Leftcomm, Trotskyism, and possible Leninism. A personal conflict.

[jookyle]

For quite a bit of time I have considered myself a left-communist. But since joining the forums I've been introduced to other theories of communism that have a new meaning to me since seeing them presented in ways of discussion rather than what I had previously conceived just by reading. Especially in terms of Trotskyism and Leninism. So, what I'm hoping for,(and I know this a loaded and somewhat vague request) is for members of these tendencies to maybe give a bit of explanation on why theirs is more effective than the other two. Especially the Trots.

I know this is a somewhat selfish request, but I hope my fellow comrades wouldn't mind indulging me in my time of conflict.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i guess if you want a leninist perspective, you'd probably want to hear lenin himself.



a book called:

Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

by lenin.

[jookyle]

Yes, I've read that and still hold my reservations about Leninism on the grounds that it isn't the best way to go about the revolution in all countries, like what Groter said in his response to that piece.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i guess beyond that, i would suggest


State and Revolution


and Proletarian Class and Proletarian Party (Stalin, before 1910)


to be clear, i havent really read any left-com material. i dont have a lot of time (or at least im terrible at managing it) to read anything other than classic marxist texts on occasion some lenin and recent stuff.

[jookyle]

Well, the things is, I have read Leninist stuff, State and Revolution included. I'm really just starting to doubt, especially in a country like America where the tea party and such have become such prominent voices, if the goals of a revolution and communist society can happen with out a strong vanguard party. I think I might be leaning more towards Trotskyism because of he stayed clear on his views of internationalism and that the he emphasized that even with a strong vanguard party, the masses will eventually have to be a part of it or the revolution and the building of a communist society will be realized.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the question of the party, if im not mistaken (though i might very well be) is along the lines of 'professional revolutionary parties' and the 'party' in the context of class as a party(versus the capitalist class as a party).


what i can say on behalf of the idea of the vanguard party is that at all times, there is a need for organizing and development of cadre and the idea of the class as a whole in lock-step acting is fantasy as we all know class doesnt mean ideological unity.

[jookyle]

what i can say on behalf of the idea of the vanguard party is that at all times, there is a need for organizing and development of cadre and the idea of the class as a whole in lock-step acting is fantasy as we all know class doesnt mean ideological unity.

That's a conclusion I've come to myself, especially about being a part of a class does not bring ideological unity,that's lead me to this conflict and perhaps leaning towards Trotskyism.

[corolla]

Out of curiosity, why exactly did you 'consider yourself' a left communist? I have noticed that there are several people on revleft who 'consider themselves' left communists while expressing viewpoints which are diametrically opposed to some of the fundamental positions of left communism. I am not sure where the confusion stems from exactly, but it seems that it might be useful for people to actually acquire a comprehensive understanding of the core politics of the organization or 'tendency' that they find interesting before they 'consider themselves' anything.

[Искра]

tbh, I don't understand what exactly you want from users here...

critique of everything from left communist perspective or critique of left communism?

[Devrim]

I'm really just starting to doubt, especially in a country like America where the tea party and such have become such prominent voices, if the goals of a revolution and communist society can happen with out a strong vanguard party.

Left communists are for a vanguard party though. I don't see what your problem with this is.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Out of curiosity, why exactly did you 'consider yourself' a left communist? I have noticed that there are several people on revleft who 'consider themselves' left communists while expressing viewpoints which are diametrically opposed to some of the fundamental positions of left communism. I am not sure where the confusion stems from exactly, but it seems that it might be useful for people to actually acquire a comprehensive understanding of the core politics of the organization or 'tendency' that they find interesting before they 'consider themselves' anything.

I think that this is true. Personally I think that being a left communist means being a member or a supporter of a left communist organisation. It is not just something that you decide on your own.

Devrim

[Dabrowski]

The "Russian Question" is fundamental. The Russian October Revolution of 1917 was the only time that the working class has succeeded in taking power and holding it for more than a few weeks. It was Lenin and Trotsky who were essential to the Bolshevik success -- Lenin was won over to Trotsky's program of Permanent Revolution, and Trotsky was convinced on the Leninist party question.

The current political environment is conditioned by the historic defeat of the Soviet Union in the counterrevolution of 1991-92. Who defended the Soviet Union? Only the Trotskyists! The Stalinists sold it out and the rest -- anarchists, social-democrats, fake Trotskyists and "lefts," scabbed on the Soviet Union! Those whocan't defend the gains of the workers movement can't win new ones.

http://www.internationalist.org/90yearsoctoberrevolution0711.html

[jookyle]

Well, my original gravitation to the left-communists had to do with with the german-dutch stance and council communism. At first I was bitterly opposed to any form of vanguardism. I soon found this unrealistic in it self and gravitated towards the italian left. I've started questioning the position of the party in this role as well. But I've spent the last eight or so hours reading Trotskyist works. And I think Trotskyism so far, has balance between the people, the party, and the state which gives a lot of my questions an answer.

[OHumanista]

Well, my original gravitation to the left-communists had to do with with the german-dutch stance and council communism. At first I was bitterly opposed to any form of vanguardism. I soon found this unrealistic in it self and gravitated towards the italian left. I've started questioning the position of the party in this role as well. But I've spent the last eight or so hours reading Trotskyist works. And I think Trotskyism so far, has balance between the people, the party, and the state which gives a lot of my questions an answer.
Don't worry so much with being part of X or Y before you're pretty sure about it. (if you are then of course do whatever you wish). Also being part of certain tendency doesn't stop you from disagreeing with it in some points and liking the ideas of other groups. So don't worry. Still glad you have done some reading, keep going. :)

[rolfwar]

towards the italian left.

i hope you are not talking about italian parties nowadays...

[Искра]

Well, my original gravitation to the left-communists had to do with with the german-dutch stance and council communism. At first I was bitterly opposed to any form of vanguardism. I soon found this unrealistic in it self and gravitated towards the italian left. I've started questioning the position of the party in this role as well. But I've spent the last eight or so hours reading Trotskyist works. And I think Trotskyism so far, has balance between the people, the party, and the state which gives a lot of my questions an answer.
Trotskyism isn't anything but new name for socialdemocracy... Trot groups are usually the most opportunist bunch of shitheads that you can find. They work with big union bosses, they "entry" big socialdemocratic parties which vote for reforms against working class, they cooperate with various crazy religious fudamentalists or nationalist groups due to their "anti-imperialism" politics, they participate in bourgeuise parliament or coalitions and they manadge Capital. Trotskyism has nothing to do with Left Communism...

Here's interesting read:

Trotsky and the origins of trotskyism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism)
Trotsky and the Internationalist Communist Left (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-internationalist-communist-left)
Trotskyism after Trotsky (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotskyism-after-trotsky)
Appendix A - Natalya Trotsky breaks with the Fourth International (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-a-natalya-trotsky-breaks-with-the-fourth-international)
Appendix B - Trotsky and trotskyism: the chronology (1879-1943) (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/appendix-b-trotsky-and-trotskyism-the-chronology-1879-1943)

[Искра]

i hope you are not talking about italian parties nowadays...
He's talking about historical Italian Left which includes PCInt (Internationalist Communist Party formed in 1943) and it's usually associated with ideas of Amadeo Bordiga and his comrades who fought against reformism and revisionism in communist movement from the days of PSI.

[black magick hustla]

I think that this is true. Personally I think that being a left communist means being a member or a supporter of a left communist organisation. It is not just something that you decide on your own.

Devrim

i used to think this but honestly it seems to me that most "left communists", at least in this side of the pond are individuals that aren't necessarily in organizations but "know each other". i am not just talking about people who post in internet forum but also like old timers that are scattered across the bay area and the northeast and the pacific west. i don't know if all "left communists" are for vanguard parties, seeing that some council communists were extremely anti-organizational.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i used to think this but honestly it seems to me that most "left communists", at least in this side of the pond are individuals that aren't necessarily in organizations but "know each other". i am not just talking about people who post in internet forum but also like old timers that are scattered across the bay area and the northeast and the pacific west. i don't know if all "left communists" are for vanguard parties, seeing that some council communists were extremely anti-organizational.

Indeed, council communists are indeed against a vanguard party. An important point to stress, before people try to claim the entirety of the left-communist tendency for their own politics, or their own organisation's politics.

[Tim Finnegan]

How are we even defining "left-com", here? A lot of people seem to want to define it exclusively in terms of the original communist lefts and their direct descendents, but in my experience it can be a lot broader than that, encompassing people like the Gilles Dauvé or the End Notes group who do not exactly see eye to eye with the "official" leftcom groups.


(edit: I may be off the mark here, but does anybody else get the impression that a lot of the narrow definitions of "left communism" read like an attempt to emphasise the writer's genealogical relationship with the left of the Second International against accusations of "anarchism" and "syndicalism", rather than to actually provide a description of how the term is used in practice?)

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

@ the OP. What is it about the trotskyist conception of the vanguard party which you find more attractive, realistic or balanced than in (italian) left- communism?
idk, it seems there are different views on the party; it´s role, functions and organization, not just between different left-communists, but also between different trotskyist orgs. and traditions.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As far as I understand Trotskyists and leftcoms, underneath it all, are not dramatically different. We both want worker's democracy, rule by the working class.

Leftcoms and Trots differ on electoralism. Leftcons generally avoid all participation in the bourgeois state believing it will sew dangerous illusions among the working class.

Trotskyists agree that bourgeois elections are a "crock" but generally believe elections and parliamentary campaigns can be a method of education. Lenin pushed for Bolsheviks to run for seats in the Duma.

Leftcoms would oppose any support for someone like Tsipras, head of Syriza in Greece, believing he would play a retarding role in class consciousness. They would oppose support for someone like Allende as well.Trotskyists would disagree, believing it would not be productive to slam these leaders, their electoral victory is part of the worker's struggle, but to continue the revolutionary struggle workers will have to confront the bourgeois state ultimately though worker's councils contesting state power.The coming to power of Syriza could be a part,but only a part, of this process.

Leftcoms and Trots disagree on participation in unions. As I understand some leftcoms avoid unions altogether. Trotskyists generally believe that revolutionaries must go where the working class is.

In the 1930s the US Socialist Party was more or less social democrat, but it did attract large numbers of radicalyzing workers looking for a way to fight capitalism. US Trotskyists practiced entryism as a way to reach these people, without diluting revolutionary ideas. Its important to go where the class is.

At the extremes, leftcoms may feel Trots are the "leftwing of capital", back door Stalinists subverting revolutions while Trots often feel leftcoms are dooming themselves to ultra-left sectarian sterility.This is at the extremes. For the most part I don't think we are all that different.

Its also complicated because just as their is a lot of diversity among left coms, self styled Trotskyist groups often have widely differing methodology.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well, I consider myself a Leninist and a Left-Communist. I agree with some things that the council communists stated, I agree with a lot of things that the Italian and Bordigaist current stated. I agree with Bordiga's concept of the party and it's importance and agree with Bordiga's critique of democracy and using democracy as a principle (to an extent). I agree with Gorter's Open Letter but also find much value in Lenin's experience. I don't know how much you know about Left Communism, it's different figures and currents, etc. but I would suggest expanding your knowledge of the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin's ideas, and left communist ideas from the past and those written today.

If this offers anything:
The Bolshevik Revolution by E.H. Carr Volumes 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Bolshevik-Revolution-1917-1923-History-Soviet/dp/0393301958) 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Bolshevik-Revolution-1917-1923-History-Soviet/dp/0393301974/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b) and 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Bolshevik-Revolution-1917-1923-History-Soviet/dp/0393301990/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c)
Lenin by Lars T Lih (http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Reaktion-Books-Critical-Lives/dp/1861897936/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337024021&sr=1-2)
Party and Class by Amadeo Bordiga (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm)
Force, Violence, and Class Dictatorship by Amadeo Bordiga (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm)
Public Ownership and Common Ownership by Anton Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm)
Party and Class by Anton Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm)
Bordiga versus Pannekoek (http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A lot of left-coms (again, obviously not all) are vehemently anti-Leninist.

[Rooster]

I think that if you're trying to pigeon hole yourself into one of these categories, then you're probably not understanding a lot of marxist theory.