curious if there are any serious, long term left-communists who disagree about ANYTHING of substance about the tendency with which they identify. It's not hard to find a Trot who really thinks Lenin fucked up viz. letting Stalin run the show or anarchists who are honest about the limitations of direct action. But I've never EVAR heard, seen, or read of a left communist taking a similarly harsh assessment of their movement.

[...]

But every leftcom I've encountered defends just about everything on the validity of their tendency

Careful, comrade. This could be interpreted by the abstentionist left-coms as "trolling," especially at their dogmatism on tired strategic questions (invariance, mass strikes, councils, against "voluntarism," etc.).

I'm not a left communist, but I've seen users on this site (who come from a left communist tradition) criticize certain aspects of Bordiga and his body of thought.

I have yet to read the posts of any left-com here who is at least very critical of the German-Dutch strategic line and its immediate cousins (hopefully Bordigism and Russian Left-ism *not* being among them unless they theorized "voluntarism" first). :glare:

I'm definitely not a huge fan of the Dutch-German school of thought.

But I am by no means a strict left-communist. I'd say the left-coms would call me an anarchist and a lot of anarchists would call me a left-com.

What you've said in recent months about "organization" would qualify your positions as being cousin-like in relation to the German-Dutch strategic line.

Leftcoms on this board (except me and BMH ;)) tend to be one of most reasonable and polite users who respond only with arguments. If you can not deal with arguments and if you can't accept that somebody haves arguments you can not beat in discussion then you shouldn't discuss in the first place.

Please, there are substantive arguments that have been raised that left-coms refuse to discuss. :glare:

Also, you can find critiques of Left Communism or its organisations from left communist perspective in "left communist" tendency group here on revleft. You can also check libcom.org which has several topics on left communists etc.

And regarding differences between German/Dutch and Italian current, well there are books, articles, magazines on that topic.

Yes, and I've read some of those. The same can't be said of your various tendencies that haven't read even a portion of the likes of either Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered (most of the all-important Chapter 1 is even free here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA41&dq=lars+lih+merger+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s6xRT6OrFcLjiAKn-eC0Bg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)) or Mike Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205) (again, free).

The Douche

3rd March 2012, 05:25

What you've said in recent months about "organization" would qualify your positions as being cousin-like in relation to the German-Dutch strategic line.

Just because I oppose unions as revolutionary vehicles doesn't mean I am down with Dutch-German left-communism.

I guess it would be more accurate to say I appreciate left-communist analysis of capitalism, but I'm not into left-communist organizational methods.

I don't support parties either, or mass organizations.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd March 2012, 05:25

^^^ I was referring precisely to your position on party-movements.

Os Cangaceiros

3rd March 2012, 06:38

Same Bordiga that called himself a "Leninist" until his death, right?

No, I'm referring to Roberto Bordiga, the Italian jazz musician!

Ostrinski

3rd March 2012, 06:54

The left communists seem to have the most scientific analysis and objective stance on historical developments. They also, ideologically speaking, seem to be the most traditional Marxists.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 10:07

The left communists seem to have the most scientific analysis and objective stance on historical developments. They also, ideologically speaking, seem to be the most traditional Marxists.

But what does this post mean? It's just an opinion. Fascists have opinions. Total knob heads have opinions.

I would like to see some left coms seriously debate Trots in a comradely, constructive way, and so far I have only seen that from Gramsci Guy from what i can remember. I never remember who said what but I'm sure some left coms have joined the Stalinists in Trotskyism bashing in a purely childish way. The fact is that Trotskyis is not that far from left communism, so there should be common ground ffs.

Please be objective and factual. All I seem to hear is the dogmatic party line of obscure sects.

By the way, re Lenin letting Stalin run the show, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But I dont wanna derail the thread on that one.

3rd March 2012, 11:05

Right. That's why there are countless "International Communist Parties," bureaus, the ICC and the several splits that came out of it, and a number of grouplets, circles and journals in Europe and the U.S. :rolleyes:

Such as what? I know there are the ICC and the ICT and in Italy there have been quite a few splits in the 1930's to 1960's.

But besides that? Not a clue.

Thirsty Crow

3rd March 2012, 11:26

3rd March 2012, 11:43

But this misses the mark completely as it essentially demands of leftcoms that they abandon their political positions in favour of some kind of a broad unity.

And this is where I believe you miss the mark. Workers unity does not imply a unity of politics, on the contrary, this is the definition of sectarian unity. Workers unity can only exist through sustained disagreement: A tendency life, conflicting viewpoints and, where needed, votes on concrete actions, where the majority decides, but only while respecting the minority's right to disagree.

Only in this manner, a culture of radical democracy, can workers unity exist, can leaders be formed (as workers are challenged to think for themselves) and can discipline exist to function as one organisation in any practical way.

This is not meant as a dig against you, or left-communists for that matter, but this sectarian culture needs to be demolished on the far left in general.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 11:56

I would like to see some left coms seriously debate Trots in a comradely, constructive way, and so far I have only seen that from Gramsci Guy from what i can remember. I never remember who said what but I'm sure some left coms have joined the Stalinists in Trotskyism bashing in a purely childish way. The fact is that Trotskyis is not that far from left communism, so there should be common ground ffs.
Trotskyism is far from left communism. It supports social democratic politics (and it is social democracyin the end). Trots supports parliamentarism, entryism, unions, popular fronts, anti-imperialism etc. etc. their politics is highly populist and opportunists which leads various Trots organisations to work with Muslim fundamentalists, Chavez and other crazy dictators, US in Korean War, Labour Party in UK, or simmilar parties Word wide etc.

I really doubt that left communists "bash" Trots in the same way as Stalinists do. After all if you read for example Platfrom of ICC you could find that they consider Trots and Stalinists as Left wing of Capital. So, left communists oppose both "tendencies" from same reason and none of these reasons is based on the fact that this tendencie is called after certain individual.

There's plenty of serious critiques of Trotskyism from left communist perspective and the fact that you can't replay on them doesn't mean that they are childish.

Aslo, Gramsci Guy is not really a left communist. He's closer to Trotskyism. (According to his posting, of course).

Please be objective and factual. All I seem to hear is the dogmatic party line of obscure sects. It funny how people allways think that they are ones who are objective and factual. So far you have made only accusations against left communists but you haven't comment any text or statemant regarding left communist relation thowards Trotskyism.

Also, I believe that left communists are objective when they considers their organisations small and "obscure sects" (to use your therminology), but I didn't see that other organisations accept this truth. Quite contrary, their members log on Internet forum and spam the shit of them with "join CWI"...

Искра

3rd March 2012, 12:04

And this is where I believe you miss the mark. Workers unity does not imply a unity of politics, on the contrary, this is the definition of sectarian unity. Workers unity can only exist through sustained disagreement: A tendency life, conflicting viewpoints and, where needed, votes on concrete actions, where the majority decides, but only while respecting the minority's right to disagree.

Only in this manner, a culture of radical democracy, can workers unity exist, can leaders be formed (as workers are challenged to think for themselves) and can discipline exist to function as one organisation in any practical way.

This is not meant as a dig against you, or left-communists for that matter, but this sectarian culture needs to be demolished on the far left in general.
Left communists pretty much don't care about "far left" which repeats same old reformist and populist politic all over again for ages. Also, we don't believe that some small "revolutionary" organisations and nerd clubs will "bring the revolution". That's just utopian bollocks and wet dream of some CNT/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao/[...] nerds.

This has nothing to do with workers unity. Left communists are for uniting all workers struggle under one banner - banner of class struggle for taking political power and establishing proletariat dictatorship. But, that doesn't mean that we should work with some opportunist, reformist and social democratic left tendencies. After all they are unimportant for class struggle. Class struggle lies in class itself and with the time, experience and decay of capitalism it will evolve more and more into a proletarian class movement.

We see that our job is to partipate in those movements and to try to spark certian discussions and ideas among working class and fight opportunist who only want to take these movements to promote their rotten organisations.

ProletariatPraetorian

3rd March 2012, 12:10

"Right wing's like response"... :rolleyes: I really don't think that this kind of comment deserves more than ":rolleyes:", but yeah...

Leftcoms on this board (except me and BMH ;)) tend to be one of most reasonable and polite users who respond only with arguments. If you can not deal with arguments and if you can't accept that somebody haves arguments you can not beat in discussion then you shouldn't discuss in the first place.

Yes, leftcommunists think that "revolutionary" left is reformist, even this is not so black and white... for example leftcoms support all internationalist anarchists. Leftcomunist critique is not based on some shit names of some shit communist superstars you tend to support, but on principles of organisation and politics which organisation or tendency promotes. So, if most of "revolutionary" left is pro-reformist politics I don't see how could you accept from tendency such as left communist not to criticize it.

No. Root is in reformism, populism and opportunism.

I never said everyone on this site acts in such a way. Look, i dont agree with certain aspects of certain revolutionary leftist groups however at the end of the day i have to stand with them because were on the same team. Ive seen the issue of purging those that dont completely agree with you brought up on this forum before.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 12:20

Trotskyism is far from left communism. It supports social democratic politics (and it is social democracyin the end).

Please support that Trotskyism is social democracy.

Trots supports parliamentarism, entryism, unions, popular fronts, anti-imperialism etc. etc.

Support that Trots support Popular Fronts. As for parliamentarianism, well, Marx advocated it. What is you problem with that? What is you problem with unions?

their politics is highly populist and opportunists

Support!

which leads various Trots organisations to work with Muslim fundamentalists, Chavez and other crazy dictators, US in Korean War, Labour Party in UK, or simmilar parties Word wide etc.

Er, for one thing some Trots are more on the ball than others. Trots should not work with certain people. They should give critical support to Chavez. They should not support the US in the Korean war (is that true), they should have been in the Labour Party in the UK up to the early 1990s. as for Muslim fundamentalists, what Trots work with them?

It funny how people allways think that they are ones who are objective and factual. So far you have made only accusations against left communists but you haven't comment any text or statemant regarding left communist relation thowards Trotskyism.

Start a thread, give us your views. That's what I'm asking for. Proper debate.

Also, I believe that left communists are objective when they considers their organisations small and "obscure sects" (to use your therminology), but I didn't see that other organisations accept this truth. Quite contrary, their members log on Internet forum and spam the shit of them with "join CWI"...
see there you go, sniping, don't do it. Stop yourself. Please.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 13:03

Look, i dont agree with certain aspects of certain revolutionary leftist groups however at the end of the day i have to stand with them because were on the same team.
Here is big difference between left communists and the rest of the left. Even we are aware of "good will" and "belif" of certain leftists and their rethorical stance on revolution, we only take in account their politics which is expressed trought their organisaitons etc. Therefor we are not on the same side, because we do not support siding with one fraction of Capital.

Ive seen the issue of purging those that dont completely agree with you brought up on this forum before.
Nobody is talking about purging. We just don't agree and don't consider great amount of leftists as our allies (or whatever...). That doesn't mean that we would like to kill'em all, but that we will fight against their reformism etc. I think that a dream of one big leftist familiy is a fucking dream from which some people need to wake up and that you should accept that people don't agree with you and that they don't want to work with you in order to compromise their ideology.

Please support that Trotskyism is social democracy.
I did in next line you quoted... But I won't discuss this shit with you here. If you want discussion on Trotskyism open new thread. You are not in the centre of attention here.

Here few articles on Trotskyism... but if you want to discuss that open another thread.

This is ICT's pamphlet on Trotskyism:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-trotskysm
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-internationalist-communist-left
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotskyism-after-trotsky
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-a-natalya-trotsky-breaks-with-the-fourth-international
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-b-trotsky-and-trotskyism-the-chronology-1879-1943

Also some ICC's stuff:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/265_cwo_trotsky.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_tcliff.htm

And you can also use serch option on both websites... these are only ones I've read so far....

bricolage

3rd March 2012, 13:07

trotskyists disagreeing with left communists on participation in parliamentarism, trade unions, entryism and asking 'BUT WHY???!!!' and so forth isn't really the issue, the point is that if you do disagree (and you generally do) then this is obviously an incorrect statement...

The fact is that Trotskyis is not that far from left communism

although it should be added that saying there is any unified left communist position, or even any unified trotskyist opinion, on any of those things is clearly not true.

Blake's Baby

3rd March 2012, 13:14

As a non-left communist, I am curious if there are any serious, long term left-communists who disagree about ANYTHING of substance about the tendency with which they identify. It's not hard to find a Trot who really thinks Lenin fucked up viz. letting Stalin run the show or anarchists who are honest about the limitations of direct action. But I've never EVAR heard, seen, or read of a left communist taking a similarly harsh assessment of their movement.

In fact, I've yet to meet a single leftcom IRL or even online who has proffed any serious critique of what they are up to. Almost to a person they defend vociferously their approach to leftist politcs and are adamant about refusing to concede to any other leftist tendency that disagrees. Why is this? Almost all (if not all) of the criticism of left-coms come from non-left coms; there may be incredibly acrimonious internal debates for all I know (actually that's quite likely given the plethora of "left communist" groups). But every leftcom I've encountered defends just about everything on the validity of their tendency.

I'm inclined to attribute this to a terrifyingly dogmatic leftist sect's death throes. But I've decided to see if I can withold judgement. The sheer uniformity of the leftcoms on virtually everything is rivaled perhaps ever so slightly only by the Hoxhaists.

So I implore all the let coms here to prove me wrong.

Well, the first thing is, I'd presume that most of us who claim to be Left Communists do so on the basis that we substantially agree with the positions of the Communist Left. If we didn't we probably wouldn't identify as Left Communists. So we've already self-selected into a bunch of people with simiar views. It's not so surprising that we then exhibit similar views.

Secondly, we see Left Communism as being a tendency with a certain coherence on fundamental positions - rejection of national liberation and electoralism are two pretty much defining ones, and therefore we would see other groups holding similar positions to be closer to Left Communism than groups which didn't - why we reject Trotskyism, for instance, but are fairly tolerant of internationalist Anarchism.

Thirdly, and flowing on from that, we're quite polite about each other usually. I for instance have been recommending that people interested in Luxemburgist economics read the criticisms of them from the CWO, even though I agree with Luxemburg and not the CWO. Secondary issues, like what the causes of the crisis are, are less important than the recognition that there is a crisis, and what to do about it (revolution, not reform, for instance). So to that extent, you probably don't see wars between Left Communists errupting on the main pages of RevLeft the way different Stalinist groups or Trotskyist groups will attack each other. Added to which, there's only about 15 of us who regularly post on here. There aren't enough of us to fight amongst ourselves. We leave that to the Left Comm user group, the ICC and ICT forums, LibCom, and the press.

Fourthly, and this relates more to some of the comments that have been made by other posters rather than the OP, Left Communists that disagree over the nature of parties, for instance, tend to define themselves as Council Communists rather than Left Communists. They have some of the same origins (in the German and Dutch Lefts) but went in different directions. 'German/Dutch Lefts who reject the Party' = Council Communists; 'German/Dutch Lefts who suport the Party'=Left Communists; also of course 'Italian Lefts who support the Party'=Left Communists, it's not just the Dutch/German Lefts.

In short, do we all agree with each other all the time, no of course not, but do we agree with each other more than we agree with Trotskyists and Stalinists? Yes, we certainly do.

Tim Cornelis

3rd March 2012, 13:22

As for parliamentarianism, well, Marx advocated it. What is you problem with that? What is you problem with unions?

Marx did not advocate parliamentarianism, and neither did Lenin (in theory). To quote Lenin:

"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....

"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."

Owing to the prevalence of social-chauvinism and opportunism, this remarkable criticism of parliamentarism, made in 1871, also belongs now to the "forgotten words" of Marxism

(State and Revolution, chapter 3, section/paragraph 3, "Abolition of Parliamentarianism")

as for Muslim fundamentalists, what Trots work with them?

The United Against Fascism trots of the SWP.

see there you go, sniping, don't do it. Stop yourself. Please.

Be honest, you do spam "join CWI" to most any question as if that is the only option for leftists.

new person: "Hi I'm from Turkey and a leftist, there doesn't seem to be much revolutionary leftists in turkey"

you: "join CWI"

It's really bothersome.

ProletariatPraetorian

3rd March 2012, 13:43

Here is big difference between left communists and the rest of the left. Even we are aware of "good will" and "belif" of certain leftists and their rethorical stance on revolution, we only take in account their politics which is expressed trought their organisaitons etc. Therefor we are not on the same side, because we do not support siding with one fraction of Capital.

Nobody is talking about purging. We just don't agree and don't consider great amount of leftists as our allies (or whatever...). That doesn't mean that we would like to kill'em all, but that we will fight against their reformism etc. I think that a dream of one big leftist familiy is a fucking dream from which some people need to wake up and that you should accept that people don't agree with you and that they don't want to work with you in order to compromise their ideology.

I did in next line you quoted... But I won't discuss this shit with you here. If you want discussion on Trotskyism open new thread. You are not in the centre of attention here.

Im referring to revolutionary leftists, not merely the left in general. Also when i speak of purges im referring to the purges on this forum, if you ostracise and purge your fellow revolutionary leftists on a forum whats to say you wouldnt mete out the same punishment in the real world.

Blake's Baby

3rd March 2012, 13:49

Im referring to revolutionary leftists, not merely the left in general...

Do you include Trotskyists and Stalinists in this? Because if you do, you really should know that we don't. Trotskyism and Stalinism are not internationalist and revolutionary, according to how Left Communism sees the political landscape. Therefore, Trotskyists and Stalinists are not our allies.

... Also when i speak of purges im referring to the purges on this forum, if you ostracise and purge your fellow revolutionary leftists on a forum whats to say you wouldnt mete out the same punishment in the real world.

I'm not aware of any Left Communists calling for purges on the forums. Can you linkk to examples? I am aware however of people calling on Left Communists to be purged from the forums.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 13:50

Tim Cornelis

3rd March 2012, 13:57

For more general discussion of left communism and its theory and strategy, this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communismi-t168576/index.html?t=168576) may be more appropriate.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communismi-t168576/index.html?t=168576

Thirsty Crow

3rd March 2012, 14:00

And this is where I believe you miss the mark. Workers unity does not imply a unity of politics, on the contrary, this is the definition of sectarian unity. Workers unity can only exist through sustained disagreement: A tendency life, conflicting viewpoints and, where needed, votes on concrete actions, where the majority decides, but only while respecting the minority's right to disagree.

Only in this manner, a culture of radical democracy, can workers unity exist, can leaders be formed (as workers are challenged to think for themselves) and can discipline exist to function as one organisation in any practical way.

This is not meant as a dig against you, or left-communists for that matter, but this sectarian culture needs to be demolished on the far left in general.
It is kind of hard for me to see where you're going with this.

To clarify, what I was referring to was that I suspect that general accusations of sectarianism stem from the idea that there is a possibility for broad political unity between disparate political elements. Whereas you label the unity of politics as "sectarian unity", I think that there needs to be programmatic clarity and defined principles, something which could not be accomplished with this approach of broad unity (though, what I wrote and what I write here is based on speculation since MarxSchmarx didn't call for such an approach, and merely stopped on the accusation of dogmatism and sectarianism).

What you wrote about workers' unity, I can agree with that insofar as we remain on the terrain of a clear revolutionary programme. In fact, I'd oppose any moves against tendency or fraction formation within the supposed revolutionary party (and do notice that I do not think that there is solid basis nowadays for such a party, and that by party I actually refer to the International), though that doesn't imply that I envision the future party as a mass organization. As I've stated, I don't think mass organizations, be they modelled on whichever historical organization (wink wink to you and DNZ), are viable nowadays, and that doesn't stem from a dogmatism of sorts (by the way, I don't think that many users on this site use the term "dogmatism" in the right way), but rather from what I think are the social, economic and political characteristics of the historical period in question (I wouldn't go into that here since it actually deserves its own thread).

To reiterate, I agree with much of your post quoted above, especially on the question of discipline in relation to the internal life of the party.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 14:34

I did in next line you quoted... But I won't discuss this shit with you here. If you want discussion on Trotskyism open new thread. You are not in the centre of attention here.

oo-ooh! deary deary me!

Here few articles on Trotskyism... but if you want to discuss that open another thread.

This is ICT's pamphlet on Trotskyism:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-trotskysm
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-internationalist-communist-left
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotskyism-after-trotsky
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-a-natalya-trotsky-breaks-with-the-fourth-international
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-b-trotsky-and-trotskyism-the-chronology-1879-1943

Also some ICC's stuff:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/265_cwo_trotsky.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_tcliff.htm

And you can also use serch option on both websites... these are only ones I've read so far....

Like I'm gonna read all that. I had a glance at the first one and immediately spotted a major error:

"From the mid 1930s the confusion of the Trotskyist movement was complete as it combined this claim with the argument that the Stalinist bureaucracy could not be reformed and thus there had to be a “social revolution”. "

This is not true.

Trotsky:

"After the political revolution – that is, the deposing of the bureaucracy – the proletariat would have to introduce in the economy a series of very important reforms, but not another social revolution."

If you cant even get something so basic right, why would I wanna bother looking further?

Thirsty Crow

3rd March 2012, 14:44

If you cant even get something so basic right, why would I wanna bother looking further?
Oh that's a damn good alibi. If you're so ignorant, then why bother reading the rest of your writings (cause I only call for respectful discussion when you don't bother me with texts). Pathetic.

Oh yeah, and it seems you can't really read or you're intent on equating what ICT call "the Trotskyist movement" with Trotsky himself. Do you think that the persona of Leon actually stands for the entire movement (nowhere in the quote you provided does it say anything about what Trotsky himself said, but you bring up exactly that)?

ProletariatPraetorian

3rd March 2012, 14:57

Do you include Trotskyists and Stalinists in this? Because if you do, you really should know that we don't. Trotskyism and Stalinism are not internationalist and revolutionary, according to how Left Communism sees the political landscape. Therefore, Trotskyists and Stalinists are not our allies.

I'm not aware of any Left Communists calling for purges on the forums. Can you linkk to examples? I am aware however of people calling on Left Communists to be purged from the forums.

Im referring to revolutionary leftists across all spectrums, the infighting has to stop or well get nowhere. To answer your second question i was referring to the lockdown and purge of what some people estimated to be twenty or so members. Obviously i wont argue that trolls and Capitalists and Fascists that wont engage in civil debate should not be banned however ive seen some people restricted or banned on the unfounded basis of trolling, being reactionary, etc.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 14:58

Originall posted by Daft Punk:

"Not my fault if the SWP have some politically challenged policies. "

Everyone happy? Apart from the SWP of course.

GoddessCleoLover

3rd March 2012, 15:01

I would say that I am more of a Luxemburgist than a Left Communist. I agree with Lenin's analysis in Left-wing Communism that participation in working class institutions is a practical necessity. Left Communists seek a laudable goal of post-revolution workers' democracy and their critique of the vanguard party is valuable to convincing workers that revolutionaries don't intend to impose any more dictatorships OVER the proletariat. On the minus side, Left Communists seem to concede bourgeois cultural hegemony by opposing participation in certain institutions where one could construct important connections with the working class.

Left Communists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, Gramscians and other Marxists of related tendencies do have an EXTREMELY valuable understanding that may form some basis for common ground. Each of these tendencies support revolutionary socialism while realizing that things went dreadfully awry in the USSR prior to the Second World War. Certain other tendencies blind themselves to this basic reality, and IMO large numbers of workers will never again support that type of Marxism-Leninism. Hopefully our various tendencies can construct political organizations that will appeal to workers who demand both revolution and workers' democracy.

ProletariatPraetorian

3rd March 2012, 15:03

And what does left communists have to do with purges on this forum? BA of this forum is really far from left communism. Also, in last purge here mostly left communist users were purged. Then again, Internet forums hardly represent real political life, so left communists here don't actually represent anything but themselves and their ideals.

Im not saying that what occurs here is reflective of what would occur in a real life scenario, i just think that we should conduct ourselves as if it were a real life scenario.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 15:11

Oh that's a damn good alibi. If you're so ignorant, then why bother reading the rest of your writings (cause I only call for respectful discussion when you don't bother me with texts). Pathetic.

Oh yeah, and it seems you can't really read or you're intent on equating what ICT call "the Trotskyist movement" with Trotsky himself. Do you think that the persona of Leon actually stands for the entire movement (nowhere in the quote you provided does it say anything about what Trotsky himself said, but you bring up exactly that)?

"The second key element of the analysis deals with the feature which was identified earlier as Trotskyism’s core confusion — the nature of the degenerated Soviet state. From the 1920s until his murder by their agents in 1940 Trotsky maintained that the group around Stalin somehow defended “the gains of October”. For Trotsky the nationalised industry of the Stalinist monstrosity was a historic gain for the working class. From the mid 1930s the confusion of the Trotskyist movement was complete as it combined this claim with the argument that the Stalinist bureaucracy could not be reformed and thus there had to be a “social revolution”. (In fact during the 1990s many Stalinists succeeded in reinventing their role and holding on to power when the capital which had only recently been held by the state became more or less transformed into private capital.)
In summarising the roots of Trotsky’s confusion the first document observes that:
Trotsky …. could not recognise that it [the Soviet bureaucracy] represented a new ruling class in the making who collectively disposed of the surplus product created by the working class."

Well, it mentions Trotsky 3 times in that paragraph, and it uses Trotsky and Trotskyism more or less synonymously:

"The second key element of the analysis deals with the feature which was identified earlier as Trotskyism’s core confusion — the nature of the degenerated Soviet state. From the 1920s until his murder by their agents in 1940 Trotsky maintained that the group around Stalin somehow defended “the gains of October”."

The article is just the intro but there are no links to the rest of it.

3rd March 2012, 15:13

Not to me it isn't. The Turkish guy was looking for revolutionary leftists. I told him where he might find some. Question answered as per request. Stop whining.

Forgive my ignorance, but since when do we have a section in Turkey?

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 15:16

Why cant I go from the intro to the other parts? I only found part 2 by going back to the links on revleft!

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 15:17

Forgive my ignorance, but since when do we have a section in Turkey?

It's secret, shhh

The Douche

3rd March 2012, 15:23

Not my fault if the SWP have some retarded policies. .

Verbal warning for ableist language. C'mon.

3rd March 2012, 15:23

Also, this spotted my eye:

Please support that Trotskyism is social democracy.

Support that Trots support Popular Fronts. As for parliamentarianism, well, Marx advocated it. What is you problem with that? What is you problem with unions?

Support!

[...]

Start a thread, give us your views. That's what I'm asking for. Proper debate.

Here few articles on Trotskyism... but if you want to discuss that open another thread.

This is ICT's pamphlet on Trotskyism:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-trotskysm
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-internationalist-communist-left
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotskyism-after-trotsky
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-a-natalya-trotsky-breaks-with-the-fourth-international
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-b-trotsky-and-trotskyism-the-chronology-1879-1943

Also some ICC's stuff:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/265_cwo_trotsky.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_tcliff.htm

And you can also use serch option on both websites... these are only ones I've read so far....

Like I'm gonna read all that.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png

If you don't want to read about the actual arguments, then don't ask for them? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

It's secret, shhh
Are you serious? The only underground section we currently have is in China and they're pretty well known.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 16:03

Ok I started a new thread as per request, to go through that article.

Verbal warning for ableist language. C'mon.

Is this serious or a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

"Mental retardation (MR) is a generalized disorder appearing before adulthood, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_behavior). It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Quotient) score under 70.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-0) Once focused almost entirely on cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition), the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environment. As a result, a person with a below-average intelligence quotient (BAIQ) may not be considered mentally retarded. Syndromic mental retardation is intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_and_symptoms). Non-syndromic mental retardation refers to intellectual deficits that appear without other abnormalities. The terms used to describe this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill). This means that whatever term is chosen for this condition, it eventually becomes perceived as an insult. The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which were deemed to have become offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging and politically incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) and in need of replacement.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-isbn0-415-95086-4-1) The term intellectual disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability) or intellectually challenged is now preferred by most advocates in most English-speaking countries. Clinically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_psychology), however, mental retardation is a subtype of intellectual disability, which is a broader concept and includes intellectual deficits that are too mild to properly qualify as mental retardation, too specific (as in specific learning disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_learning_disability)), or acquired later in life, through acquired brain injuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_brain_injuries) or neurodegenerative diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegenerative_diseases) like dementia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia). Intellectual disabilities may appear at any age. Developmental disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_disability) is any disability that is due to problems with growth and development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_%28biology%29). This term encompasses many congenital medical conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_medical_condition) that have no mental or intellectual components, although it, too, is sometimes used as a euphemism for MR.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-2) Because of its specificity and lack of confusion with other conditions, mental retardation is still the term most widely used and recommended for use in professional medical settings, such as formal scientific research and health insurance paperwork.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-3)"

Personally I would never call someone retarded. I would only call a post or an idea retarded. I have worked in a house with people who have learning difficulties and prefer that term.

"United Kingdom
In the UK, mental handicap had become the common medical term, replacing mental subnormality in Scotland and mental deficiency in England and Wales, until Stephen Dorrell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Dorrell), Secretary of State for Health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Health) for the United Kingdom from 1995–97, changed the NHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service)'s designation to learning disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_disability).[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-24)

The new term is not yet widely understood, and is often taken to refer to problems affecting schoolwork (the American usage), which are known in the UK as "learning difficulties." British social workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work) may use "learning difficulty" to refer to both people with MR and those with conditions such as dyslexia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia).[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-25) In education, "learning difficulties" is applied to a wide range of conditions: "specific learning difficulty" may refer to dyslexia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia), dyscalculia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia) or dyspraxia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyspraxia), while "moderate learning difficulties", "severe learning difficulties" and "profound learning difficulties" refer to more significant impairments.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-27)"

Anyway, what should I have said? Stupid policies? Idiotic? Clueless? How do you describe such things while safely crossing the PC minefield?

Also, this spotted my eye:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png

If you don't want to read about the actual arguments, then don't ask for them? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Are you serious? The only underground section we currently have is in China and they're pretty well known.

dear god

The Douche

3rd March 2012, 16:10

You can't debate your use of prejudiced language in here Daft Punk. We don't tolerate language on here which is derogatory based on the nature of sex, gender, age, race, sexual orientation, mental or physical capabilities or anything like that. This is supposed to be a safe(r) space. Your language inhibits that.

This is not up for debate or discussion, the word you used is not appropriate. The policies of the SWP are not symptoms of mental retardation. And the manner in which you used the term is clearly derogatory and would be easily offensive to anybody with mental handicaps who read it.

Its not about political corectness, it is about ensuring an atmosphere which welcomes the participation of everybody. If you want to insult people with mental handicaps do it somewhere else. I'd rather be "PC" than ableist.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 16:20

Politically challenged? I like the sound of that!

Искра

3rd March 2012, 16:34

Stop spaming... :rolleyes:

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 16:37

Stop spaming... :rolleyes:

g8huXkSaL7o

gorillafuck

3rd March 2012, 16:40

it's great to see an informative thread turn into a spamfest over an unwillingness to accept that you can't use the term "retarded" on here.

Left communists pretty much don't care about "far left" which repeats same old reformist and populist politic all over again for ages. Also, we don't believe that some small "revolutionary" organisations and nerd clubs will "bring the revolution". That's just utopian bollocks and wet dream of some CNT/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao/[...] nerds.when you call other political tendencies nerds, it makes you sound like a huge nerd in denial.

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 16:49

it's great to see an informative thread turn into a spamfest over an unwillingness to accept that you can't use the term "retarded" on here.

when you call other political tendencies nerds, it makes you sound like a huge nerd in denial.

And this post is useful in what way exactly?

Blake's Baby

3rd March 2012, 17:01

Im referring to revolutionary leftists across all spectrums, the infighting has to stop or well get nowhere...

I notice you avoided my question.

You refer to 'revolutionary leftists'.

I ask you what you mean.

You reply 'revolutionary leftists'.

So, I'll say again, we don't see Trotskyists and Stalinists as revolutinaries. So I see no reason to ally with them. They're enemies of the working class. Why should Left Communists ally with people they believe to be enemies of the working class?

To answer your second question i was referring to the lockdown and purge of what some people estimated to be twenty or so members. Obviously i wont argue that trolls and Capitalists and Fascists that wont engage in civil debate should not be banned however ive seen some people restricted or banned on the unfounded basis of trolling, being reactionary, etc.

I notice you avoided my question.

Can you link to places where Left Communists have called for purges?

daft punk

3rd March 2012, 17:14

we don't see Trotskyists and Stalinists as revolutinaries (sic). So I see no reason to ally with them. They're enemies of the working class.

er. lol. A very politically challenged TM post if ever there was one. Trotsky predicted and led the only revolution to attempts socialism. His goal - to put the working class in power.

But yet he is their enemy!

Please explain this.

3rd March 2012, 17:22

Please explain this.

Sure you want to read it all?

Per Levy

3rd March 2012, 17:24

er. lol. A very politically challenged TM post if ever there was one. Trotsky predicted and led the only revolution to attempts socialism. His goal - to put the working class in power.

blake said trotskyists arnt revolutionary, not that trotsky wasnt revolutionary. thats quite a differense isnt it.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd March 2012, 17:29

Sure, you want disagreement on historical grounds?
I don't agree with Bordiga's and the Italian Left's recognition of the party-state as a vehicle of working class self-emancipation (which, I believe, stems from two problematic sources: the specificities of the view on the party, as a sole factor in working class actually being a social class, and a serious misrecognition of the historical experience of the Russian Revolution, where the formation of a party-state was not taken as a sign of degeneration). Fortunately, towards WWII, the Italian lefts managed to move beyond that position.

Bordiga had a crude definition of "party." On the other hand, "party in the historical sense," "party in the broad sense," etc. are too broad. The notion of a party-movement being "sole factor in working class actually being a social class," or just plain being the worker-class-for-itself (cue "substitutionism" and "voluntarism") comes straight from Marx and Engels.

I also don't agree with the political and organizational aspects of much of the German-Dutch communist left that continued to operate when KAPD dissolved, acting as a forerunner of councilism. Among these is the rejection of the party as probably the most serious one

So what's your view, then, on the pre-WWI Marxist Center on the party institutions question?

I also think that the notion of the decadence of capitalism is very problematic. For instance, this notion enabled the Belgian Fraction to declare that any development of the productive forces after WWII is simply impossible. It's easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight, but my conclusion is that either the Belgian lefts made a serious mistake in interpretation of this notion, or that the concept itself is flawed in that it enables in the first place dubious assessments.

I welcome your comments on this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/crisis-theories-overrated-t167852/index.html

Now, I'm forced to consider the implications of this thread. It seems as if there is quite some weight attached to the issues of dogmatism and being a sect (the latter being the product of the former). But this misses the mark completely as it essentially demands of leftcoms that they abandon their political positions in favour of some kind of a broad unity. In my book, this guarantees disaster as we had all sorts of historical evidence to show us how mass organizations, without clearly defined and operative principles, fail. Furthermore, it seems as if this view is also based on the notion that political organizations create class struggle, which is very far from being true.

Not at all.

One can still be a programmatic maximalist and have a more political, party-movement-oriented strategic line a la DeLeonism. Also, mass political institutions do create genuine class struggle.

In fact, I'd oppose any moves against tendency or fraction formation within the supposed revolutionary party (and do notice that I do not think that there is solid basis nowadays for such a party, and that by party I actually refer to the International), though that doesn't imply that I envision the future party as a mass organization. As I've stated, I don't think mass organizations, be they modelled on whichever historical organization (wink wink to you and DNZ), are viable nowadays, and that doesn't stem from a dogmatism of sorts (by the way, I don't think that many users on this site use the term "dogmatism" in the right way), but rather from what I think are the social, economic and political characteristics of the historical period in question (I wouldn't go into that here since it actually deserves its own thread).

But it does imply a dogmatism of another kind: ad hoc councils, assemblies, etc.

I don't see the logic of grasping to a non-institutional model that has failed time and again given multiple opportunities.

Also, that "wink, wink" should include the original poster, who posed this question from our strategic vantage point.

Искра

3rd March 2012, 17:54

when you call other political tendencies nerds, it makes you sound like a huge nerd in denial. Nerd is not a tendency thing... with nerd term I refeer to group of ideologues and activists. Of course, left communists are nerds of their sort :) me included ;)

I just want to make difference between organisation which is founded by few people who share oppinion and by organsiation which is founded as a product of class struggle... etc.

I could use maybe better term... but you know... this is just my style ;)

The Douche

3rd March 2012, 19:28

Let's tighten this thread back up, ok everybody?

~Spectre

4th March 2012, 01:39

Stepping back for an overview, these are the exact same types of responses that frustrated debaters give to anyone who is to the left of them.

"Is there ANY U.S. foreign policy that you support!? Or are you just a dogmatic robot?"

It reeks of false choice and impotent rage. At the end of the day, consistent analysis is strength, not a flaw.

Revolution starts with U

4th March 2012, 05:15

Thirsty Crow

4th March 2012, 13:26

But it does imply a dogmatism of another kind: ad hoc councils, assemblies, etc.

I don't see the logic of grasping to a non-institutional model that has failed time and again given multiple opportunities.

Also, that "wink, wink" should include the original poster, who posed this question from our strategic vantage point.
Here's how people on this site misuse the term dogmatism.
As far as I'm concerned, there are valid reasons for Marxists to uphold working class self-emancipation, as well as the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus, as principles. Also, I think there's ample evidence that the working class cannot organize its political rule as the bourgeoisie does, or in other words, that workers' need to establish their own institutions of political rule radically different from those corresponding to the capitalist mode of production and its social formations.
And yet again, historically, workers' did organize within such institutions, and created them in the first place, first acting as the battering ram of revolution (with all of its dangers, of course), then offering the possibilities for functioning as the basis for a new kind of political rule.
Then, after realizing this, you shouldn't really accuse me of dogmatism since dogmatism amounts to a defence of a position (no matter its field of operation) without any kind of supporting evidence. It amounts to a priori reasoning which cannot offer real arguments. But surely, I'm aware of the great difficulties in upholding the communist programme, particularly, in relation to the organization of struggle and the formation of a new political rule, by the workers' and for the workers.
We might discuss the merits of permanent workers' organizations within capitalist society (and their viability), but again, that's a matter for another thread.

Oh yes, and one more note on this casual dismissal of factual failures: if you were consistent and went to the end of that line, then we all might just give up and conclude that pretty much everything failed. Not a nice perspective, isn't it?

Oh yes, and feel free to include wkomever in the winky wink unless they express disagreement over that.

Tavarisch_Mike

4th March 2012, 17:37

Left communists pretty much don't care about "far left" which repeats same old reformist and populist politic all over again for ages. Also, we don't believe that some small "revolutionary" organisations and nerd clubs will "bring the revolution". That's just utopian bollocks and wet dream of some CNT/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao/[...] nerds.

Agree.

Left communists are for uniting all workers struggle under one banner - banner of class struggle for taking political power and establishing proletariat dictatorship.

Agree even more.

But, that doesn't mean that we should work with some opportunist, reformist and social democratic left tendencies. After all they are unimportant for class struggle. Class struggle lies in class itself and with the time, experience and decay of capitalism it will evolve more and more into a proletarian class movement.

Disagree. Heres when things become a little bit too dogmatic imo. To be tactical is important, if you can achive certain goals by temporary collaborate with, for exampel, soc-dems then do it. Its the resulte that matters.

We see that our job is to partipate in those movements and to try to spark certian discussions and ideas among working class and fight opportunist who only want to take these movements to promote their rotten organisations.

I do buy the left coms key chritic of the practice and structures among the workers movement. That we need to watch out for things to become to much politics and ideology, rather then actual class struggle. But to me it appears that this also tend to become (if not pratical, at least verbal) dogma and princips such as: "Unions are worthless". There is not enough of a analysis in a statement like that. I know people who are mebers in, so called, left-winged parties not because they belive that thats the key to the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. No, they are members there because they see that frome there they can at least slow down the right-wingers attacks on the working class. Simply pragmatism.

Blake's Baby

4th March 2012, 18:07

...
Disagree. Heres when things become a little bit too dogmatic imo. To be tactical is important, if you can achive certain goals by temporary collaborate with, for exampel, soc-dems then do it. Its the resulte that matters...

Not sure what results you're thinking about, but in general Left Communists believe that social democrats, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and the rest of 'the Left' are not only not working in the interests of the working class, but working against the interests of the working class. We believe that 'the Left' is actively counter-revolutionary. Why should Left Communists work with counter-revolutionaries? Would you expect Trotskyists to work with fascists, Stalinists with monarchists?

...
I do buy the left coms key chritic of the practice and structures among the workers movement. That we need to watch out for things to become to much politics and ideology, rather then actual class struggle. But to me it appears that this also tend to become (if not pratical, at least verbal) dogma and princips such as: "Unions are worthless". There is not enough of a analysis in a statement like that. I know people who are mebers in, so called, left-winged parties not because they belive that thats the key to the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. No, they are members there because they see that frome there they can at least slow down the right-wingers attacks on the working class. Simply pragmatism.

120 years of 'pragmatism' in the workers' movement produced the SPD which murdered revolutionaries, allied with the Freikorps, and paved the way Hitler; it produced the debacle of British and French unions rallying round their national flags and enlisting workers for slaughter in the trenches; it produced the paternalistic, racist and chauvinistic 'Jingo Socialists' of the Fabian Society, not to mention the eugenicists in their midst; it produced warmongering 'Labour' governments in Britain that were as xenophobic as the 'Conservatives' and 'Socialist' governments in France (with 'Communist' ministers) that competed with the Gaulists for who could 'defend Frenchg interests'; it produced parties that exist to administer national capital not fight for the working class.

12 years of revolutionary elan in the workers' movement produced revolutionary minorities that challenged capitalism and the state in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Italy, USA, Bulgaria, Serbia, Canada, China and beyond, brought WWI to close, and gave the proletariat an unparalleled example of world revolution.

Fuck 'pragmatism'.

Blake's Baby

5th March 2012, 12:49

As a non-left communist, I am curious if there are any serious, long term left-communists who disagree about ANYTHING of substance about the tendency with which they identify. .. Almost to a person they defend vociferously their approach to leftist politcs and are adamant about refusing to concede to any other leftist tendency that disagrees... every leftcom I've encountered defends just about everything on the validity of their tendency...

We may not ever be wrong but we do forget things, hence this post-script to my first post.

One reason that there may be fewer inter-Left Communist organisational battles is that many of us here are not members of organisations.

Alf and ernie are in the ICC; Head Ice is in the ICT. Most other Left Comms here - me, Kontrrazvedka, Menocchio, Devrim, Nic Rossi, #FF0000, BMH and others - are not. Most of us, I guess, have agreements with all of the Left Communist organisations, and some disagreements to. So we rarely have an organisational line to defend, and even if we did, the chances of finding another Left-Communist to criticise it are small. What's the point of (for instance) me criticising something that Programma Communista wrote about organisation in the Middle East? Is anyone on the general boards going to care, one way or the other?

Guy Incognito

5th March 2012, 14:14

Do we or do we not all want a dictatorship of the proletariat? Are we not all striving for the same end? Why bicker over the methods of how to achieve it like children, while the Reactionaries march in lock-step towards the worst institutions of the past? Why not give them more fronts than they can decry? Become united in spirit if not in name or means. Instead of tearing one another down, why do we not use any and all means nessecary to drag the Capitalists down? I'd rather deal with a world that has too many communist ideologies (at the very least, children will be fed, clothed and sheltered), than one with too many capitalists. :confused:

Tavarisch_Mike

5th March 2012, 14:35

Blake's Baby

5th March 2012, 15:05

manic expression

5th March 2012, 15:29

So you can chose: Left Communism is an irrelevant sectarian grouping of no-hoper idealists who can be ignored; or Left Communism is substantially correct and the parties of 'the Left' are part of the problem not part of the solution.

Interested to know what you think of the alternatives.
Hmmm, let's see...maybe left communism is an irrelevant sectarian grouping of no-hoper idealists who can be ignored and something that can be brought up for light amusement by the few people who know what it is.

Hey, the harsh part is all your words.

I think one of the issues here is that you can only really be wrong if you've ever made important decisions, done important things...left communists can pretend to never be wrong only because they've never done that. Where was the last left communist government that made an oversight or a mistake or was indecisive at the wrong time? When was the last left communist movement that misread a political situation or needlessly estranged an ally? Nowhere and never are the answers.

Thirsty Crow

5th March 2012, 15:47

Where was the last left communist government that made an oversight or a mistake or was indecisive at the wrong time? When was the last left communist movement that misread a political situation or needlessly estranged an ally? Nowhere and never are the answers.
Seriously, a "left communist government"? You would have us accept as standard the participation in the executive of the bourgeois state? Or do you refer to the so called socialist states (see previous sentence, again)?
And you seriously argue that left communists didn't constitute a movement? Good for you. It seems that pointing out the mistakes of the German-Dutch lefts, as well as the Italian left communists (not even to mention the councilists) is futile since we all know in advance that these were mere sects.

And you people ask for self-criticism when it's obvious that you can't criticize mere thin air (how the hell could thin air make the mistake, for instance, of holding on for too long to the notion of CPs being opportunist workers' organizations, thus tying it up with work as opposition within the party; it simply can't!).

Finally, is state power and numerical strenght all of the political standards you apply? It seems that it is so, which speaks for itself really.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 15:54

Seriously, a "left communist government"? You would have us accept as standard the participation in the executive of the bourgeois state? Or do you refer to the so called socialist states (see previous sentence, again)?
So you admit that you don't want to see a working-class government? That simplifies things, I suppose.

And you seriously argue that left communists didn't constitute a movement? Good for you. It seems that pointing out the mistakes of the German-Dutch lefts, as well as the Italian left communists (not even to mention the councilists) is futile since we all know in advance that these were mere sects.
I seriously do. An organization is not the same as a movement.

Pointing out the mistakes of the "German-Dutch lefts" or the "Italian left communists" might make for interesting discussion but not for any lessons of real gravity.

And you people ask for self-criticism when it's obvious that you can't criticize mere thin air (how the hell could thin air make the mistake, for instance, of holding on for too long to the notion of CPs being opportunist workers' organizations, thus tying it up with work as opposition within the party; it simply can't!).
That's your example of an important decision? I see.

Finally, is state power and numerical strenght all of the political standards you apply? It seems that it is so, which speaks for itself really.
I think that powerful ideas soon enough find powerful vehicles. I also think that it's easy to falsely hold yourself as superior when you never stand for anything.

Per Levy

5th March 2012, 16:07

So you admit that you don't want to see a working-class government? That simplifies things, I suppose.

how can you read something like this out of menocchios post? have you read through the thread? left-coms want that the working class takes power, what they dont want are "working-class governments" that rule over workers and in wich workers have no say.

so a left-coms dont want a "left-com government" but the rule of the working class, i hope i got that right.

Thirsty Crow

5th March 2012, 16:18

So you admit that you don't want to see a working-class government? That simplifies things, I suppose.
Yes, I don't want a "working class government" under capitalism, acting as the last bulwark against social revolution. Silly me, I thought that it was some 130 years ago that one guy concluded that the burgeois state should be smashed. Silly me.

I seriously do. An organization is not the same as a movement.So, this is an argument based only on numerical strenght. It speaks for itself (presumably, the more members the more correct the views is an integral part of Marxist theory).
So, tell me again, what is the numerical threshold for the distinction between organizations and movements?

Pointing out the mistakes of the "German-Dutch lefts" or the "Italian left communists" might make for interesting discussion but not for any lessons of real gravity.It would be interesting if you had any clue whatsoever and could really engage someone in that discussion from sensible positions (and informed ones too).

That's your example of an important decision? I see.See above for that bits on being informed. Yeah, it's easier to talk out of your arse.
And yes, this was an extremely important decision, one which influenced the development of international left communism immensely.

I think that powerful ideas soon enough find powerful vehicles. I also think that it's easy to falsely hold yourself as superior when you never stand for anything.
Never stand for anything? You mean, whenyou never stand as loyal opposition to borugeois reigmes merely emplying revolutionary rhetoric?
This is getting ridiculous. Among the myriad of political positions put forward by the communist left, some goon appears out of the blue and concludes they don't stand for anything. It appears that a vaccine against reality has been successfully made.

commieathighnoon

5th March 2012, 16:35

I seriously do. An organization is not the same as a movement.

Pointing out the mistakes of the "German-Dutch lefts" or the "Italian left communists" might make for interesting discussion but not for any lessons of real gravity.

The supporters of the abstentionist faction in Italy were the majority of the Italian communists of the time; when the KAPD split from the Bolshevized KPD, it left the latter a shadow of a party. German-Dutch left communist organizations, from the party to the Unionen, had hundreds of thousands of members.

Considerably more a mass organization of rank-and-file working-class militants than your organization, or any organization supported by Marcyites in the last several decades.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 16:53

how can you read something like this out of menocchios post? have you read through the thread? left-coms want that the working class takes power, what they dont want are "working-class governments" that rule over workers and in wich workers have no say.

so a left-coms dont want a "left-com government" but the rule of the working class, i hope i got that right.
There's the issue, though. Left communists want "the rule of the working class" (TM) but they never tell us what it would look like. Moreover, they never address that annoying fact that all governments are driven in some way by some ideology or by some guiding tendency. Pretending that there can't be a "left communist government" because their new form of government won't have any hint of ideology is absolutely absurd, as absurd as the worst of postmodernism.

It comes down to this...if leftcoms think that their ideology represents the interests of the working class, then they must also think that a working-class government would be driven by that same ideology...and then they'd have to admit that they want a leftcom government, even though they're not supposed to want that because even though it's supposedly the interests of the workers the workers aren't supposed to have ideology or government in the coming "government" and "ideology" that won't be tied to any such thing...............

What I'm saying is that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you promote a certain form of government, then you have to admit that. Leftcoms want to support the abstract notion of working-class governance without confronting the very fundamental questions involved in that. Then they go down that rabbit hole of running away from basic political realities, and then they're here, declaring that they're probably irrelevant anyway.

Guy Incognito

5th March 2012, 16:56

Don't worry about us, we're tiny. It doesn't matter to you if we're small and sectarian and wrong.

Left Communism is only important if we're right. In which case, all of your organisations deserve to be smashed because they're part of capitalism's apparatus of control.

As I say, if we're wrong, we're not important enough to be a threat.

So you can chose: Left Communism is an irrelevant sectarian grouping of no-hoper idealists who can be ignored; or Left Communism is substantially correct and the parties of 'the Left' are part of the problem not part of the solution.

Interested to know what you think of the alternatives.

It's our way or death statements like these that are causing us to lose ground. I make no choice of one or the other, I choose to support any and all methods to ensure the working class gains their freedom and what is rightfully theirs. Tell me, do you plan on shooting everyone who didn't use your Leftcom method to attain socialism in the neck once it's done (or worse, before)? If so, you're no better than the Stalinists you seem to so despise.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 17:02

Yes, I don't want a "working class government" under capitalism, acting as the last bulwark against social revolution. Silly me, I thought that it was some 130 years ago that one guy concluded that the burgeois state should be smashed. Silly me.
There you go again, defining yourself by what you don't want...never having a vague clue about what you do want.

Typical eternal-voice-in-the-wilderness left communism.

So, this is an argument based only on numerical strenght.
Numerical strength, of course, having nothing to do with the working classes. :lol:

It would be interesting if you had any clue whatsoever and could really engage someone in that discussion from sensible positions (and informed ones too).
It might very well be interesting...but that's about it, though.

And yes, this was an extremely important decision, one which influenced the development of international left communism immensely.
Yes, it's extremely important because it influenced the development of that which is not important.

Never stand for anything? You mean, whenyou never stand as loyal opposition to borugeois reigmes merely emplying revolutionary rhetoric?
This is getting ridiculous. Among the myriad of political positions put forward by the communist left, some goon appears out of the blue and concludes they don't stand for anything. It appears that a vaccine against reality has been successfully made.
Ah, that myriad of political positions. I forgot about them.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 17:05

The supporters of the abstentionist faction in Italy were the majority of the Italian communists of the time; when the KAPD split from the Bolshevized KPD, it left the latter a shadow of a party. German-Dutch left communist organizations, from the party to the Unionen, had hundreds of thousands of members.
First, tell me what exact time that happened. Then, tell me when left communism became an actual tendency.

Considerably more a mass organization of rank-and-file working-class militants than your organization, or any organization supported by Marcyites in the last several decades.
If we're basking in the glories of the past, then the red flag flying over the Reichstag probably trumps being an arguable majority faction in Italy at one time.

Blake's Baby

5th March 2012, 20:18

It's our way or death statements like these that are causing us to lose ground...

Our way or death? Hardly. I don't know what you think I'm saying but I'll try to explain it if I'm not being clear.

Left Communism, in this thread, is being accused if that's that the right word of being dogmatic and sectarian. We should, we're told, unite with other groups of 'the Left' and work together.

But we don't recognise that 'the Left' in general is on the same terrain or trajectory as Left Communism. Not that there aren't people who identify as Leftists who aren't good people with relatively sound politics, because obviously there are, and there are oganisations that aren'tLeft Communist that most of us have some time for because we think they're right about some things and wrong about others; but if they're members of organisations that promote capitalism, as we believe Stalinist and Trotskyist organisations do, then we 1-won't work with those organisations; 2-want those organisations destroyed; 3-want those people with decent politics who are in terrible organisations to leave them.

That's hardly 'our way or death'.

... I make no choice of one or the other, I choose to support any and all methods to ensure the working class gains their freedom and what is rightfully theirs...

You won't make a choice between whether you think that Left Communism is substantially wrong or substantially right in that process of 'ensuring the working class gains its freedom and what is rightfully its' (we generally call those 'revolution' and 'socialism')? I suppose it might be half-right and half-wrong and therefore difficult to judge. The point wasn't an ultimatum. It was a conundrum. Do you think Left Communism is substantially right? Why then should we ally with groups we don't agree with? Do you think Left Communism is substantially wrong? Why would you then want to us to ally with people more right than us (and dilute their rightness)?

... Tell me, do you plan on shooting everyone who didn't use your Leftcom method to attain socialism in the neck once it's done (or worse, before)? If so, you're no better than the Stalinists you seem to so despise.

:thumbup: If you like. That's actually a really funny post.

Leo

6th March 2012, 00:19

First, tell me what exact time that happened. Then, tell me when left communism became an actual tendency.

It could be said that the German left communists were a tendency of their own and the Italian left communists were another tendency of their own. Aside from the Russian left communist tendency, another one in its own right, these two were the strongest of the different left wings of the young Communist International.

The critical synthesis of the Italian and German tendencies started taking place in the 1930ies around the publication of the Italian left communists in exile, called Bilan (literally Balance Sheet). This effort, it can be said, was continued in the groups leading up to the formation of the ICC and in the ICC itself which today claims critical heritage mainly to the Italian and German lefts but to the Russian one and the others also. The ICT, while defending most of the political positions coming from the theoretical studies of Bilan and claiming heritage to it to an extent, sees itself basically in the tradition of Italian left communism and the Internationalist Communist Party of Italy founded in 1943. The Bordigists see themselves in the tradition of the same party, but reject the theoretical formulations developed by Bilan, instead defending a mixture of their own and Comintern's positions in the early twenties.

HEAD ICE

6th March 2012, 00:40

I'm always right like freeway exits

Blake's Baby

6th March 2012, 00:49

Ah, here we Keep Left.

manic expression

6th March 2012, 07:35

It could be said that the German left communists were a tendency of their own and the Italian left communists were another tendency of their own. Aside from the Russian left communist tendency, another one in its own right, these two were the strongest of the different left wings of the young Communist International.

The critical synthesis of the Italian and German tendencies started taking place in the 1930ies around the publication of the Italian left communists in exile, called Bilan (literally Balance Sheet). This effort, it can be said, was continued in the groups leading up to the formation of the ICC and in the ICC itself which today claims critical heritage mainly to the Italian and German lefts but to the Russian one and the others also. The ICT, while defending most of the political positions coming from the theoretical studies of Bilan and claiming heritage to it to an extent, sees itself basically in the tradition of Italian left communism and the Internationalist Communist Party of Italy founded in 1943. The Bordigists see themselves in the tradition of the same party, but reject the theoretical formulations developed by Bilan, instead defending a mixture of their own and Comintern's positions in the early twenties.
An interesting and thorough response, thank you. From this, though, it seems as though the abstentionist faction wasn't really left communist, since it would be some years before left communism became an independent tendency.

Leo

6th March 2012, 12:18

From this, though, it seems as though the abstentionist faction wasn't really left communist

No, as I say: the Italian left communists were another tendency of their own. This starts with the Abstentionist Communist Fraction.

manic expression

6th March 2012, 16:13

No, as I say: the Italian left communists were another tendency of their own. This starts with the Abstentionist Communist Fraction.
And what did that fraction actually accomplish?

Devrim

7th March 2012, 09:36

In fact, I've yet to meet a single leftcom IRL or even online who has proffed any serious critique of what they are up to. Almost to a person they defend vociferously their approach to leftist politcs and are adamant about refusing to concede to any other leftist tendency that disagrees. Why is this? Almost all (if not all) of the criticism of left-coms come from non-left coms; there may be incredibly acrimonious internal debates for all I know (actually that's quite likely given the plethora of "left communist" groups). But every leftcom I've encountered defends just about everything on the validity of their tendency.

To return to the OP briefly, I can see two possible answers to the question. Firstly left communist organisations today are tiny, and there are disagreements that you have probably not heard about. Secondly, due to the intransigence of the basic defining politics of left communism, many points that cause fervent disagreements between different Trotskyist organisations, for example, are not points of contention. While those organisations may disagree over which side to support in a war, or who to back in an election, this is not something that happens to left communists as the whole idea is based on a principle of no support for any bourgeois factions, no taking sides in capitalist wars, and no support for parlimentarianism, under any circumstances.

Devrim

Devrim

7th March 2012, 10:11

First, tell me what exact time that happened. Then, tell me when left communism became an actual tendency.

An interesting and thorough response, thank you. From this, though, it seems as though the abstentionist faction wasn't really left communist, since it would be some years before left communism became an independent tendency.

I think that this whole approach of defining exactly when left communism became a single identifiable tendency fails to see the trees of history because it is looking at the wood.

The left communists were the left wing of the Third International. The people who later became identified as left communists were the driving force behind the formation of the communist parties in the European countries which experienced the highest levels of struggle during the revolutionary wave after the First World War,Russia, Germany, and Italy, as well as playing an important part in others, including Britain, and the Netherlands.

In Germany when the left was expelled from the KPD, the central committee excluded the majority of members of the party. In Italy when Gramsci was imposed as the leader of the party over Bordiga, the left still had a majority within the party, and in Russia there were points post revolution when the left could muster majority support in both the Petrograd, and Moscow party organisations, not to mention the fact that the debates against the left during the war were key to winning Lenin away from the essentially Menshevik position that socialist revolution was not possible in Russia that he still held as late as 1916.

However, the left communists didn't try to define themselves as a separate current against the International. Quite the reverse, they tried to win the international to what they considered to be revolutionary politics, until they were hounded out. The German left was expelled from its own party, and then later,when it had reformed itself as the KAPD, excluded from the international. The Italian left were forced out of the party, and factions were banned within the Russian party with many left communists spending time in the state's political prisons.

Certainly there were different ideas on the left of the Comintern, and there was a huge divergence between the ideas of the Italian and German lefts,and at the time it would have certainly been correct to charecterise them as completely different tendencies, with the only 'links' being an opposition to the policies of the international, and Lenin's lumping them together in the same basket in his polemic against them in 1920. Those who call themselves left communists today, however, tend to draw on the theoretical work done in the 1930s trying to understand the degeneration of the revolution that draw upon the ideas of both of these tendencies.

Hmmm, let's see...maybe left communism is an irrelevant sectarian grouping of no-hoper idealists who can be ignored and something that can be brought up for light amusement by the few people who know what it is.

Hey, the harsh part is all your words.

I think one of the issues here is that you can only really be wrong if you've ever made important decisions, done important things...left communists can pretend to never be wrong only because they've never done that. Where was the last left communist government that made an oversight or a mistake or was indecisive at the wrong time? When was the last left communist movement that misread a political situation or needlessly estranged an ally? Nowhere and never are the answers.

I don't really understand this whole line of argument. It is not only that no left communists today claim to be anything more than a tiny current with virtually no influence within the working class but more so that you yourself are a member of an equally insignificant current (Marcyism) that not only has never had any political influence within the working class, but, as far as I know, has never had any organisational expression outside of a single country.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

8th March 2012, 14:51

While those organisations may disagree over which side to support in a war, or who to back in an election, this is not something that happens to left communists as the whole idea is based on a principle of no support for any bourgeois factions, no taking sides in capitalist wars, and no support for parlimentarianism, under any circumstances.

You didn't really answer the OP, but just dodged it. :confused:

Leo

8th March 2012, 15:00

And what did that fraction actually accomplish?

It formed the Communist Party of Italy.

manic expression

8th March 2012, 16:31

In Germany when the left was expelled from the KPD, the central committee excluded the majority of members of the party. In Italy when Gramsci was imposed as the leader of the party over Bordiga, the left still had a majority within the party, and in Russia there were points post revolution when the left could muster majority support in both the Petrograd, and Moscow party organisations, not to mention the fact that the debates against the left during the war were key to winning Lenin away from the essentially Menshevik position that socialist revolution was not possible in Russia that he still held as late as 1916.
So left communists got expelled from one party and outmaneuvered in another. OK, good for them, but this contradicts my arguments how?

Certainly there were different ideas on the left of the Comintern, and there was a huge divergence between the ideas of the Italian and German lefts,and at the time it would have certainly been correct to charecterise them as completely different tendencies, with the only 'links' being an opposition to the policies of the international, and Lenin's lumping them together in the same basket in his polemic against them in 1920. Those who call themselves left communists today, however, tend to draw on the theoretical work done in the 1930s trying to understand the degeneration of the revolution that draw upon the ideas of both of these tendencies.
That's a very indirect sort of continuity. If you draw upon theoretical work in the 1930s then why claim that your tendency was founding parties and being outmaneuvered in the 1910s?

I don't really understand this whole line of argument. It is not only that no left communists today claim to be anything more than a tiny current with virtually no influence within the working class but more so that you yourself are a member of an equally insignificant current (Marcyism) that not only has never had any political influence within the working class, but, as far as I know, has never had any organisational expression outside of a single country.
So-called Marcyism has constantly done the opposite of what left communists have done. Our idea is that all factions that support the October Revolution can and must make common cause. MLs, Maoists, Trotskyists and the rest need to see that they really are a unified movement and not so disparate.

"Marcyism" is a tendency trying to unify all pro-Bolshevik tendencies, so the comparison doesn't fly whatsoever. If you missed that then maybe you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

It formed the Communist Party of Italy.
Which promptly became a non-left communist organization, no?

Leo

8th March 2012, 23:03

Which promptly became a non-left communist organization, no?

After the overwhelming majority of its founding cadres were purged from the party basically with the exception of the tiny L'Ordine Nuovo around Gramsci and Togliatti who were artificially given leadership. Eventually, the Communist Party of Italy, Section of the Communist International (the full name of the party) officially ceased to exist when the Stalinists changed its name into the Italian Communist Party.

blake 3:17

8th March 2012, 23:32

So, I'll say again, we don't see Trotskyists and Stalinists as revolutinaries. So I see no reason to ally with them. They're enemies of the working class.

Whooa!

We believe that 'the Left' is actively counter-revolutionary.

Urghhhhhhhh.

Left behind.

Blake's Baby

8th March 2012, 23:55

You're surprised?

I suppose I should defend my views.

Though there can be people in Trotskyist and Stalinist organisations with OK politics, we think it's necessary for them to break with those organisations to become revolutionaries, because we regard the organisations as being counter-revolutionary.

It's not about 'people' per se, Stalinists and Trotskyists and Maoists can become revolutionaries - by abandoning Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism.

blake 3:17

9th March 2012, 02:50

Sounds like Spart talk.

Anyways, read through a bunch of the ICT stuff, and completely disagree on the national question.

The dismissal of the Nicaraguan revolution is nonsense.

manic expression

9th March 2012, 07:22

After the overwhelming majority of its founding cadres were purged from the party basically with the exception of the tiny L'Ordine Nuovo around Gramsci and Togliatti who were artificially given leadership. Eventually, the Communist Party of Italy, Section of the Communist International (the full name of the party) officially ceased to exist when the Stalinists changed its name into the Italian Communist Party.
Again very interesting information, thank you. On that, it seems like the left communists were outmaneuvered yet again.

Blake's Baby

9th March 2012, 09:32

Sounds like Spart talk.

Anyways, read through a bunch of the ICT stuff, and completely disagree on the national question.

The dismissal of the Nicaraguan revolution is nonsense.

Well, the national question is one of the things that divides Left Communists from 'the Left'. We reject national liberation, have done since WWI, and as a result we see groups that support it as pro-capitalist and nationalists. Therefore, why would we work with those groups?

This is really a fundamental position for the Communist Left. Not sure how you could have been unaware of that absolutely basic position all this time. It's as if you suddenly went 'what the hell, you guys are communists?' :scared:

Leo

9th March 2012, 11:00

Again very interesting information, thank you. On that, it seems like the left communists were outmaneuvered yet again.

I don't think "outmaneuvered" is the best term to explain what happened in the Italian case. In the KPD, we can talk about the left being bureaucratically outmaneuvered since the right did manage to expel them despite the fact that they actually constituted a majority. However this wasn't the case in Italy - for by itself the Gramsci-Togliatti faction had no chance in outmaneuvering the left. There were two factors which determined the issue: the first was that in June 1924 when Gramsci was brought to the leadership position in the Communist Party of Italy, such issues weren't resolved in the party anymore, and Moscow had acquired a position of giving orders and declaring who was to lead or not. The second was the question of principle for the Italian left. Being internationalists instead of careerists, the Italian left communists could only lead a party of the Communist International if their positions were in line with those of the international - they wanted to be not an opposition leading a national party but an international opposition.