A lot of information

[Gemscopiscan]

I've been browsing the different articles and threads and there is a lot of information to be found here. I am only just beginning to delve into communism and the different tendencies. It's pretty overwhelming. I went out and purchased a copy of The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and also The Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker. (I'm a marker so I need the paper). I am hoping that these are a good place to start.

I also read an excerpt from an interview with Jack O'Dell in which he states that the Communist Party was one that blacks knew that they could rely on to fight against racism during the Jim Crow Era. As an African American I wonder just what happened with that relationship? The way I figure it, there should be a strong Communist presence in African American neighborhoods. Does anyone know who quit who?

[PhoenixAsh]

I can't answer your second question.

And yes....the communist manifesto is a nice place to start. I am not familliar with the Tucker book. But I am sure others are and can say something about that. There is an awesome internet archive: marxists.org which basically has a huge amount of literature online for free.

[Ostrinski]

Get Red and Black's Marx and Engels collections, they're better than Tucker's reader.

[MarxSchmarx]

I also read an excerpt from an interview with Jack O'Dell in which he states that the Communist Party was one that blacks knew that they could rely on to fight against racism during the Jim Crow Era. As an African American I wonder just what happened with that relationship? The way I figure it, there should be a strong Communist presence in African American neighborhoods. Does anyone know who quit who?

There's no easy answer to this; one is that the red scare was no less vicious in the african american communities than it was in the nation as a whole. A generation of communist leaders and activists in every community were wiped out, including predominantly black neighborhoods.

Another is that the democratic party did manage to coopt traditionally strong nonstate institutions, particularly the protestant churchers , through the cause of civil rights - and and later public sector unions, thereby cementing its role as the graveyard of social movements. But more concretely, the communists could offer little more than moral support in the post-McCarthy era. The communists were disporportionately influential especially in the 30s and into the 40s, but their numbers and infrastructure and all that were basically gutted before the civil rights movement took off and as a cold war entity lived on as a shadow of its former self. With a handful of high profile exceptions, most communists who remained in the african american community did so secretly, pretty much like communists throughout the usa. The decline of the sort of broad-based unionism envisioned by the CIO, and the unwillingness of unions to expand aggressively among african americans outside teh public sector in the latter half of the 20th century also left traditional vehicles for communist influence absent from several communities.

Finally I think it's fair to say that American communism largely retreated, or more accurately curled up and got ready to die, in higher education, a societal institution notorious for its systematic exclusion of African americans.

[Lei Feng]

Heres a rundown of the tendencies:

Marxism-Leninism: Ideology based upon Marx and Lenin. Most "communist countries" were this tendency. Put into practice by Stalin. The Communist Party of the USA during the time period you asked about, belonged to this tendency(at that time, different story nowadays).

Trotskyism: Marxist Ideology that supports Lenin, but not Stalin, claiming that he ruined the USSR and socialism.

Maoism: Marxism-Leninism with more focus on peasants and expansion on M-L thought. The Black Panthers(the real ones, not the racists. Huey Newton, Bobby Seale) had ties to this tendency.

Left Communism:Rejects Lenin and believes in a more Liberal view of Socialism.

Those are a few off the top of my head.

Hope it helped

[Grenzer]

I also read an excerpt from an interview with Jack O'Dell in which he states that the Communist Party was one that blacks knew that they could rely on to fight against racism during the Jim Crow Era. As an African American I wonder just what happened with that relationship? The way I figure it, there should be a strong Communist presence in African American neighborhoods. Does anyone know who quit who?

It's true that the CPUSA was a part of the struggle against racism, but I would caution against placing too much importance on the CPUSA.

They have never been a solid communist party. In the beginning, they were the pawns of Moscow. However, even if you follow the Marxist-Leninist line, this doesn't mean much. Even Stalin noted that the members of the CPUSA were particularly prone to right wing degeneration. The party went further downhill as time went on and the USSR degenerated. There were a lot of spies, up to the point where more than half of the members of the CPUSA were spies.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the CPUSA ended up in an even sadder state. These days, they are little more than an extension of the Democratic party. Even the Socialist Party is more revolutionary than they are.

You shouldn't feel compelled to buy any books you know. You can find everything you need free at the Marxists Archive, unless you prefer having a physical book.

You can find the Marxist archive here. (http://www.marxists.org/)

[Grenzer]

Left Communism:Rejects Lenin and believes in a more Liberal view of Socialism.

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. If anything, Left Communism is a more illiberal form of socialism that rejects nationalism and imperialism entirely, insisting instead on the practical necessity of internationalism. In addition, Left Communists don't necessarily reject Lenin, but he's just not seen as a god. Left Communists reject the nationalist degeneration of Leninism, and reject the theoretical flaws of Lenin and Trotsky, while still acknowledging that these figures still have made positive contributions.

[Ostrinski]

Left communists are not anti-Lenin, they are anti-Leninist. There's a difference.

[l'Enfermé]

Left communists are not anti-Lenin, they are anti-Leninist. There's a difference.
Not the Italian school, Bordigists are pro-Lenin, in fact Bordiga kept on calling himself a Leninist until his death.

[Zealot]

Historically there was a big Communist presence in the African-American community, most notably the Black Panther movement, but many of these advances were successfully sabotaged by the government and the FBI e.g COINTELPRO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)

Join the Marxist-Leninist group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) if you want to learn scientific socialism or give me a pm if you have questions about this tendency.

[Ostrinski]

Not the Italian school, Bordigists are pro-Lenin, in fact Bordiga kept on calling himself a Leninist until his death.This doesn't negate what I said at all.

[l'Enfermé]

This doesn't negate what I said at all.
You said Left-Coms are anti-Leninist. Since the two main branches of left-communists are the Italian and Dutch-German School, and the Italian left-Coms are not anti-Leninist at all, it does.

[Grenzer]

Not the Italian school, Bordigists are pro-Lenin, in fact Bordiga kept on calling himself a Leninist until his death.

Bordigism is a separate tendency from Left Communism, which is not to say that many Left Communists don't get inspiration from his works. You're also wrong, since Bordiga did have some fundamental disagreements with Leninism, such as democratic centralism. Bordiga rejected democratic centralism. Regardless of how he may have labelled himself, there are significant differences.

[Ostrinski]

Bordigism is a separate tendency from Left CommunismI dunno about that. I think the thing about left communism is that it's a very broad label, and contains many different tendencies within itself.

[Ostrinski]

You said Left-Coms are anti-Leninist. Since the two main branches of left-communists are the Italian and Dutch-German School, and the Italian left-Coms are not anti-Leninist at all, it does.The Dutch-Germans are anti-Lenin while the Italians are not. While the Italians may be/have been pro-Lenin, they are not Leninists.

[Grenzer]

I dunno about that. I think the thing about left communism is that it's a very broad label, and contains many different tendencies within itself.

Some left communists I've talked to have claimed that this is not the case. It could be that Bordigists are considered to be wholly in the left communist tradition, but I'm not certain. One could be a Luxmeburgist, for example, and they would also be a left communist.

You are completely right about that the latter point though. Unlike other theoretical schools in the revolutionary left, left communism is probably the least monolithic. There is no list of theorists you can read and make the statement that "This is what left communism is." You could, however, read the works of several different theorists and have an idea of possible positions that Left Communists might have.

I believe it is this inability to easily pin Left Communism down to one or two singular figures which causes people to not bother with understanding it, and instead make idiotic and ignorant statements like "it's liberal"

If people are looking to heap the cheap "liberal" straw man on something, then they best start with orthodox marxism(and good luck with that, since Lenin defended parliamentarism)

EDIT: I think it's also important to clarify that "leninism" can mean different things contextually. In the context we have used it in, it refers to the traditions of Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism; all of which arguably regard Lenin as a semi-divine figure who did not make any significant mistakes. In the context Bordiga used it, it was before the advent of any of these ideologies and almost certainly referred to the ideas of Lenin.

[Ostrinski]

Some left communists I've talked to have claimed that this is not the case. It could be that Bordigists are considered to be wholly in the left communist tradition, but I'm not certain. One could be a Luxmeburgist, for example, and they would also be a left communist.I guess. Isn't Bordigism basically just another term for the Italian tradition?


You are completely right about that the latter point though. Unlike other theoretical schools in the revolutionary left, left communism is probably the least monolithic. There is no list of theorists you can read and make the statement that "This is what left communism is." You could, however, read the works of several different theorists and have an idea of possible positions that Left Communists might have.Indeed. It's the commonality that the different schools share that constitute left communism.

[Grenzer]

I guess. Isn't Bordigism basically just another term for the Italian tradition?

Depends on which you are talking about I suppose. Classical? Then yes, but we can't forget about things like autonomism, which have their origins in the Italian left. I don't think autonomism could be considered to be part of Left Communism, it's closer to anarchism than anything else.

[Ostrinski]

The Italian tradition of Left communism, is what I meant.

Also successful derail.

[daft punk]

Join the Marxist-Leninist group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) if you want to learn scientific socialism or give me a pm if you have questions about this tendency.


:confused:



Historically there was a big Communist presence in the African-American community, most notably the Black Panther movement, but many of these advances were successfully sabotaged by the government and the FBI e.g COINTELPRO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)

The Communist Party suggested a separate state for blacks, a backward idea. The Panthers did not agree with that

[Grenzer]

Funny how something can go from discussing the desiccated corpse that is the CPUSA to autonomism so quickly. Probably have confused the hell out of poor Gemscopiscan.

OP, you should probably give up on the idea of the CPUSA. They have never been a real communist party, not even in the beginning. Communism as a whole has been pretty irrelevant in the United States, though we do have a good history of militant workers apart from the CP.

[Ostrinski]

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/by-date.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/library.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm

[daft punk]

I've been browsing the different articles and threads and there is a lot of information to be found here. I am only just beginning to delve into communism and the different tendencies. It's pretty overwhelming. I went out and purchased a copy of The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and also The Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker. (I'm a marker so I need the paper). I am hoping that these are a good place to start.

I also read an excerpt from an interview with Jack O'Dell in which he states that the Communist Party was one that blacks knew that they could rely on to fight against racism during the Jim Crow Era. As an African American I wonder just what happened with that relationship? The way I figure it, there should be a strong Communist presence in African American neighborhoods. Does anyone know who quit who?

Forget about tendencies to start with. Just read some basics. I would recommend

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

Leon Trotsky

In Defence Of October

A speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark in November 1932


A short speech explaining why the Russian revolution happened. Marxist theory in 1917 would not typically expect a revolution in such a backward country. Trotsky explains why it happened. He was banned from mentioning the regime in Russia at the time, but it is a good basic read.

[Os Cangaceiros]

With regards to communism and Jim Crow, there's actually a book specifically about labor and lynching in the south/midwest. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of it. It's relatively recent, though, and I think it was put out by a leftie publisher, like AK Press or Haymarket or one of those.

[hatzel]

Okay so I'm a bit late to the party, but...


I also read an excerpt from an interview with Jack O'Dell in which he states that the Communist Party was one that blacks knew that they could rely on to fight against racism during the Jim Crow Era. As an African American I wonder just what happened with that relationship? The way I figure it, there should be a strong Communist presence in African American neighborhoods. Does anyone know who quit who?

I hope nobody will think I'm being sectarian or unduly critical of any particular current of thought, but after his turn to anarchism former Black Panther Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin wrote this essay (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Lorenzo_Kom_boa_Ervin__Authoritarian_Leftists.html ) outlining the various (perceived) failings of the 'white left' - that is to say the white-dominated Marxist(-Leninist) groups in the US - from an explicitly African-American perspective. It highlights a number of grievances and reasons why African-Americans may not have felt that the politics of the left were (or, in fact, are) suited to the unique demands of individuals and communities of colour.

[Gemscopiscan]

Thank you. I know there are massive archives but I like to underline, circle, scribble and note so I need the paper.

[Gemscopiscan]

Thanks. I'll look for it.

[Gemscopiscan]

Thank you. I have no doubt that the McCarthy era was as much if not more harsh on the African American community. I just wondered how much of a stronghold it had in the community where it was not carried over generations even if in secret tellings. Especially whenit became evident that the ideology that they ultimately clung to, religion, was found to be increasingly lacking after the Civil Rights Era.

[Gemscopiscan]

Concise and to the point. Thanks for the overview.

[Gemscopiscan]

So, I take it, the problems within the US party we such that it was doomed to fail and made it an impossibility for anyone to really give it much credence much less a race of people desperately seeking shelter from persecution? When McCarthy was concluded to be a nutbag, it seems that would have been prime for them to regroup and strengthen. Such a missed opportunity.

Thanks for the suggestion but yes, I need to have the physical book, in this case.

[Gemscopiscan]

Thank very much. I will take a look and appreciate the offer to answer my questions.

[Gemscopiscan]

Lol. I wasn't confused. I realized that the conversation went the way many of them seem to go here. It's interesting to get the different arguments.

I suppose you are correct on CPUSA else it wouldn't have been rendered useless as easily.

[Gemscopiscan]

I did see this the other day and thought I should probably start at the beginning so that I know what Trotsky was referring to. This will definitely be next. Thanks.

[Gemscopiscan]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for books on the subject and browse AK and Haymarket.

[Gemscopiscan]

It's not sectarian to offer information especially since it pertains to to the question. I've never prescribed to the Black Panthers ( personally the images I had of them, in youth, scared the hell out of me) so, I would not have seen this. I appreciate you providing a link. I will take a read.

[Grenzer]

Thank you. I have no doubt that the McCarthy era was as much if not more harsh on the African American community. I just wondered how much of a stronghold it had in the community where it was not carried over generations even if in secret tellings. Especially whenit became evident that the ideology that they ultimately clung to, religion, was found to be increasingly lacking after the Civil Rights Era.

Well I think it's actually a mistake to focus on African Americans in terms of "Why weren't they more radicalized" when in fact the entire working class as a whole remained pretty uninterested in Communism. There was in fact a big opening for radicals to exploit in terms of the bourgeois oriented political organizations being uninterested in combatting racism, but the level of class consciousness in the US was pretty low after the 1940's and there were no adequate parties to take advantage of this. It's only been since the fall of the Soviet Union that there has been an opening for Marxist parties to start growing now that the rotting façade of the CPUSA has been torn down.

[Ostrinski]

@Gemscopiscan, if you want to reply to someone, press the quote button on the bottom right of their post.

[Grenzer]

I hope nobody will think I'm being sectarian or unduly critical of any particular current of thought, but after his turn to anarchism former Black Panther Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin wrote this essay (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Lorenzo_Kom_boa_Ervin__Authoritarian_Leftists.html ) outlining the various (perceived) failings of the 'white left' - that is to say the white-dominated Marxist(-Leninist) groups in the US - from an explicitly African-American perspective. It highlights a number of grievances and reasons why African-Americans may not have felt that the politics of the left were (or, in fact, are) suited to the unique demands of individuals and communities of colour.

Thanks for the link, Hatzel, it was an interesting read.

I don't think you are being sectarian; on the contrary, I think that your critical attitude towards the traditional left is entirely warranted given the abysmal failures we've seen for the last century and a half. However, I am going to bounce a hypothetical off of you. Given an organization whose focus is workers seizing state power over the owning class, if their focus is at the expense of certain ethnic groups who may not be as "proletarianized"(I am not claiming this is the case with African Americans, this is purely hypothetical) as other ethnic groups, then would you say they are in the wrong? I would say they are not, given that their focus is on class, rather than race. You do bring up a very valid point, and I do think that the "color blind" attitude can be problematic when it comes at the expense of working in the interest of oppressed workers of various ethnic groups. It seems that it's walking a fine line though: all revolutionary organizations should be primarily focused on class warfare, and focusing too much on ethnicity runs the risk of becoming an ethnocentric, rather than class based organization.

At the same time, the problems we have seen in this regard are less relevant now; though it would be delusional to claim that they don't exist. Take South Africa for example. The South African economic elite is very diverse and multi-ethnic in nature, but the social strata beneath them tend to not be so much. Caucasians, for example, tend to be doing fairly well in comparison to native Africans. As such, a revolutionary organization's goal in South Africa would tend to benefit the native Africans more than the descendants of the Dutch and British immigrants, but would I say that because of this that the strategy of the revolutionary organization is racist or flawed? I would not.

[Zealot]

I hope nobody will think I'm being sectarian or unduly critical of any particular current of thought, but after his turn to anarchism former Black Panther Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin wrote this essay (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Lorenzo_Kom_boa_Ervin__Authoritarian_Leftists.html ) outlining the various (perceived) failings of the 'white left' - that is to say the white-dominated Marxist(-Leninist) groups in the US - from an explicitly African-American perspective. It highlights a number of grievances and reasons why African-Americans may not have felt that the politics of the left were (or, in fact, are) suited to the unique demands of individuals and communities of colour.

Except for the fact that many Marxist-Leninist revolutions were, and still are, done by non-whites. It's hard to take this guy seriously when he keeps saying "Amerikkka" and takes one of Lenin's sentences out of context.

Then he goes on a tirade saying, essentially, the exact same thing Lenin was trying to say.

[hatzel]

Except for the fact that many Marxist-Leninist revolutions were, and still are, done by non-whites.

Ah...what does that have to do with the Left in the USA, which was certainly white-dominated and largely uninterested in / uninteresting to communities of colour, and arguably remains so?

I remember reading an article written be a person of colour (though I forget exactly who and which community they belong to, though I believe it was an anarchist) lamenting the US left's failure to properly engage with the numerous race riots during the fight for civil rights, and the bad taste this left in the mouths of communities of colour. To summarise: people who weren't white were rioting because they hated the police and the state and the capitalist system and perhaps even wanted to overcome it (even if sometimes unwittingly so). The left (predominantly Marxist-Leninist at the time, yes, though I believe the anarchist movement was actually the focus of the critique) kept blabbering on about workplace organising and strikes and how there wasn't much of interest to a leftist in these riots because it didn't fit into this rigid and predetermined political/revolutionary program - it wasn't 'socialist,' because there were no socialist flags or chants, (apparently) no political demands, just 'mindless' insurrection (by the lumpenproletariat). Add to that the accusation that these race-orientated uprisings were 'divisive for the working class' (translation: those directly affected by racism were revolting against it, though who weren't spent the whole time chiming about how this revolt was divisive) and it's not difficult to see why the established left wasn't exactly selling itself to communities of colour, and perhaps this lingering bitter taste remains. Given the attitudes expressed by APOC/POCO, it doesn't exactly seem that these issues have been remedied particularly successfully since that time - at least not from the perspective of activists of colour, though white activists may wish to claim otherwise.

The article in question claimed that whilst leftists remained conspicuously silent on the whole affair, right-wing pro-capitalist libertarians (of all people!!!) recognised the anti-state sentiment in these uprisings and wrote extensively about them, despite their not fitting into some predefined libertarian program - they were flexible, whilst the left remained rigid. The author - as a committed anti-capitalist - seemed surprised and betrayed that pro-capitalist libertarians were considerably quicker to react positively to this development than fellow anti-capitalists. Admittedly I wasn't alive in the US in the 60's, the 70's, the 80's - the period that was the focus of the article - and as such I can't check all the leftist papers and discussion circles to see exactly what they were saying about communities of colour, and whether the impression given by the article was accurate. Though as I said, even after several decades in which the left could have remedied these various issues, APOC/POCO seem to be forwarding broadly similar critiques, certainly suggesting that the article in question had some basis in fact...

By the way if anybody has any idea what article I'm talking about be sure to post it up because it's certainly relevant for the OP! :)

[Rafiq]

I've never prescribed to the Black Panthers ( personally the images I had of them, in youth, scared the hell out of me)

And why may that be?

[Zealot]

Ah...what does that have to do with the Left in the USA, which was certainly white-dominated and largely uninterested in / uninteresting to communities of colour, and arguably remains so?

Okay, my bad. Although much of that may have had something to do with the COINTELPRO, which, for some reason, it seems as though he thinks affected only black revolutionary groups. His essay reeks of idealism and it still isn't an excuse to compose such a poor piece of writing.

[daft punk]

Thank you. I know there are massive archives but I like to underline, circle, scribble and note so I need the paper.

Well short articles like In Defence Of October obviously cant be bought separately. But you could print it off.
http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/october/

[Gemscopiscan]

And why may that be?

What can i say? I was not immune to distorted imagery.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Gemscopiscan]

@Gemscopiscan, if you want to reply to someone, press the quote button on the bottom right of their post.

Thanks. Got it now.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk