Left Communism & Progress

[JustMovement]

Do Left Communist believe that there can be any progress within the confines of capitalism? It seems like the justification for refusing electoralism and trade unionism on principle is that any improvement is impossible within capitalism, so that the only course of action is to await the eschathological break of world revolution.

As a side note can some one direct me or explain Bordiga's hostility to democracy? I understand not endorsing democracy on principle (as in as a basis of some abstract social contract or idea of sovereignty) but through what means other than democratic one's can the working class, which composes the majority of society, be in control?

[daft punk]

I still don't understand what left communism is exactly, but apparently that's because I'm a total moron.

Having said that, there are probably lots of left coms, impossiblists, and anarchists on here all saying similar and also different things, so it gets very confusing.

Most seem to be opposed to electoralism and winning reforms, yeah. So how they claim to be Marxists is a mystery as Marx was in favour of electoralism.

[Per Levy]

Most seem to be opposed to electoralism and winning reforms, yeah. So how they claim to be Marxists is a mystery as Marx was in favour of electoralism.

cause what makes a marxists is his/her stand on elections :rolleyes:.


I still don't understand what left communism is exactly

how about you read something about it then?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I still don't understand what left communism is exactly, but apparently that's because I'm a total moron.

Truest shit I read on revleft today

[Railyon]

Most seem to be opposed to electoralism and winning reforms, yeah. So how they claim to be Marxists is a mystery as Marx was in favour of electoralism.

Depends on what you mean by electoralism. Parliamentarism? If so, Lenin would like to have a word with you in State and Revolution where has that awesome rant on reformism and parliamentarism. And you wouldn't want to disagree with Lenin, now would you? Huh?!

If you don't mean parliamentarism but more like council stuff, no they're not opposed to it... quite the opposite.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's not just leftcoms. I categorically deny any "progress" under capitalism and I'm a stalinoid.

[JustMovement]

so ur against fighting for any improvements outside of revolutionary situations?

[Railyon]

There's a distinction between fighting for reforms and the ideology of reformism, mind you.

[JustMovement]

Why then be opposed to tactical parliamentarianism or trade unionism?

[daft punk]

cause what makes a marxists is his/her stand on elections :rolleyes:.


So you are saying that Marx and Engels were wrong to advocate workers putting up their own candidates in elections?






how about you read something about it then?

This thread is in learning. It is supposed to be to explain the basics. Your comment is of no use to beginners.

[daft punk]

It's not just leftcoms. I categorically deny any "progress" under capitalism and I'm a stalinoid.


Then go to my thread on Stalinism, and be the first to post on it please.

[bricolage]

So you are saying that Marx and Engels were wrong to advocate workers putting up their own candidates in elections?
if we say yes you'll just call blasphemy and that's that.
here's a hint, marx and engels might not have been 100% right about everything.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There's a distinction between fighting for reforms and the ideology of reformism, mind you.

Can you expand on this a little? In the past I have heard some left communists and anarchists say things like non-reformist reformism but they never explain what that would look like in practice.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So you are saying that Marx and Engels were wrong to advocate workers putting up their own candidates in elections?

Marxism isn't agreeing with every little thing Marx or Engels thought you know. You can be a Marxist and say "I disagree with Marx when he says x,". Marxism isn't some religious dogma based belief system.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Truest shit I read on revleft today

Lets not turn this thread into a insult throwing contest.

[Grenzer]

Do Left Communist believe that there can be any progress within the confines of capitalism? It seems like the justification for refusing electoralism and trade unionism on principle is that any improvement is impossible within capitalism, so that the only course of action is to await the eschathological break of world revolution.

Please feel free to point out where the workers have come to power through parliamentary means. I'd agree with you that most left communists are diseased with the "apocalyptic predestinationist" modes of thinking and put too much faith in spontaneity. The dominant current within left communism these days seems to lean more towards councilism that partyism, which personally I think is a shame.

Parties like the SPGB have pursued a policy of parliamentary cretinism for the past hundred years and it hasn't gotten them anywhere.



As a side note can some one direct me or explain Bordiga's hostility to democracy? I understand not endorsing democracy on principle (as in as a basis of some abstract social contract or idea of sovereignty) but through what means other than democratic one's can the working class, which composes the majority of society, be in control?

You say you understand not endorsing democracy on principle, but then what you say immediately after that shows that you don't. Democratic principles are a product of bourgeois idealism. Revolution is almost always going to be initiated by a minority(but needs to gain the support of the majority), so it is almost always an undemocratic, "authoritarian" act. The working class has yet to come to power through purely democratic means, and only a liberal would think that is the only available avenue.

[Railyon]

The dominant current within left communism these days seems to lean more towards councilism that partyism, which personally I think is a shame.

Well, past and contemporary parties didn't really help in alleviating the stigma of partyism I guess. Personally I have a bit of an aversion to the term party exactly of what the concept has become (maybe one should re-roll the dice and start over with different terms to reflect semantic changes), "socialists" going full bourgie. Kind of like how the ICC think of contemporary "communist" parties.

[JustMovement]

Please feel free to point out where the workers have come to power through parliamentary means. I'd agree with you that most left communists are diseased with the "apocalyptic predestinationist" modes of thinking and put too much faith in spontaneity. The dominant current within left communism these days seems to lean more towards councilism that partyism, which personally I think is a shame.

Parties like the SPGB have pursued a policy of parliamentary cretinism for the past hundred years and it hasn't gotten them anywhere.



You say you understand not endorsing democracy on principle, but then what you say immediately after that shows that you don't. Democratic principles are a product of bourgeois idealism. Revolution is almost always going to be initiated by a minority(but needs to gain the support of the majority), so it is almost always an undemocratic, "authoritarian" act. The working class has yet to come to power through purely democratic means, and only a liberal would think that is the only available avenue.

But why reject parliamentarianism and participation in trade unions for limited reform? Obviously I do not think it, by itself, is a path to socialism, but it could be a tool.

Relating to Bordiga I think you misunderstood me. I was under the impression that Bordiga rejected democracy even within revolutionary organisations (the party, the revolutionary state, or whatever you want to call it). I understand that democracy is not a principle by itself, but what other method is there for having the working class, after it takes power, retain it, and administer its affairs? How does he envision the working class constituting itself as a class?

[Brosip Tito]

There's a distinction between fighting for reforms and the ideology of reformism, mind you.
"Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." - Rosa Luxemburg

Though, I'm not sure any Stalinites would take her views into account, as they view her as a Trotskyist.

If you are against the working class receiving universal health and child care, against reforming the American electoral system, just because it's done outside of the revolution, you're an asshole.

"I don't vote, cause like, they are all bourgeois, so I don't care who wins." Well, ya should. Stronger labour laws and social safety nets is better than economic liberalization and militarism.

[Alf]

Most left communists would argue that while parliamentarism and building up trade union type organisations was a valid approach in the 19th century, when capitalism was still in its youth, they have ceased to be valid since capitalism entered its period of senility. It's not a question of supporting everything Marx said and did at that time, but in general he was right against some of the anarchists like Bakunin who saw the revolution as largely a matter of will, and thus rejected Marx's view that capitalism had not yet created the conditions for a global communist revolution. Hence the need for the working class to build up its forces inside the existing system.

But the conditions for a communist revolution have been with us for a long time now - most left communists would argue since the First World War. Indeed, capitalism is not merely 'ripe' for communism, but is beginning to smell a bit, as Trotsky put it in the 1930s (and the smell has certainly got worse since he said that).

Does this mean workers have to stop fighting to defend their living conditions on a day to day basis? Not at all. If they don't do that, there is no way the revolution will ever grow out of today's struggles of resistance. The problem facing the working class is that the old forms of self-defence - such as the trade unions - have become a direct obstacle, not only to revolution (they proved that in 1917-21) but even to the immediate defensive struggles of the class.

[Welshy]

"Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." - Rosa Luxemburg

Though, I'm not sure any Stalinites would take her views into account, as they view her as a Trotskyist.

If you are against the working class receiving universal health and child care, against reforming the American electoral system, just because it's done outside of the revolution, you're an asshole.

"I don't vote, cause like, they are all bourgeois, so I don't care who wins." Well, ya should. Stronger labour laws and social safety nets is better than economic liberalization and militarism.

No one opposes working class receiving universal health and child care and the like, the issue, for me at least, is that I don't see the capitalist class giving thoses until it becomes a necessary measure to avoid a revolution. If they were to however, especially in the US, there is no guarantee that the working class will even seek socialists to fight for these reforms. Since its near impossible for a third party to become relevant enough to push for these reforms (and don't act like the working class that votes doesn't understand this), which means the people they will run to is the Democratic Party. And we all know that the democratic party will put a clamp down on the radical elements that may exist in these struggles with the help of their allies in the union bureaucracy.

[daft punk]

if we say yes you'll just call blasphemy and that's that.
here's a hint, marx and engels might not have been 100% right about everything.





Marxism isn't agreeing with every little thing Marx or Engels thought you know. You can be a Marxist and say "I disagree with Marx when he says x,". Marxism isn't some religious dogma based belief system.

Well, I dunno if it's a little thing.

Anyway, I would have thought a reason why you both disagree with M&E was in order. We all know their reasons for advocating standing in elections, I assume (gauge support, publicise socialist views).

[Welshy]

Well, I dunno if it's a little thing.

Anyway, I would have thought a reason why you both disagree with M&E was in order. We all know their reasons for advocating standing in elections, I assume (gauge support, publicise socialist views).

A reason was given but you either ignored it or didn't see it,but Alf gave a pretty good reason at the very end of the first page.

[daft punk]

Well, I didnt see it, but it came later, from someone else. Anyway, it says things have changed but doesnt explain why the reasons Marx gave for standing in elections are no longer valid.

" Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

So, why are these 3 reasons no longer applicable?

If anything, I could argue that by not standing it looks like you support the democrats as mentioned above.

Nobody is offering an alternative, as far as the workers can see, if all socialists are ultralefts. The workers wont even know left coms exist, they will just look at the ballot paper and vote for the lesser evil.

[Manic Impressive]

As a side note can some one direct me or explain Bordiga's hostility to democracy? I understand not endorsing democracy on principle (as in as a basis of some abstract social contract or idea of sovereignty) but through what means other than democratic one's can the working class, which composes the majority of society, be in control?
I believe Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm) would be the appropriate piece. He's basically an ultra Leninist I say ultra because Lenin at least paid lip service to democracy while Bordiga saw it as a mere counting of noses, as seeking the irrelevant opinion of the ill-informed and the ignorant. Funnily enough it's not too dissimilar to other ideas that came out of Italy in the 1920's ;) ;)

It all goes back to this from Lenin


The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals

[Thirsty Crow]

I'd agree with you that most left communists are diseased with the "apocalyptic predestinationist" modes of thinking and put too much faith in spontaneity. Word juggling, and alongside that, you're actually wrong on the issue of facts.
First of all, what are "apocalyptic predetinationist" modes of thinking and can you point to an example?
Concerning facts, the two dominant organizations within contemporary left communism - ICC and ICT - can hardly be accused of spontaneism since they actually claim that organized militants, and organization in general, play an important role.


The dominant current within left communism these days seems to lean more towards councilism that partyism, which personally I think is a shame.
And which current would that be? To reiterate, you cannot really confuse ICC's and ICT's views on the role of the party (and its organizational structure) with "councilism". If you think it's a shame that contemporary left communism rejects the dictatorship of the party on behalf of the working class - then I'd say you didn't bother to draw out all of the implications of historical defeats of the working class. If you think there is another "dominant current" then please identify it.

[AnonymousProletarian]

As a side note can some one direct me or explain Bordiga's hostility to democracy? I understand not endorsing democracy on principle (as in as a basis of some abstract social contract or idea of sovereignty) but through what means other than democratic one's can the working class, which composes the majority of society, be in control?

Hello, i think that one good explanation of the marxist hostility against the democracy is in the pages of "The Democratic Principle" written by Bordiga. You can search this text in English utilizing the Google browser.

Regards

[AnonymousProletarian]

As a side note can some one direct me or explain Bordiga's hostility to democracy? I understand not endorsing democracy on principle (as in as a basis of some abstract social contract or idea of sovereignty) but through what means other than democratic one's can the working class, which composes the majority of society, be in control?

One good explanation is in "The democratic principle" written by Bordiga.

Regards

[Brosip Tito]

No one opposes working class receiving universal health and child care and the like, the issue, for me at least, is that I don't see the capitalist class giving thoses until it becomes a necessary measure to avoid a revolution. If they were to however, especially in the US, there is no guarantee that the working class will even seek socialists to fight for these reforms. Since its near impossible for a third party to become relevant enough to push for these reforms (and don't act like the working class that votes doesn't understand this), which means the people they will run to is the Democratic Party. And we all know that the democratic party will put a clamp down on the radical elements that may exist in these struggles with the help of their allies in the union bureaucracy.
Yes, though it is more the electoral system which does not allow these changes. Of course we know that a democratic president is likely to be better for the workers than a republican president. If the system was similar to Canada's, the US would probably have a powerful social democratic party.

Speaking of Canada, let's look at a few things:

the conservatives have raised retirement for public workers by 5 years, private by 2. The usually right wing free market shit.

The NDP would probably lower the retirement age if they gain power next election. They will fight for universal childcare, and should they gain a majority in parliament, it will probably happen.

There isn't a revolutionary situation in Canada, but universal childcare, higher minimum wage, etc. isn't some pipe dream as it is in the USA.