Introduction to Left Communism

[Ted Lawrence]

I was just curious what the Left Communists on this board would recommend as a good starting point for looking into Left Communism. I found a thread from 2006 with some recommendations but that's awhile back, so I figured I might as well ask.

Thanks in advance.

[theblackmask]

I would suggest reading some Gorter and Ruhle.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1920/ruhle02.htm

Then maybe some Pannekoek afterwards, as his stuff is a little bit more difficult.

[Kyu Six]

For a different perspective (opposing viewpoint), a few of Lenin's writings:

Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

"Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petit-Bourgeois Mentality
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Anarchism and Socialism
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

[Caj]

If you want an actual book, this (http://www.amazon.com/Non-Leninist-Marxism-Writings-Workers-Councils/dp/0979181364/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333500637&sr=8-1) is a good introduction to the German-Dutch school of left communism (which eventually developed into council communism). You can probably find every work in that book for free at Marxists.org though if you don't mind reading from a screen. For Italian left communism, read Bordiga. You can find his works for free at Marxists.org too.

[Manic Impressive]

Councilism is democratic workers self management of a market economy and Bordigism is vanguardism without the state capitalism and reformism.

[Deicide]

Lol @ the Stalinist in this thread.

[Caj]

Lol @ the Stalinist in this thread.

Oh man, can you imagine how upset the Stalinists would get if an "ultra-leftist" posted texts "for a different perspective (opposing viewpoint)" on an introduction to Marxism-Leninism thread? :laugh:

[The Jay]

For a different perspective (opposing viewpoint), a few of Lenin's writings:

Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

"Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petit-Bourgeois Mentality
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Anarchism and Socialism
www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

He's looking for left com writings, not second hand accounts of someone from the opposite side of the spectrum.

[Deicide]

Oh man, can you imagine how upset the Stalinists would get if an "ultra-leftist" posted texts "for a different perspective (opposing viewpoint)" on an introduction to Marxism-Leninism thread? :laugh:

http://coachestrainingblog.com/becomeacoach/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/glenn-beck_crying-224x300.jpg

It'd be pretty close to this.

[Caj]

@LiquidState: Opposite side of the spectrum?

[The Jay]

@LiquidState: Opposite side of the spectrum?

I meant an authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. I should have said that.

[theblackmask]

Oh man, can you imagine how upset the Stalinists would get if an "ultra-leftist" posted texts "for a different perspective (opposing viewpoint)" on an introduction to Marxism-Leninism thread? :laugh:

More than upset...he would get negrepped into oblivion.

[Caj]

http://coachestrainingblog.com/becomeacoach/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/glenn-beck_crying-224x300.jpg

It'd be pretty close to this.

Leave it as that one. It's perfect.

[Grenzer]

I was just curious what the Left Communists on this board would recommend as a good starting point for looking into Left Communism. I found a thread from 2006 with some recommendations but that's awhile back, so I figured I might as well ask.

Thanks in advance.

Essential readings would probably include in all..

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, and Bordiga.. there are some others like Gorter and Rühle; maybe even Gramsci, I don't know if he is considered to be part of the Italian Left in the vein of Bordiga as he was pretty chum with Stalin I hear. Go to the Marxists archive and look up the archives of these people. Essential works are in bold, typically.

The key thing to realize is that there were two separate currents, the Dutch/German(Council Communism) Left and the Italian Left(Bordigism) and that Left Communism is kind of a synthesis between them, but many individual left communists lean more to one end than the other.

[Ted Lawrence]

To be fair, I was planning on reading An Infantile Disorder also. I mean, it is always good to at least be aware of the criticisms of a specific tendency, or anything for that matter.

Anyway, I think I'll definitely be looking into Bordiga and Gorter (I already saved some from Ruhle from Marxists.org earlier today) and buying that Non-Leninist Marxism book. Thanks again.

[Grenzer]

Anyway, I think I'll definitely be looking into Bordiga and Gorter (I already saved some from Ruhle from Marxists.org earlier today) and buying that Non-Leninist Marxism book. Thanks again.

Once you read Lenin's Infantile Disorder, you might want to read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm).

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I meant an authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. I should have said that.
... all revolution is authoritarian

[Deicide]

Once you read Lenin's Infantile Disorder, you might want to read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm).

I was about to link this.. Comrade Grenzer is always on the ball :)

[Paulappaul]

... all revolution is authoritarian
But whereas some would make it as authoritarian as possible, Libertarians would make it as free and autonomous as possible, that is the distinction CanisLupus.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

But whereas some would make it as authoritarian as possible, Libertarians would make it as free and autonomous as possible, that is the distinction CanisLupus.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/omegle-conversation-sparks-t169298/index.html

[edit]
FINALLY fixed the link

[The Jay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/omegle-conversation-sparks-t169298/index.html

[edit]
FINALLY fixed the link

I would argue that this form of authoritarianism, revolutionary I mean, is not equivalent to state authoritarianism or co-ordinator class authoritarianism. Revolutionary authoritarianism is more similar to the authoritarianism exhibited by a democratic majority vote, except the revolutionary one will not be done by ballot. Any use of force is authoritarian, even self-defense. The question is how much is necessary. Libertarians choose as little as possible, which has already been said. Does that clear up what I meant?

[Caj]

The terms "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are meaningless without context, as they describe relationships. Regarding states, which are simply organs of class rule, these relationships manifest themselves as class relationships to the state apparatus. States are neither authoritarian nor libertarian independent of classes but are both in regards to different classes.

LiquidState, I'm assuming when you said authoritarian, you actually meant authoritarian from the class perspective of the proletariat, correct?

[The Jay]

In that the methods used by the proletariat would be authoritarian (forceful), yes. Do you have any good reading on this that would enhance my understanding of the subject?

[Grenzer]

I think it's a bad idea to say "we're going to be as libertarian as we can on principle". We should be about realism, not idealism. With that said, arbitrary force should be avoided. From this standpoint I guess I would consider ideologies which advocate arbitrary, meaningless force like Stalinism to be authoritarian; those that sacrifice pragmatism to not impose on peoples' autonomy libertarians; and those in-between as realists.

[Grenzer]

In that the methods used by the proletariat would be authoritarian (forceful), yes. Do you have any good reading on this that would enhance my understanding of the subject?

Well if you want a good understanding of autonomy, then I can recommend Max Stirner.

[Caj]

I think it's a bad idea to say "we're going to be as libertarian as we can on principle". We should be about realism, not idealism. With that said, arbitrary force should be avoided. From this standpoint I guess I would consider ideologies which advocate arbitrary, meaningless force like Stalinism to be authoritarian; those that sacrifice pragmatism to not impose on peoples' autonomy libertarians; and those in-between as realists.

I think libertarianism with regards to the proletariat is inseperable from socialism. I mean, that's what socialism is about in the first place: the emancipation of the proletariat through its own collective action. Although we should be as realistic as possible, we shouldn't fall into the opportunism of adopting anti-socialism in the name of "realism" and "pragmatism."

[Grenzer]

I think libertarianism with regards to the proletariat is inseperable from socialism. I mean, that's what socialism is about in the first place: the emancipation of the proletariat through its own collective action. Although we should be as realistic as possible, we shouldn't fall into the opportunism of adopting anti-socialism in the name of "realism" and "pragmatism."

Well I think the problem with libertarianism is that it sometimes concerns itself with form over function; which is something that people like Bordiga noted. Excessive force and authoritarianism have less to do with deviation from democracy and have more to do with being a reflection of the conditions. Whether the leadership is responsive to the base has less to do with democracy than one might think, in my opinion.

The pseudo-revolutionary elements of the left like Stalinism use this an excuse to justify their anti-communist practices; but the goal should be to avoid situations where social-democratic degeneration like that even occurs to begin with.

I advocate a democratic party and a democratic society, but I think it's key to not be shackled by ideals.

[#FF0000]

yo what is this discussion of libertarianism/authoritarianism doing in a left communist thread

revolutionary totalitarianism forever

[Geiseric]

But whereas some would make it as authoritarian as possible, Libertarians would make it as free and autonomous as possible, that is the distinction CanisLupus.

So we're going to ask the capitalists to give us the factories?

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Oh man, can you imagine how upset the Stalinists would get if an "ultra-leftist" posted texts "for a different perspective (opposing viewpoint)" on an introduction to Marxism-Leninism thread? :laugh:


Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that left-coms have to be similarly childish.

[Welshy]

I haven't made my way to all of these articles yet, but they seem to be very good. http://en.internationalism.org/go_deeper


What is communism?



Communism is not just a 'nice idea' - Part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/341) The alienation of labour and the study of Capital
Communism is not just a 'nice idea' - Part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/342) The revolutionary perspective and Social-Democracy
Communism is not just a 'nice idea' - Part 3 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/393) The programme of the KAPD
Communism is not just a 'nice idea' - Part 4 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/395) Problems of the period of transition
The Perspective of Communism (http://en.internationalism.org/series/336) A four part series on aspects of the 'Perspective of Communism', originally
published in Revolution Internationale and World Revolution in the 1970s.

Decadence of capitalism



Crisis Theories (http://en.internationalism.org/series/324)
Decadence theory and historical materialism (http://en.internationalism.org/series/287)
Rejecting the notion of decadence... (http://en.internationalism.org/series/337) A series of articles replying to Programma Communista and the IBRP on the dangers of rejecting the notion of the decadence of capitalism.
The Decadence of Capitalism (http://en.internationalism.org/series/779) The Decadence of Capitalism
The Reconstruction boom post-1945 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1242) The articles grouped together here give an account of an internal debate within the organisation, on the origins and driving forces behind the Reconstruction boom that followed the 1939-45 world war.
The resurgence of Islam (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1152) The question of the attitude that communists should adopt towards religion is by no means a new one, on the contrary it goes back to the beginnings of the workers' movement. In more recent times, the question of resurgent Islam has been posed since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. In these two articles, we examine the attitude of marxists to religion, and more specifically the way in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks approached the question at the time of the Russian Revolution. They then go on to study the resurgence of islamist movements since the 1980s
Understanding capitalism's decadence (http://en.internationalism.org/series/304)
Understanding capitalism's decomposition (http://en.internationalism.org/series/286) The ICC's analysis of the final phase of capitalism's decadence, its phase of decomposition (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition), was first published in the form of theses in International Review no62, third quarter 1990. These theses provide the framework for the articles that follow, and in general for the analysis of the effects of decomposition on capitalist society as a whole.

The Communist Left



The Communist Left in Russia (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1237) The Miasnikov group formed part of what is called the Communist Left, on the same basis as other groups in Russia itself and in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe. The different expressions of this current found their origin in the reaction to the opportunist degeneration of the parties of the Third International and of soviet power in Russia. They represented a proletarian response in the form of left currents, like those that had existed previously faced with the development of opportunism in the Second International.
We have published their complete Manifesto, previously unavailable other than in Russian state archives and for the first time in English, in several parts.
The Dutch-German Communist Left (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1249)
The Italian Communist Left (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1248)
The Mexican Communist Left (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1250) Texts published by the Marxist Workers’ Group (Grupo de Trabajadores Marxistas) in Mexico during the 1930s

How society evolves



Historic Course (http://en.internationalism.org/series/329) A collection of articles on the question of the historic course.

Internationalism against militarism and nationalism



Balance sheet of 70 years of "national liberation" struggles (http://en.internationalism.org/series/331) A three part series that evaluates the concrete results for the working class and the populations concerned, of 70 years of struggles for "national liberation" struggles.
Communists and the National Question (http://en.internationalism.org/series/339) A short series looking at how the national question was taken up throughout the history of the workers' movement.
Militarism and decadence (http://en.internationalism.org/series/343)
National liberation (http://en.internationalism.org/series/330) Series of articles on the 'national question' from the International Review.
The struggle in Britain against imperialist war (http://en.internationalism.org/series/306) The first duty of revolutionaries in the face of capitalist
war is to defend the interests of the whole working class, as expressed in the historic slogan of the workers' movement: "Workers of the world unite!". The defence of internationalism for revolutionaries has never been an abstract principle; it is an intensely practical struggle, involving a fight for clarity inside the
political organisations of the working class, and more widely through intervention in its defensive struggles, often in difficult conditions of state repression and patriotic frenzy. This series, written by a sympathiser of the ICC, traces the development of a number of political currents within Britain through the period from the First World War, the Third International, the Second World War, and finally the enlisting of the Trotskyists in this war.
War (http://en.internationalism.org/series/328)

Long live the revolution!



Germany 1918-19 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/503)
May 68 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/504)
Russia 1905 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/340) This series of articles published in the International Review charts the course of the Russian revolution of 1905, and asks what lessons it has left the workers' movement 100 years on.
Russia 1917 (http://en.internationalism.org/series/408)

Anarchism and syndicalism



Revolutionary Syndicalism (http://en.internationalism.org/series/271) This series of articles examines the history of some of the principle revolutionary syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations, notably the French Confédération Générale du Travail, the Spanish Confederacion Nacional de Trabajadores, the American Industrial Workers of the World, the early British shop-stewards movement, and others. Its aim is to examine from historical experience what value the "syndicalist" tradition has for the working class today.

Questions of organisation and regroupment



1970s and the International Conferences of the communist left (http://en.internationalism.org/series/315)
1980s - how to form an international organisation? (http://en.internationalism.org/series/316)
1990s and the perspectives for regroupment (http://en.internationalism.org/series/317)
2000s - Marxism and opportunism (http://en.internationalism.org/series/318)

Other themes



What are workers' councils? (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1103) A series deepening on the question 'What are workers' councils?'
Workers' movement in Britain (http://en.internationalism.org/series/398) A series on the history of the workers' movement in Britain

[The Jay]

So we're going to ask the capitalists to give us the factories?

Don't be facetious. It should be clear that we mean the proletariat should force the bourgeoisie to hand everything over, but shouldn't shoot them on the spot out of vengeance or send them to forced labor camps if they're just regular capitalists.

[Искра]

There's been a lot of misinformation in this thread, so I've decided to write a replay. Firstly, I’ll go through certain statements...


I meant an authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. I should have said that. Left Communism, and Marxism in general, has nothing to do with authoritarian/libertarian “spectrum”. That is anarchist division and according to it Left Communists are actually authoritarian communists. I’m saying this because it’s important to emphasize that Left Communism is Marxist doctrine and it has nothing to do with anarchism, it doesn’t come from anarchism…


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, and Bordiga.. there are some others like Gorter and Rühle; maybe even Gramsci, I don't know if he is considered to be part of the Italian Left in the vein of Bordiga as he was pretty chum with Stalin I hear. .
When it comes to Left Communism it’s important to say that Luxemburg wasn’t Left Communist. Same goes for Gramsci (I believe that I don’t have to say that it also goes for Marx, Engels and Lenin). Left Communism was “founded” in 20’s as separate tendency from Comintern. When it comes to Luxemburg she was great influence on Left Communists (Lenin also), but she was never one. Gramsci on the other hand has nothing to do at all with Left Communism. Bordiga fought against him in 20’s regarding factory councils which Gramsci and anarchists supported (and even considered as Italian version of Soviets!).

There are interesting series of articles by Bordiga on that topic: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/workers-councils.htm

When it comes to Pannekoek, Gorter and Rühle, they represented Dutch/German current. Until some of them adopted Council Communism (or better to say – develop) they were Left Communists (after all Rühle was member of KAPD).


The key thing to realize is that there were two separate currents, the Dutch/German(Council Communism) Left and the Italian Left(Bordigism) and that Left Communism is kind of a synthesis between them, but many individual left communists lean more to one end than the other.This is little bit of a simplification. Indeed, Left Communism draws its systhethis from Dutch/German Left and Italian Left, but you can not say that Dutch/German Left = Council Communism or that Italian Left = Bordigism. Both, Council Communism and Bordigism are just two exptremes which came out of these currents because of counter revolution which lasted from 30’s till whenever.. In this kind of situation and conditions communists draw some bad conclusions.. for example on question of Party, which council communists reject and bordigists raise to havens…

Now, regarding what to read Welshy made really good list.
I would maybe just add two books on Dutch/German and Italian currents:
http://libcom.org/history/bordigist-current-1919-1999-philippe-bourrinet
http://libcom.org/history/german-dutch-communist-left-philippe-bourrinet

[Alf]

I agree with what Kontrrazvedka wrote. For a concise summary of the main tendencies in left communism:
http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left

The books on the Italian and Dutch left which Konrrazvedka mentions can be obtained in paper back form from our website, along with books on the communist left of Russia and Britain.

http://en.internationalism.org/tag/1/227/purchase

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I posted this in the council communist group, which is apart of left communism.


"My understanding of Council Communism is essential these points:
1. While Bolshevik tactics may have worked for Russia, they would not work for western countries.
2. Many original Council Communists believed that the soviets in Russia were tools of the ruling class and Lenin's form of democratic centralism was authoritarian and flawed.
3. The workers should rule society and their worker's state through workers councils, federations, and other direct democratic institutions.
4. The Social Democratic idea of nationalizing industries being socialism is flawed. Socialism in the Council Communist sense is direct democratic control of the factories by the workers and their communities.
5. Here I will quote Anton Pannekoek. "What can a small party, however principled, do when what is needed are the masses?" He went on to say, "...it also follows from this theory that it is not even the entire communist party that exercises dictatorship, but the Central Committee, and it does first within the party itself, where it takes it upon itself to expel individuals and uses shabby means to get rid of opposition."
6. The Kronstadt Revolt in Russia was a revolt to re-institute the true socialism that the Bolshevik's had gotten rid of by the end of the Civil War.
7. The Trade Unions are bureaucratic and don't work in the interests of the workers. The workers need to form their own revolutionary organizations.
8. Parliamentary tactics are flawed and the proletarian revolution cannot be carried out through legislative bodies.

The 4 main thinkers of Council Communism are Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Sylvia Pankhurst, and Otto Ruhl (in my opinion). Other thinkers Council Communists respect and look to include Rosa Luxembourg and Antonio Gramsci.

It also seems that these ideas overlap with other ideologies, such as Libertarian Marxism, Left Communism, etc."

[Paulappaul]

So we're going to ask the capitalists to give us the factories?


I never said anything of the sort ... dunno what your thinking but I know you have some wacky ideas.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The manifesto of the ICC: http://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1991