Karl Liebknecht

[Rooster]

Are there any publications of his that are worth getting? Any general ideas that he held that I should be aware of?

[Искра]

I think that he was more of an militant then a theoretician, so you could find few of his newspapers articles and stuff like that. Tbh, I haven't read anything by him.

[NewLeft]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/index.htm

He wrote stuff, but don't expect red Rosa quality.

[Rooster]

So was Rosa more of the theoretician of the two? Any of her works that I should try to read?

[NewLeft]

So was Rosa more of the theoretician of the two? Any of her works that I should try to read?
I read Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) and the first few chapters of Accumulation of Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm), I found it sort of challenging. If you understood Capital, then it shouldn't be too bad. Capital vol. 3 is sort of a prerequisite.

[Искра]

So was Rosa more of the theoretician of the two? Any of her works that I should try to read?Of course! She was one of the greatest Marxist theoreticians ever! :)

Read her articles on national liberation, critique of national economy, acumulation of capital, reform or revolution and her articles on russian revolution.

[Rooster]

Well, I'll see what I can find of her. I'll hopefully have enough money to buy at least one book once I sort out rent and food and stuff. While we're on the topic of Liebknecht, has anyone got an opinion on Wilhelm Liebknecht?

[l'Enfermé]

Worth reading:
Militarism and Anti-Militarism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/works/1907/militarism-antimilitarism/index.htm)
Some Interesting Speeches During the Course of the First World War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/works/1916/future-belongs-people/index.htm)

[l'Enfermé]

Well, I'll see what I can find of her. I'll hopefully have enough money to buy at least one book once I sort out rent and food and stuff. While we're on the topic of Liebknecht, has anyone got an opinion on Wilhelm Liebknecht?
Comrade Liebknecht was a great martyr whose memory shall always be remembered. A son worthy of his father(the same cannot be said of his brother, however).

[Ostrinski]

Rosa was a fucking boss. Get Pathfinder's Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. It's got all her best writings sans Accumulation of Capital. She's one of the biggest influences on Left communism.

[Geiseric]

She seems more like a leninist though, I mean she helped Trotsky work out Permanent Revolution, and she was part of Comintern and stuff. Same would go for leibknacht.

[Искра]

You can't call Rosa Leninist, because she set up basis for us to disagree with Lenin. Thing with Rosa is that each and every tendency tries to say "she's ours"... Stalinists like her because she set up KPD and because she was a centrist, Trotskyists like her because Trotsky said so and because she wasn't mindless Stalinist drone... Also, Left Communists, such as ICC like her because of her Acumulation of Capital, while the rest of Left Communists like her also because of her position on national liberation. To put it short, she was a communist, but she doesn't belong to any of these post 1921 tendencies.

Also, fuck Tony Cliff and his articles on Rosa.

[Ostrinski]

Just because she agreed with Lenin on some points and supported the Bolsheviks overall doesn't make her a Leninist, she still called them out on their shit. And while what Kontrrazvedka said about her not belonging to any tendency certainly is true, she did help lay the foundation for many left communist positions such as the stance on national liberation and proletarian democracy. Hell if you're gonna call Rosa a Leninist you might as well call leftcoms Leninists too. It's a meaningless word anyway.

[Geiseric]

He's the guy who thought "State Capitalism" right? Yeah he's weird.

Anyways, obviously there were disagreements, but she was a vanguardist. Her actions in forming the KPD showed that pretty much. If somebody sees the need to form a revolutionary party, they are a Leninist. The only reason those parties degenerated so much was because of the purges, it remains a valid concept, and at least it seems like she agreed with tenents of bolshevism. If she was an ideal "left communist" wouldn't joining a party seem counter revolutionary?

It is also irrelevent what Stalinists think about Rosa.

Anyways, I just was confused a bit on Left Communism. but it says no political parties right?

[Искра]

If Leninism is just about forming a revolutioary party then I know some leninist anarchists... :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

Left communists still believe in what could be called a vanguard (at least Italian school leftcoms) but they have a different conception of it than Lenin did. Left communism is a very broad tendency containing multiple sub-tendencies though, so I will just speak for myself. I view the organized class conscious section of the proletariat to be the de facto vanguard, whether you want to call their organization a party or not. All existing socialist parties are counter-revolutionary in nature because they take part in bourgeois politicking and exist above the proletariat. They are parties in and of themselves, which I consider bourgeois. The revolutionary proletarian vanguard is only a de facto party.

[Geiseric]

Well yeah, but that's a Leninist stance. It only makes sense from that view to be organized. But S. Artesan and me had this huge arguement, when he and other left coms said that there is no need for a revolutionary vanguard.

It is also a Leninist stance that currently existing socialist parties are obsolete and counter revolutionary, Trotsky called the SPD the "Most counter revolutionary force in history." And they also split to form the party that aggitated, organized, and was the truly proletarian party in the Russian Revolution.

[l'Enfermé]

I view the organized class conscious section of the proletariat to be the de facto vanguard
That's the Leninist/Bolshevik view on the matter.

[Ostrinski]

It is also a Leninist stance that currently existing socialist parties are obsolete and counter revolutionary, Trotsky called the SPD the "Most counter revolutionary force in history." And they also split to form the party that aggitated, organized, and was the truly proletarian party in the Russian Revolution.So you agree that all the Trotskyist internationals are bourgeois and counter-revolutionary?

[Ostrinski]

That's the Leninist/Bolshevik view on the matter.It is. It's also the view of many anarchists on the matter.

[Blake's Baby]

He's the guy who thought "State Capitalism" right? Yeah he's weird...

No, that was Wilhelm Leibknecht not Karl Leinknecht. Karl's father.




Anyways, obviously there were disagreements, but she was a vanguardist. Her actions in forming the KPD showed that pretty much. If somebody sees the need to form a revolutionary party, they are a Leninist...

That's a pretty weird definition of 'Leninist'.



The only reason those parties degenerated so much was because of the purges, it remains a valid concept, and at least it seems like she agreed with tenents of bolshevism. If she was an ideal "left communist" wouldn't joining a party seem counter revolutionary?

It is also irrelevent what Stalinists think about Rosa.

Anyways, I just was confused a bit on Left Communism. but it says no political parties right?

What? Do you think Left Communists are opposed to parties?

[Geiseric]

No, that was Wilhelm Leibknecht not Karl Leinknecht. Karl's father.




That's a pretty weird definition of 'Leninist'.




What? Do you think Left Communists are opposed to parties?

I was talking about Tony Cliff, because Brobspierre mentioned that I thought something similar to his. I wasn't talking about Wilhelm.

"Leninist" defines one who believes that a vanguard party is necessary to organise aggitate and lead the revolution, because only a disciplined revolutionary party wouldn't fall back to reformism, and it wouldn't of untill the purges. If you believe in that, you are a Leninist.

Rosa and Karl must have been, roughly, a Bolshevist in character since the founding of the KPD was from a split of the radical minority from the reformist majority, which is identical to the Bolsheviks formation. They were rising in popularity on a very fast rate, however alot of the most capible people were killed or purged, and the party couldn't organise against that because of its innefficiencies.

Left Communists, like S. Artesan and other Left Coms who've been around for a while always tell me that they are against the idea of a vanguard party, because it creates a minority that tells the majority what to do and that is undemocratic or something. It's Makhnovian logic.

[svenne]

I propably would put the difference between leninist (or at least some sort of leninist thought, i guess there's propably a difference between Lenin 1903 and Lenin 1921) ideas of the vanguard and left communist influenced this way:

- the leninist version puts the party - in the form of the bolshevik party - as the vanguard, composed of the most advanced parts of the proletariat;
- the left communist inspired kids thinks that the working class itself spit out a vanguard, which in practice (but not formally, in the form of a bolshevik party) becomes the vanguard - the most advanced sections of the proletariat.

Well, it sounded better in my head. Bloody language barriers... Difference being: the leninists like one vanguard party; the left communists likes the vanguard of the workers.

However, on calling Rosa (and Liebknecht) leninists, it's propably wrong. While they both had their similarities, they also had a lot of differences. And the thought of a vanguard isn't a creation of Lenin at all - just the version used in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century. Rosa had her own ideas (involving spontanity and the idea that the social democratic party wasn't the only revolutionary component), but those were specified for the german situation.

[Blake's Baby]

I was talking about Tony Cliff, because Brobspierre mentioned that I thought something similar to his. I wasn't talking about Wilhelm...

Funny, talking about Tony Cliff in a thread about Leibknecht (Karl or Wilhelm).

Wilhelm Leibkniecht was the man who said, in 1894 I believe, 'no one has done more than me to show that 'state socialism' is actually 'state capitalism'.' About 14 years before the SPGB criticised the Fabians for the idea. About 22 years before Lenin and Ossinsky asrgued over whether it was a good idea in Russia. About 52 years before Tony Cliff came up with the idea.


"Leninist" defines one who believes that a vanguard party is necessary to organise aggitate and lead the revolution, because only a disciplined revolutionary party wouldn't fall back to reformism, and it wouldn't of untill the purges. If you believe in that, you are a Leninist...

That's not how you defined it before. You defined it as 'anyone who believes in a revolutionary party'. Left Comnmunists believe in a revolutionary vanguard party. What we don't believe in is a party that takes power on behalf of the working class. Except for some Bordigists who do.



...
Rosa and Karl must have been, roughly, a Bolshevist in character since the founding of the KPD was from a split of the radical minority from the reformist majority, which is identical to the Bolsheviks formation...

Yeah, I'd more or less go along with that.


... They were rising in popularity on a very fast rate, however alot of the most capible people were killed or purged, and the party couldn't organise against that because of its innefficiencies...

Well, yeah, you might refer to being murdered as an 'inefficiency', and it is difficult to organise when you're dead.


...
Left Communists, like S. Artesan and other Left Coms who've been around for a while always tell me that they are against the idea of a vanguard party, because it creates a minority that tells the majority what to do and that is undemocratic or something. It's Makhnovian logic.

Well, I can't speak for S Artesian, but it's not the case that Left Communists are against a vanguard party. We are for a vanguard party. But we are against a party that takes power over the working class.





.... left communist inspired kids thinks that the working class itself spit out a vanguard, which in practice (but not formally, in the form of a bolshevik party) becomes the vanguard - the most advanced sections of the proletariat....

Wow, what Left Communists do you know? Where are these Left Comm kids? Almost all the Left Comms I know were around in 1968.

[Geiseric]

But what if it's a working class party that takes power with the proletariat accepting and/or supporting it, is that justifiable?

[Искра]

Almost all the Left Comms I know were around in 1968.Except me :D

Btw. could you post me Wilhelm Leibknecht's text you just quoted on my "wall" so that we don't spam discussion? Thank you!

[Ostrinski]

Though, there are differing views on the concepts of party and vanguard within the left communist current itself. I never knew S. Artesan or his/her politics but s/he sounds like a follower of the Dutch-German tradition.

[Blake's Baby]

But what if it's a working class party that takes power with the proletariat accepting and/or supporting it, is that justifiable?

Some Bordigists believe that the party should take power. Most Left Comms who aren't Bordigists don't. Personally I don't see the working class coming round to my house and shouting 'take power over us you Left Comm bastard, you and your mates like Kontrrazvedka, even if you don't think you should'. Doesn't seem very likely.


Except me :D

Btw. could you post me Wilhelm Leibknecht's text you just quoted on my "wall" so that we don't spam discussion? Thank you!

I did say 'most'. And the Liebknecht quote is from an article he wrote about the congress of the SPD - at http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm - and sorry if others consider that spamming.


Though, there are differing views on the concepts of party and vanguard within the left communist current itself. I never knew S. Artesan or his/her politics but s/he sounds like a follower of the Dutch-German tradition.

I'm a follower of the Dutch-German tradition. But I'm not a Council Communist. The Dutch-German Left split into two - the Council Communists who came to reject parties and the proletarian nature of October, and the Left Communists who uphold the positions of the KAPD from the early '20s that the Bolsheviks were a proletarian current and October was a proletarian revolution. I'm a Left Communist. My understanding of S Artesian's politics is that he agrees on those latter two points. But like the majority of Left Communists wouldn't see the party's role as siezing power.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well yeah, but that's a Leninist stance. It only makes sense from that view to be organized. But S. Artesan and me had this huge arguement, when he and other left coms said that there is no need for a revolutionary vanguard.
Stop reinventing terms. The position which (re)states the necessity of the political organization of the proletariat is uniformly shared from anarchists, to Stalinitsts, Trots, and left coms. The differences lie in the conception of the structure and role of the party, especially in relation to thee establishment of a new political structure corresponding to the domination of the working class over the bourgeoisie (DotP). Probably the only current connected to Left Communism which negates the diea that the political organization is necessary (apart from anti-political curents within anarchism) is council communism (which grew out of, but doesn't amount to, the German-Dutch left, which is best exemplified by KAPD)


It is also a Leninist stance that currently existing socialist parties are obsolete and counter revolutionary, Trotsky called the SPD the "Most counter revolutionary force in history." And they also split to form the party that aggitated, organized, and was the truly proletarian party in the Russian Revolution.
And yet the RCP centered Komintern, as well as Trots, argued for a united political front under the guise of going to the masses. I don't think that Leninists ever fully grasped the political implications (and neither the historical course) of the degeneration of Social Democracy.

And to add to that, it's really weird to try and label Rosa a Leninists since she, along some elements in Dutch Tribunism, laid the foundations for the view of national liberation struggles which is diametrically opposite to that usually held by Leninists.


Though, there are differing views on the concepts of party and vanguard within the left communist current itself. I never knew S. Artesan or his/her politics but s/he sounds like a follower of the Dutch-German tradition.
It all depends on the way we conceive of a "vanguard party".
People who deny political organizations as such, in favour of, e.g., a loosely co-ordinated discussion circles, are more often than not adopting ideas which are associated with the so called councilism. The German-Dutch left did not hold such positions, quite the contrary. You could perhaps argue that the embryo, apart from Ruhle and the AAUD-E (but not entirely), was to be found in GIC (Group of Internationalist Communists), and generally it is true that councilism grew out of the German-Dutch left, though I think it's undeniably false to confuse one for the other.

[Brosip Tito]

The Mass Strike is an important work of Rosa's.

[Blake's Baby]

... generally it is true that councilism grew out of the German-Dutch left, though I think it's undeniably false to confuse one for the other.

Absolutely agree with this - the Council Communists started calling themselves such to mark the fact that they had begun to reject the analyses of Luxemburg, the League of Spartacus, the KPD and the KAPD, specifically over the nature of the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution - in other words, to mark the fact that they were not Left Communists. Left Communists and Council Communists have a troubled relationship. We generally believe, I think, that they're internationalists, but make fatal concessions to both anarchism and Stalinism; they tend to think, I believe, that as 'partyists', we make fatal concessions to 'Leninism' and support a system that will result in the establishment of a new state capitalist dictatorship. So they really aren't the same thing.

[Искра]

and then you also have Bordigists who are also kind of "party fetish" extreme... so left communism is kind of in the middle of those two (bordigism and council communism)...

[l'Enfermé]

Bordigism IS Left Communism, what are you talking about?

[Crux]

It is. It's also the view of many anarchists on the matter.
And indeed many anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists became bolsheviks. If memory serves the portugese Communist Party was founded by anarcho-syndicalists. Many of the french anarcho-syndicalists joined the Communist Party. Hell, the CNT were even close to affiliate to the Comintern.
I would say most of the original "ultra-lefts" were close to leninism (or rather bolshevism), indeed as you all well know Bordiga never renounced the label.


As for Rosa Luxemburg she was a brilliant marxist and on most issues quite close to the Bolsheviks. "Leninism" at that time was not a widely used term and did not imply the same thing it does today. to claim her either as a leninist or as a leftcommunist is slightly anachronistic.

yes, she had disagreements with the bolsheviks, but, newsflash, the bolsheviks had quite a few disagreements among themselfes. The difference then was disagreement didn't necessarily mean expulsion and expulsion was not an euphemism for getting sent to labour camp or getting shot in the neck. That was left to hard-right of the sozis like the Hangman Noske. Which incidentally might show you where the stalinists got some of their inspiration. Anyway, yes I know I am leaving the russian civil war out, but I think anyone will agree that well...it was a civil war. And this is perhaps not the place for that discussion. For all her criticism of the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, she did in fact back them. Which ties back to the point I am trying to make.

Edit: I hope I make sense, I haven't slept in forever.

[svenne]

I really don't think anyone wants to portray Rosa and/or Liebknechts and anti-bolsheviks. And since they both died before the counter revolution in the USSR (which seems to have happened somewhere between 1921-ich and 1991), there's really no point arguing from any point, other than their texts, on their relation to specifik leninist currents (trotskyism, "stalinism" etc).

[Blake's Baby]

Bordigism IS Left Communism, what are you talking about?

Bordigism is one strand of Left Communism certainly, it isn't the totality of Left Communism.

I think Kontrrazvedka's point is that you have the Council Communists (the 'anti-party' wing of German-Dutch Left Communist) and the Bordigists (the 'Leninist' wing of Italian Left Communism) and in between you have the ICC and the ICT, that is the largest groups of the Communist Left, who are neither 'Leninist' nor 'anti-partyist' despite having some historic connections with both the Italian Left Communists and the German Left Communists. 'Non-Bordigist Italian Left Communism' and 'Non-Councilist German-Dutch Left Communism' and indeed 'Franco/Belgian Synthetic Left Communism' would all be very ugly phrases to bandy around, though all possibly applicable to different groups and currents and positions.

But this is getting us a very long way from Karl Liebknecht.