Left Communism

[Art Vandelay]

I was just on Marxists.org and was trying to decide where to start my upcoming reading binge and this was the description of Left Communism:

A number of Marxists, especially in Europe and the US, not only rejected Stalinism, but rejected the whole project of building socialism through state power. These were Marxists, not Anarchists, and they remain a force to this day.

Perhaps I am just incredibly ignorant to Left Communism, but the part in bold really surprised me. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Caj]

Left communists advocate a transitional proletarian state, so that description is bullshit.

[Rooster]

I think it meant the idea of imposing socialism in reference to the state part.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

That description is pretty flawed. Both the German/Dutch Council Communists and Italian/Bordigaist currents advocate a transitional state.

[Railyon]

Yeah, socialism is not built through state power (I find the very notion absurd). The state, however one may define it, is and cannot be the driving force; the mission of attaining socialism can only lay with the proletariat (and I make that distinction exactly because the two can be and have been separated).

However, it may have come to your attention that the state word is so loaded that you have to lay out a precise definition of it before any meaningful discussion can be had, unless of course all participants have the same definition which only happens in small circles, and tendencies.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, socialism is not built through state power (I find the very notion absurd). The state, however one may define it, is and cannot be the driving force; the mission of attaining socialism can only lay with the proletariat (and I make that distinction exactly because the two can be and have been separated).

I was going to say, the only people who I think would argue that socialism is to be built through state power would be M-L's and M-L-M's.


However, it may have come to your attention that the state word is so loaded that you have to lay out a precise definition of it before any meaningful discussion can be had, unless of course all participants have the same definition which only happens in small circles, and tendencies.

I have never seen a precise definition, agreed upon, of what constitutes a "state;" which is why I still say that the difference between alot of the left, on the question of a transitional state, is largely semantics.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I´m not so good at elaborating these things, but I´ll try.
I think different left communist traditions disagree about whether or not there will be a state in the transitional perion, and if so; what it´s character will be.
I think that whole notion of "building socialism through state power" is nonsense anyway. Something for the "left wing of capital" to justify their state capitalism. Firstly: it implies that socialism is something you "build", like a company or political sect, instead of seeing it as the movement to abolish capitalist social relations. I think also what is meant there that those currents didn´t see the possibility of "establishing socialism" through governmental acts, state ownership and planing. That it would require an active involvement and self- organization from the working class itself.

[Leo]

Left communists advocate a transitional proletarian state, so that description is bullshit.

We believe that a transitional state will be unavoidable so long as there are classes, but we see it as a conservative organ and a potential danger against which we always have to be on guard nevertheless, hence we don't call it a proletarian state. For more details, check this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) out.

[Manic Impressive]

Leo I will read the full article but just a quick question would there be a market economy in this transitional state?

[jookyle]

I think if I had to considering one title or another, it would be a "left-communist". And, I think the marxist.org description is closer to it(how I see it anyways) then not. The difference really is in the transitional state. As where say, a Leninist see this being controlled by the party, the left-communist see's this needing to happen by the organization of the masses. Ergo, the term, "council communist". The councils that get talked about by left communists go beyond that of say, the trade unions that exist today, a more evolved idea of a union if you will. Revolutionary Catalonia might show a good example of such a situation in practice.

These articles in particular, I think talk about the subject directly and in good detail. Reading through a few of them would at least give your a more clear idea of the current.

I can't post links yet so here's the titles and author, they're all on marxists.org

Herman Gorter:
Open Letter to Comrade Lenin

Paul Mattick:
The Masses and The Vanguard

Council Communism

Workers Control

Anton Pannekoek:
Workers' Councils

[jookyle]

I think if I had to be described as anything, it would be as a left-communist. To be honest, I think the marxist.org description is closer to it than it is farther away. The big idea is that instead of the transition being headed by the party, it's held by mass organization of the people. Under this transition is where the "councils" are formed. This is really the big divide between the left-communists and the Leninists. The dictatorship being held by the masses themselves, instead of some party officials and their bureaucracy. Think something more like Revolutionary Catalonia.

[Искра]

"Revolutionoray" Catalionia was state run by bourgeuise nationalists and leftist oprotunist. It is the only good example of what not to do - supress workers movement and cooperate with bourgeuise.

Left communism is not council comunism. Also, Dutch/German Left Communism is not council communism as Italian Left Communism is not Bordigism. Both Left Communist currents are pro-party, while council communists reject party and Bordigists reject anti-national liberation and anti-union positions.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Left Communism is a poltical tradition within Marxism that is characterized by strict adherence to proletarian internationalism, an understanding of the USSR and other Stalinist states as state-capitalist, and an often critical view point of Lenninism.
The manifesto of the ICC: http://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1991
Left Communists do all support a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Android]

Bordigists reject anti-national liberation

I do not think this is true, when I was in Italy members of BC told me that some of the Bordigists groups have abandoned that position.

[Искра]

I do not think this is true, when I was in Italy members of BC told me that some of the Bordigists groups have abandoned that position.That's true... maybe I should have write some Bordigists. My point was that Bordigism has some retarted positions which defere from Left Communism. Some Bordigists support national liberation, some don't, some work with Maoists, some don't, some are for "red unions", some are not... etc.

Anyhow, I shouldn't have been so skin-deep :p

[Devrim]

Left communists advocate a transitional proletarian state, so that description is bullshit.We believe that a transitional state will be unavoidable so long as there are classes, but we see it as a conservative organ and a potential danger against which we always have to be on guard nevertheless, hence we don't call it a proletarian state. For more details, check this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) out.

By 'we' here Leo actually means the ICC, and not left communists in general.

Devrim

[Tim Finnegan]

Left communists advocate a transitional proletarian state, so that description is bullshit.
I don't.

[Искра]

By 'we' here Leo actually means the ICC, and not left communists in general.
Could you in short tell other positions? Tbh, I don't have solid position on this one.

[Android]

Could you in short tell other positions? Tbh, I don't have solid position on this one.

I am not sure if you remember but this has come up before. I will link again to a rather good exposition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2143166&postcount=2) by Zanthorus on the ICC's approach and the position taken by other Marxists.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't.

Then perhaps there is a term that could better describe your political outlook?

[Tim Finnegan]

Then perhaps there is a term that could better describe your political outlook?
Nah. I just think that most leftcoms (most Marxists, really) don't have a very good theory of "the state". Too much focus on the repressive function, not enough on the mediatory function. Still basically working within the framework set out by The State and Revolution, no real attention paid to any theoretical developments since.

[Искра]

Read Poulantzas for new theory of state :D

[Leo]

Leo I will read the full article but just a quick question would there be a market economy in this transitional state? No. I think the abolition of money is something which can be abolished in pretty early stages.

Here (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm)'s another article, this time focusing more on the nature of the period of transition.

To quote the most practically relevant part of the article, the measures:

-Immediate socialization of the great capitalist concentrations and of the principal centers of productive activity.
-Planning of production and distribution--the criteria of production must be the maximum satisfaction of needs and no longer of accumulation.
-Massive reduction of the working day.
-Substantial rise in the standard of living.
-The attempt to abolish remuneration based on wages and on its money form.
-Socialization of consumption and of the satisfaction of needs (transportation, leisure, meals, etc).
-The relationship between the collectivized sectors and sectors of production which are still individual--particularly in the countryside--must tend towards an organized collective exchange through co-operatives, thus suppressing the market and individual exchange.


Could you in short tell other positions? Tbh, I don't have solid position on this one. One approach directly sees the workers' councils themselves as the state itself in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Other approaches are closer to early Bolshevik theory. The position held by the ICC was developed by Bilan, the magazine of the Italian left in the 1930ies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Leo, can you expand on a couple of points:

Assuming world revolution, would the 'criteria of production...be the maxiumum satisfaction of needs and no longer of accumulation' apply still to less developed nations who are still in the earliest throes of capital accumulation?

Secondly, what is meant, in practical terms, by the 'socialisation of consumption', and how would this be enforced/made to work?

[Blake's Baby]

Sometimes the 'need' is for 'accumulation' (if as I hope you are, you're getting at the idea that some production will have to be given over to expanded reproduction, and that this is in itself necessary for the fulfilment of human needs); but also there's no reason not to use developed production in one part of the world to make up shortfalls in production in other parts of the world. There are no 'nations' just regions of the world. Some have more developed industry, others not so much; we attempt to integrate them into a more harmonious system.

I don't think anyone's going to be 'enforcing' socialisation of consumption. But, for instance, would our first task be to ensure that every nuclear family has a washing machine and tumble dryer, a car and a plasma TV? No. But they should and I hope would have access to laundry facilities, public transport, and entertainment. I think the main idea here is spending less of the social wealth on individual consumption and moving those resources into more social forms of consumption, which will co-incidently, due to being more efficient, allow other resources (including time) to be redirected towards leisure.

After all, if you really only need your washing machine 1/4 of the time, there's no reason for 16 people to have 4 washing machines (as now) when 1 would suffice. Net saving to society, 3 washing machines. Replicate that theory across housing, transport, and a bunch of other sectors of the 'economy' and you find that a lot of productive capacity has been saved, and a lot of people get to conceptually take the afternoon off.

[Искра]

Assuming world revolution, would the 'criteria of production...be the maxiumum satisfaction of needs and no longer of accumulation' apply still to less developed nations who are still in the earliest throes of capital accumulation?
Do we live in 19th century or 21st?