Differences between Left Communism and Council Communism [Archive]

Susurrus

13th May 2012, 16:52

Left Communism:

October Revolution was a proletarian revolution; Bolsheviks were expression of international proletariat; vanguard party is necessary for successful revolution; Russia degenerated because international revolution failed (primarily, in Germany)

Council Communism:

October Revolution was a bourgeois revolution; Bolsheviks were expression of Russian bourgeoisie; vanguard party is harmful successful revolution; Russia degenerated because incorect policies applied (ending factory committees) OR because of state of development of Russia (not economically developed enough).

They're the main ones off the top of my head.

Aye, but don't some branches of Left Communism, ie the "Dutch-German" one, think that the seizure of the Soviets and other incorrect policies by the Bolsheviks was why the October revolution degenerated, while still thinking the revolution was proletarian and the vanguard is necessary in a different manner? IIRC, isn't Pannekoek a theorist of both tendencies?

TheRedAnarchist23

13th May 2012, 17:06

ed miliband

13th May 2012, 17:11

So left-communists are authoritarians?

left-communists believe that distinctions like "authoritarian" and "libertarian" have little to no meaning for marxists.

Susurrus

13th May 2012, 17:19

left-communists believe that distinctions like "authoritarian" and "libertarian" have little to no meaning for marxists.

Well, I thought it was more like they think that Marxism is inherently a certain form, therefore you can't have authoritarian or libertarian marxism because that is changing the ideology from Marxism to something else.

Caj

13th May 2012, 17:30

Caj

13th May 2012, 17:33

The terms libertarian and authoritarian describe relationships. When those relationships aren't specified, the terms retain no meaning and become ambiguous abstractions.

Искра

13th May 2012, 18:03

"Libertarian" and "authoritarian" belong to anarchist idealism. They ahve nothing to do with Marxist materialism.

Blake's Baby

13th May 2012, 18:19

Aye, but don't some branches of Left Communism, ie the "Dutch-German" one, think that the seizure of the Soviets and other incorrect policies by the Bolsheviks was why the October revolution degenerated, while still thinking the revolution was proletarian and the vanguard is necessary in a different manner? IIRC, isn't Pannekoek a theorist of both tendencies?

I consider myself a 'Dutch-German' Left Communist, but to be honest I'm really sure what you're getting at here.

The fusion of the Bolshevik Party with the state was an error - it didn't cause the degeneration of the revolution, that would inevitably have happened anyway in an isolated revolutionary situation - but it at least helped helped shape the decline.

What is 'a different manner' referring to? In a manner different to what? To how the Italian Left saw things? I'm afraid I don't know much about the Italian Left, maybe Kontrrazvedka could answer that. Or different to how the Bolsheviks pursued things in Russia? Certainly, different to that.

So left-communists are authoritarians?

What does that mean? How does it relate to what I said? Are you reading 'Left Communists support a vanguard party' as 'Left Communists believe that a secretive group of conspiritors should take over thee state and tell everyone what to do'?

Ravachol

13th May 2012, 18:27

"Libertarian" and "authoritarian" belong to anarchist idealism. They ahve nothing to do with Marxist materialism.

Not really, they describe the qualitative aspects of real, material social relationships that animate larger social organisations.

Caj

13th May 2012, 18:33

Not really, they describe the qualitative aspects of real, material social relationships that animate larger social organisations.

This isn't the sense in which anarchists usually use these terms though.

Искра

13th May 2012, 19:02

Not really, they describe the qualitative aspects of real, material social relationships that animate larger social organisations.
And yet, anarchist Prince Bakunin is "libertarian" and Marx is "authoritarian". Or even better, Bolsheviks are "authoritarian" while Makhnovists/CNT are/is "libertarian"...

I don't see materialist approach here. Tbh, "libertarian"/"authoritarian" isn't anything but demagogy.

Ravachol

13th May 2012, 20:49

And yet, anarchist Prince Bakunin is "libertarian" and Marx is "authoritarian". Or even better, Bolsheviks are "authoritarian" while Makhnovists/CNT are/is "libertarian"...

I don't see materialist approach here. Tbh, "libertarian"/"authoritarian" isn't anything but demagogy.

I dunno, Bakunin proposed (I'm not that much into his personal history so I can't speak for all his actions) some very authoritarian conspiratory structures, so meh. As for Marx, I disagree with some of his positions, mainly his linear progressivist conception of history and the state question but it's ridiculous to claim he proposes 'authoritarian' frameworks. As for the real praxis of the Bolsheviks, I don't think Leninism qualifies as Communism at all, but that's another matter. The Bolshevik model, it's vanguardist relationship to the Soviets,etc. reproduced an authoritarian caste of 'specialists', static social roles and a seperation between representatives and 'represented'. I'm not really up for an in-depth discussion of Bolshevism (ain't got the energy for that :p) though.

The thing is, describing a framework or set of ideas as 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian' only makes sense when you look at the qualitative aspects of the social relationships that they either animate materially or propose to be set in motion.

Susurrus

13th May 2012, 21:10

I consider myself a 'Dutch-German' Left Communist, but to be honest I'm really sure what you're getting at here.

The fusion of the Bolshevik Party with the state was an error - it didn't cause the degeneration of the revolution, that would inevitably have happened anyway in an isolated revolutionary situation - but it at least helped helped shape the decline.

Right, that's what I was getting at, though I didn't know there was as big a focus on the isolation part in Left Communism.

What is 'a different manner' referring to? In a manner different to what? To how the Italian Left saw things? I'm afraid I don't know much about the Italian Left, maybe Kontrrazvedka could answer that. Or different to how the Bolsheviks pursued things in Russia? Certainly, different to that.

In a different manner from the vanguard party becoming the state post-revolution. I am under the impression that in left communism the main focus of the vanguard party is to further the revolution, but to let the workers seize power rather than implement a party-based state apparatus afterwards. The bit I am/was wondering about is the nature of what they advise, ie worker's councils or some other option, and how that differs from the ideas of the council communists if it is worker's councils.

Искра

13th May 2012, 21:10

The thing is, describing a framework or set of ideas as 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian' only makes sense when you look at the qualitative aspects of the social relationships that they either animate materially or propose to be set in motion.
My point was that when anarchists use "libertarian" they are talking about people or groups they like. For example Daniel Guerin and his idea of "libertarian marxism" where he put Luxemburg and Pannekoek. On the other hand they use "authoritarian" when they want to describe something they don't like like Marx (especially in case against Prince Bakunin), Lenin etc. etc. But this whole framework of "libertarian" and "anthoritarian" doesn't make any sense, it's doesn't have any materialist backbone in reality... Ok, you gave your definition, but that is not a definition of whole anarchist movement. Anarchists tend to attack, for example, Marx as authoritarian because he was for centralised organisation and against Proudhonist federalism... but they do not make any kind of anaylisis why did he proposed that... Also, when it comes to Lenin anarchists tend to attack him for "authoritarianism" etc. while they don't see same things in their own practice. I'd also like to keep "Leninism" out of this discussion (even I don't agree with your anarchist simplification of "Leninism"/"Bolshevism") and I'd like to get back to topic.

Left Communists do not oppose to Stalinists, Trotskyists etc. because they are authoritarian, but because they are not communists at all. That's why we call them "Left wing of Capital", because they are 21st century Proudhonists, socialdemocrats etc. We oppose their nationalism, class colaboration, attacks on working class etc. Also, we are for vanguard party, centralism etc... which kind of makes us "authoritarian" in anarchists rethorics.

Rafiq

13th May 2012, 21:13

The biggest mistake is to give to the Leninists the October Revolution. Leninism wasn't the embodiment of Lenin and the Revolution, Vanguardism, etc.

It was the embodiment of it's degeneration.

Susurrus

13th May 2012, 21:35

My point was that when anarchists use "libertarian" they are talking about people or groups they like. For example Daniel Guerin and his idea of "libertarian marxism" where he put Luxemburg and Pannekoek. On the other hand they use "authoritarian" when they want to describe something they don't like like Marx (especially in case against Prince Bakunin), Lenin etc. etc. But this whole framework of "libertarian" and "anthoritarian" doesn't make any sense, it's doesn't have any materialist backbone in reality... Ok, you gave your definition, but that is not a definition of whole anarchist movement. Anarchists tend to attack, for example, Marx as authoritarian because he was for centralised organisation and against Proudhonist federalism... but they do not make any kind of anaylisis why did he proposed that... Also, when it comes to Lenin anarchists tend to attack him for "authoritarianism" etc. while they don't see same things in their own practice. I'd also like to keep "Leninism" out of this discussion (even I don't agree with your anarchist simplification of "Leninism"/"Bolshevism") and I'd like to get back to topic.

Left Communists do not oppose to Stalinists, Trotskyists etc. because they are authoritarian, but because they are not communists at all. That's why we call them "Left wing of Capital", because they are 21st century Proudhonists, socialdemocrats etc. We oppose their nationalism, class colaboration, attacks on working class etc. Also, we are for vanguard party, centralism etc... which kind of makes us "authoritarian" in anarchists rethorics.

Well, I think it's a bit of a mistake to treat anarchists as a homogeneous group, particularly in terms of the Marx vs Bakunin thing. From what I've seen on this forum, a great deal of them agree more with Marx than Bakunin, and Bakunin himself agreed that he was too much of an idealist. Plus there are both "anarchists" and "communists" who make baseless accusations without really understanding either position.

Also, I'm curious about what differences you say there are between leninism and bolshevism, but if you'd rather keep that out of this thread message me or something if you like.

I get that you(left communists) support a vanguard party bringing about the revolution, but what about once the workers have overthrown the bourgeois state and go about making their own. Is the party to have a role in that? Or is it to be left to worker's councils or some other organ?

Arilou Lalee'lay

13th May 2012, 21:40

Are you reading 'Left Communists support a vanguard party' as 'Left Communists believe that a secretive group of conspiritors should take over thee state and tell everyone what to do'?

I suspect that's actually how most council communists look at it. That's really how the ICC's site makes it look to me, not that we should conflate the ICC with left coms.

Council communists are the most fundamentalist Marxists, so to speak. We want to put power over the means of production in the hands of the workers in the most direct way possible. I guess left coms generally think this is naive (though we're a subset of left communism depending on who you ask). Because of this, we focus on culture and how to defeat false consciousness, so we're more likely to be situationists or lettrists, or what have you, first, and councilists second.

We oppose the Stalinists and Trotskyists both because they aren't communists, and because we think they're "authoritarian," though I like the term "bureaucracy" better. We generally get along with anarchists quite well.

Neither group is particularly dogmatic, so some of the historical discussion above is of limited value. There are a few other council communists on the board that are probably more orthodox, or at least more precise and less drunk in their descriptions, that you can ask. That one fellow that knows theory like the back of his hand and garners universal respect for it could tell you all the nuances of it from the KAPD on, forgot his name. I'll think of it in a minute proly and edit this.

Arilou Lalee'lay

13th May 2012, 21:42

differences ... between leninism and bolshevism

none

Искра

13th May 2012, 21:45

Well, I think it's a bit of a mistake to treat anarchists as a homogeneous group, particularly in terms of the Marx vs Bakunin thing. From what I've seen on this forum, a great deal of them agree more with Marx than Bakunin, and Bakunin himself agreed that he was too much of an idealist. Plus there are both "anarchists" and "communists" who make baseless accusations without really understanding either position.
It's not about Marx and Bakunin conflict here (I've just used that as an example of "libertarian" vs. "authoritarian" mythology. Also, as a person who was in anarchist movement from 2006 to 2011, I can say that it's not homogenus but that it's position thowards "libertaian" and "authoritarian" mythology is. It what makes anarchists - anarchists. People like comrade R. here are rare.

Also, I'm curious about what differences you say there are between leninism and bolshevism, but if you'd rather keep that out of this thread message me or something if you like.
I refere to Bolshevism as internationalist communist reaction to 1914th and betray of social democracy. Therfore, Bolshevism for me is communism of Comintern till 1921 :) I may be wrong but what the hell... I consider Leninism as people who supported Lenin after 1921... or who supported every shit he said. I mean, I'm a great fan of Lenin but his Imperialism... is an example of counter-revolutionary bollocks.

I get that you(left communists) support a vanguard party bringing about the revolution, but what about once the workers have overthrown the bourgeois state and go about making their own. Is the party to have a role in that? Or is it to be left to worker's councils or some other organ?Party won't bring up the revolution - material conditions will...

Also, we are not for Party dictatorship but for proletarian dictatorship torugh councils/Sovets.

Art Vandelay

13th May 2012, 23:25

Council communists are the most fundamentalist Marxists, so to speak. We want to put power over the means of production in the hands of the workers in the most direct way possible. I guess left coms generally think this is naive (though we're a subset of left communism depending on who you ask).

Could you maybe elaborate on how council communists would "put power over the means of production in the hands of the workers in the most direct way possible."

Because of this, we focus on culture and how to defeat false consciousness, so we're more likely to be situationists or lettrists, or what have you, first, and councilists second.

Why do council communists focus on culture to defeat false consciousness? Is this what distinguishes council communism from other ideologies? Also what are lettrists?

We oppose the Stalinists and Trotskyists both because they aren't communists, and because we think they're "authoritarian," though I like the term "bureaucracy" better. We generally get along with anarchists quite well.

While I still self label as an anarchist, I have a feeling that perhaps I haven't been an anarchist for a while. I consider the authoritarian and libertarian spectrum to be a false dichotomy and have been pondering centralization vs decentralization lately. I would be curious as to why you don't consider Trotskyist communists? Sorry for all the questions, but council communism seems attractive to me as transition away from anarchism.

Arilou Lalee'lay

14th May 2012, 00:02

Could you maybe elaborate on how council communists would "put power over the means of production in the hands of the workers in the most direct way possible."

The worker's councils control every facet of the work place. The workers vote in a delegative system, rather than a representative one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_Democracy
There is one council for each workplace, then larger councils which vote on the issues that effect their respective industry. How this would probably work, in practice, is that you would get a ballot from your workplace, a ballot from your industry, and a ballot for being a general citizen of your city that uses the roads and sewers. You can vote on every minutia that gets brought up, or you can say "I don't give a crap, but I generally like what linda says at the office; give my vote on industrial matters to her, and my vote on the roads and sewers to oprah winfrey."

So council communism gives workers the most direct control in that they don't have to go through a government or representatives, unless you count the people who write up the ballot, which would probably be a computer program that counts the number of valid names on a petition.

Whether this is ad hoc or enforced by some central council's police is dependent upon the implementation, but the ideal is to keep it ad hoc.

Why do council communists focus on culture to defeat false consciousness? Is this what distinguishes council communism from other ideologies? Also what are lettrists?

The lettrists are/were pretty similar to the situationists with a slightly different focus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettrism

We focus on culture and education because we think the working class must take power by itself. If a vanguard takes power while the proletariat still doesn't understand why socialism serves its interests, then it is doomed to fight off the white army in its infinite incarnations. The situationists analyzed contemporary culture and systematically showed the ways in which it serves the ruling class and perpetuates false consciousness. Most situationists view May '68 in France as the pinnacle of western marxism, and the way future revolutions should start. The Adbusters behind Occupy, and I'm not denying their impotence, consider themselves "students of the situationists".

I would be curious as to why you don't consider Trotskyist communists?
Trotsky disagreed with Stalin but agreed with Lenin. Many council communists consider Leninism, while a valiant effort, to be theoretical hogwash, in hindsight. At the very least, most of us think it's irrelevant to study a revolution that happened in a feudal country and not a bourgeois one. The only thing to learn from it is what not to do.

Manic Impressive

14th May 2012, 00:12

dutch/german left communists believe in the working class emancipating themselves through organizing democratically through unions, fairly similar to a syndicalist position. They are Leninist by their support for the system of soviet workers councils.
Bordiga is correct in critiquing the soviet system of workers councils as being capitalist. Although he believed in the necessity of an enlightened minority of the intelligentsia leading a working class revolution as workers cannot realise socialist conciousness under capitalism, he believed this to a greater extent than Lenin himself and this view was similar to other organisational views coming out of Italy at the time.
So Bordiga was right economically and Pannekoek was right organisationally.

Blake's Baby

14th May 2012, 00:16

Aw crap, there's oads of stuff on page 2 i didn't even notice... sorry.

Right, that's what I was getting at, though I didn't know there was as big a focus on the isolation part in Left Communism...

We don't believe in Socialism in One Country; therefore, in an isolated revolutionary territory, the revolution can only go backwards - it can't go forwards. No matter what the revolution did in Russia, no matter what the circumstances of the revolution, if it was isolated it must inevitably decline.

To believe otherwise means that either:
1 - the 'correct application of policy' can bring about socialism (which is another way of saying that there can be Socialism in One Country); or
2 - that socialism is possible in some countries but not others due to their material development (which is another way of saying, there can be Socialism in One Country).

the Bolsheviks certainly made many errors, but even if they'd done everything right in Russia, if the revolution failed to spread then Russia was doomed anyway.

...

In a different manner from the vanguard party becoming the state post-revolution...

right; we'd mostly (except for some Bordigists) agree that the party shouldn't 'take power'.

... I am under the impression that in left communism the main focus of the vanguard party is to further the revolution, but to let the workers seize power rather than implement a party-based state apparatus afterwards. The bit I am/was wondering about is the nature of what they advise, ie worker's councils or some other option, and how that differs from the ideas of the council communists if it is worker's councils.

Workers' councils yes. I wasn't really aware that any serious political group, communist or anarchist, had any other perspective (except for the SPGB and even they say that they don't object to workers' councils per se). The working class makes the revolution, not the party; the working class creates soviets; the party is in the soviets, arguing for the 'correct line' if you like.

In the sense that we see the party as a militant organ of the class-conscious workers in the soviets, I don't think that substantially differentiates Left Communists from Council Communists. But there are a whole load of other things that do, that I referred to in my first post.

Искра

14th May 2012, 01:25

Bordiga is correct in critiquing the soviet system of workers councils as being capitalist. Where did exactly Bordiga said anything against Soviets?

He was actually against factory councils which Gramsci advocated, because he saw them as syndicalist/economist programs which will damage class struggle. Also, Gramsci believed that Italian factroy councils were Italian equivalent to Soviets (which just shows how shallow was his analysis). Bordiga was 100% pro-creation of Soviets because he believed that working class needs to take political power first and then they can use factory councils to change economy. You can't change capitalism if bourgeuise is on power.

Read this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/workers-councils.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/seize-power.htm

Искра

14th May 2012, 01:30

Although he believed in the necessity of an enlightened minority of the intelligentsia leading a working class revolution as workers cannot realise socialist conciousness under capitalism,
Also, this is bollocks. Even in 50's phase, Bordiga considered Party as vanguard and Party was consisted of Communists, no matter if they were intelligentsia or working class people with big hammers...

Tim Finnegan

14th May 2012, 01:48

My point was that when anarchists use "libertarian" they are talking about people or groups they like.
Do you not see a certain irony in criticising a sweeping, homogenising usage of "libertarian" and then attributing it to "the anarchists"? :p

Anyway, I'm fairly sceptical of these attempts to construct categorical distinctions grounded as far as I can see quite entirely in the divergent opinions of the extremely dead. "Left communism", at least as I'm familiar with the term, does not exclusively denote the Italian and Dutch/German lefts (or any immediate offspring or synthesises thereof), but a broader tradition that encompasses elements form other ultra-left currents, including autonomia, situationism, and class struggle anarchism, synthesising and surpassing them just as these movements had their own predecessors.

At any rate, that's how I use the label. Could be that I'm misguided.

Grenzer

14th May 2012, 11:16

The biggest mistake is to give to the Leninists the October Revolution. Leninism wasn't the embodiment of Lenin and the Revolution, Vanguardism, etc.

It was the embodiment of it's degeneration.

How so, or should I say, which specifically, comrade?

I think Mike Macnair covered this topic well, at least in regards to the vanguard. I don't believe the vanguard model was established until the Third Congress of the Comintern, and it took a historical revisionist role in regards to the organizational principles of the RSDLP, which had been organized along the lines of the Erfurt Programme. In my view, the vanguard model was primarily a hysterical reaction to the capitulation of the Second International parties to rightist deviation. I don't think it was specifically a characteristic of counter-revolutionary degeneration, but that it was simply wrong.

As for Left Communism, it is essentially anarchism in another form. It primarily differs in aesthetics and rhetoric, but at its core it has replaced the central theses of Marxism with the central Theses of Bakuninism, including the idealistic "power corrupts"(especially in regards to the State). Discounting entirely political struggle, is has embraced solely economic struggle, taking up the old Bakuninist rallying cry of "The economic is the political!". This is exactly the kind of shit that Lenin wrote extensively against prior to World War I. Usually, they justify their capitulation to Bakuninism with some weak "Theory of Decadence". In addition, they take the moralistic position that one must never take a defencist position in regards to anti-imperialism(which is just as incorrect as the position that one must always take a defencist position). In practice, it becomes apologia for colonialism, passive submission to foreign domination, and encourages national chauvinism(re. Britain and Ireland). Strategically, they take the mass strike line, which is yet another core thesis of Bakuninism, and amounts to a form of blanquism by attempting to trick the workers into taking power without actually having socialist consciousness(i.e. an active demand for socialism).

In addition, it's also worth noting that several important Left Communists have become anti-communists, like Pannekoek. This is usually shrugged off, despite the fact that they became anti-communists not as a fundamental break with their prior views, but as its logical extension. Lenin noted correctly that "Left Communism", much like Anarchism, was simply another form of petit-bourgeois radicalism. There is also the amusing case of Sylvia Pankhurst, an important figure on the British communist left, who later became the flunky of Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. They can impotently call out everyone as being "left of capital", but the simple fact remains that they are political nihilists and a dead weight on the movement, like most anarchists are. Much like their fellow anarchists, who make no pretension of being actual Marxists, when asked the question, What is to be done? the answer is, emphatically, nothing!

The failure of revolution to spread resulted in not only the rightist deviation of the Popular Front and coalitionism, but also degeneration into petit-bourgeois opportunism re. "left communism" and anarcho-syndicalist deviation. There is no surer way to ensure communism's irrelevancy than through economism.

Tim Finnegan

14th May 2012, 14:28

So left-communists are syndicalist catastrophists, idealistic putschists, and nihilist anarchists, all at the same time. You live you learn, eh? :rolleyes:

Die Neue Zeit

14th May 2012, 14:44

As for Left Communism, it is essentially anarchism in another form. It primarily differs in aesthetics and rhetoric, but at its core it has replaced the central theses of Marxism with the central Theses of Bakuninism, including the idealistic "power corrupts"(especially in regards to the State). Discounting entirely political struggle, is has embraced solely economic struggle, taking up the old Bakuninist rallying cry of "The economic is the political!". This is exactly the kind of shit that Lenin wrote extensively against prior to World War I.

It really annoys me, comrade, whenever some people repeat that particular canard in order to defend not just broad economism, but narrow economism as well.

Usually, they justify their capitulation to Bakuninism with some weak "Theory of Decadence". In addition, they take the moralistic position that one must never take a defencist position in regards to anti-imperialism(which is just as incorrect as the position that one must always take a defencist position). In practice, it becomes apologia for colonialism, passive submission to foreign domination, and encourages national chauvinism(re. Britain and Ireland). Strategically, they take the mass strike line, which is yet another core thesis of Bakuninism, and amounts to a form of blanquism by attempting to trick the workers into taking power without actually having socialist consciousness(i.e. an active demand for socialism).

It also hides inconsistency. The anti-national SDKPiL should have folded mainly into the RSDLP. The last sentence is somewhat incorrect, because all of what you said above is the left-com strategic line. You should have said "additionally" instead of "strategically," and earlier "strategy" instead of "theses."

In addition, it's also worth noting that several important Left Communists have become anti-communists, like Pannekoek. This is usually shrugged off, despite the fact that they became anti-communists not as a fundamental break with their prior views, but as its logical extension. Lenin noted correctly that "Left Communism", much like Anarchism, was simply another form of petit-bourgeois radicalism. There is also the amusing case of Sylvia Pankhurst, an important figure on the British communist left, who later became the flunky of Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. They can impotently call out everyone as being "left of capital", but the simple fact remains that they are political nihilists and a dead weight on the movement, like most anarchists are. Much like their fellow anarchists, who make no pretension of being actual Marxists, when asked the question, What is to be done? the answer is, emphatically, nothing!

I didn't really know that, but I'd be very interested to read a historical case of a left-com who became a fascist or what not because of left-com attitudes toward fascism.

The failure of revolution to spread resulted in not only the rightist deviation of the Popular Front and coalitionism, but also degeneration into petit-bourgeois opportunism re. "left communism" and anarcho-syndicalist deviation. There is no surer way to ensure communism's irrelevancy than through economism.

I won't bother to add to this.

Искра

14th May 2012, 15:48

Manic Impressive

14th May 2012, 15:59

And I tought that DNZ is unique clown... well with Ghost Babel DNZ you have competition! Puting Left Communism in the same line with anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalism is like to say that something black is actualy white. But what the hell... Internet is breading idiots...
Dutch left communism is a syndicalist position there is little difference between the two and as I'm sure you're aware Bordiga denounced syndaclism as a market economy and inflicted with the "petit bourgeois mentality of self management".

ed miliband

14th May 2012, 16:04

How so, or should I say, which specifically, comrade?

I think Mike Macnair covered this topic well, at least in regards to the vanguard. I don't believe the vanguard model was established until the Third Congress of the Comintern, and it took a historical revisionist role in regards to the organizational principles of the RSDLP, which had been organized along the lines of the Erfurt Programme. In my view, the vanguard model was primarily a hysterical reaction to the capitulation of the Second International parties to rightist deviation. I don't think it was specifically a characteristic of counter-revolutionary degeneration, but that it was simply wrong.

As for Left Communism, it is essentially anarchism in another form. It primarily differs in aesthetics and rhetoric, but at its core it has replaced the central theses of Marxism with the central Theses of Bakuninism, including the idealistic "power corrupts"(especially in regards to the State). Discounting entirely political struggle, is has embraced solely economic struggle, taking up the old Bakuninist rallying cry of "The economic is the political!". This is exactly the kind of shit that Lenin wrote extensively against prior to World War I. Usually, they justify their capitulation to Bakuninism with some weak "Theory of Decadence". In addition, they take the moralistic position that one must never take a defencist position in regards to anti-imperialism(which is just as incorrect as the position that one must always take a defencist position). In practice, it becomes apologia for colonialism, passive submission to foreign domination, and encourages national chauvinism(re. Britain and Ireland). Strategically, they take the mass strike line, which is yet another core thesis of Bakuninism, and amounts to a form of blanquism by attempting to trick the workers into taking power without actually having socialist consciousness(i.e. an active demand for socialism).

In addition, it's also worth noting that several important Left Communists have become anti-communists, like Pannekoek. This is usually shrugged off, despite the fact that they became anti-communists not as a fundamental break with their prior views, but as its logical extension. Lenin noted correctly that "Left Communism", much like Anarchism, was simply another form of petit-bourgeois radicalism. There is also the amusing case of Sylvia Pankhurst, an important figure on the British communist left, who later became the flunky of Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. They can impotently call out everyone as being "left of capital", but the simple fact remains that they are political nihilists and a dead weight on the movement, like most anarchists are. Much like their fellow anarchists, who make no pretension of being actual Marxists, when asked the question, What is to be done? the answer is, emphatically, nothing!

The failure of revolution to spread resulted in not only the rightist deviation of the Popular Front and coalitionism, but also degeneration into petit-bourgeois opportunism re. "left communism" and anarcho-syndicalist deviation. There is no surer way to ensure communism's irrelevancy than through economism.

might be thinking of someone else - it's hard with all these bro names - but i swear you were a self described left-com like a few weeks ago

Tim Finnegan

14th May 2012, 16:11

Dutch left communism is a syndicalist position there is little difference between the two...
I don't really see how privileging direct working class organisation over the Party constitutes "syndicalism". Surely syndicalism is merely one such current among many, just as Italian left communism is one current of Party-orientated Marxism among many. You may as well claim that the Italian left is a Trotskyist position, for all the sense it makes.

Paulappaul

14th May 2012, 16:13

Dutch left communism is a syndicalist position there is little difference between the two

Except that the Dutch - Left renounced "syndicalism" for being a - political, advocating a political party "as clear as glass, as hard as steel" under the premise of a vanguard party much like Lenin's that would a small party until times of high class struggle where it would become a mass party.

Council Communism is often called "Syndicalism" however like Dutch -Left Communism it is different on the question of political struggle, and to Council Communists Anarcho - Syndicalists, and all Unionists have no idea how to struggle aganist the State and they proved that this was evident in the Spanish Civil War.

Not to mention Left Communists typically reject the major importance of point of production struggle.

So no, Left Communism and Syndicalism are worlds apart.

El Oso Rojo

14th May 2012, 16:16

My point was that when anarchists use "libertarian" they are talking about people or groups they like. For example Daniel Guerin and his idea of "libertarian marxism" where he put Luxemburg and Pannekoek. On the other hand they use "authoritarian" when they want to describe something they don't like like Marx (especially in case against Prince Bakunin), Lenin etc. etc. But this whole framework of "libertarian" and "anthoritarian" doesn't make any sense, it's doesn't have any materialist backbone in reality... Ok, you gave your definition, but that is not a definition of whole anarchist movement. Anarchists tend to attack, for example, Marx as authoritarian because he was for centralised organisation and against Proudhonist federalism... but they do not make any kind of anaylisis why did he proposed that... Also, when it comes to Lenin anarchists tend to attack him for "authoritarianism" etc. while they don't see same things in their own practice. I'd also like to keep "Leninism" out of this discussion (even I don't agree with your anarchist simplification of "Leninism"/"Bolshevism") and I'd like to get back to topic.

Left Communists do not oppose to Stalinists, Trotskyists etc. because they are authoritarian, but because they are not communists at all. That's why we call them "Left wing of Capital", because they are 21st century Proudhonists, socialdemocrats etc. We oppose their nationalism, class colaboration, attacks on working class etc. Also, we are for vanguard party, centralism etc... which kind of makes us "authoritarian" in anarchists rethorics.

I agree with you, because anarchists can be just as authoritarian as well.

There is no way of getting around being authoritarian, You do not have to be bloodlust. But you can't avoid being some degree of bloodlust.

Paulappaul

14th May 2012, 16:25

As for Left Communism, it is essentially anarchism in another form.

You're an idiot, I shouldn't have to go any further.

It primarily differs in aesthetics and rhetoric, but at its core it has replaced the central theses of Marxism with the central Theses of Bakuninism, including the idealistic "power corrupts"(especially in regards to the State).

Where? They were critical of the fact that Soviet Political Economy was dominated by a new class of the Bourgeois, that Capitalism had triumphed the workers revolution. That's not a critique on moral bases, their critique was on entirely materialist bases.

Discounting entirely political struggle, is has embraced solely economic struggle, taking up the old Bakuninist rallying cry of "The economic is the political!".

Where? If this were true we'd be advocating Unions and an emphasis on workplace struggle as opposed to class wide struggle embodied in organization like a mass party, soviets or spontaneous working class associations.

In addition, they take the moralistic position that one must never take a defencist position in regards to anti-imperialism(which is just as incorrect as the position that one must always take a defencist position). In practice, it becomes apologia for colonialism, passive submission to foreign domination, and encourages national chauvinism(re. Britain and Ireland). Strategically,

This a joke right? What is this so called "Moralistic position"? Last I checked Left - Comms adopted Rosa Luxemburg's theory of Imperialism and National Struggle and rejected National Liberation on that basis that it couldn't overturn the relations of production that it paved the way for a new bourgeois class to take power, which has been historically proven time and again.

they take the mass strike line, which is yet another core thesis of Bakuninism, and amounts to a form of blanquism by attempting to trick the workers into taking power without actually having socialist consciousness(i.e. an active demand for socialism).

What the fuck are you smoking dude.

In addition, it's also worth noting that several important Left Communists have become anti-communists, like Pannekoek.

Again, what the hell are you smoking.

Much like their fellow anarchists, who make no pretension of being actual Marxists, when asked the question, What is to be done? the answer is, emphatically, nothing!

Blah Blah Blah I have never read anything about Left Communism! DERP.

Manic Impressive

14th May 2012, 16:30

I don't really see how privileging direct working class organisation over the Party constitutes "syndicalism". Surely syndicalism is merely one such current among many, just as Italian left communism is one current of Party-orientated Marxism among many. You may as well claim that the Italian left is a Trotskyist position, for all the sense it makes.
No that's not why I call him a syndicalist, in fact that's where I would agree with Pannekoek over Bordiga. The syndicalism is in forming workers councils (or soviets) by which the working class would organize. The syndicalist method leads to a market economy where surplus value could be extracted from one work place by another as Bordiga correctly points out.

Искра

14th May 2012, 16:48

Dutch/German Left Communists are not the same as Council Communists. Council Communism is an outcome of degeneration of movement after Russian Revolution... Left Communists in general (Italian or German/Dutch) have nothing to do with unionism, syndcialism or anyother economicism, because they have allways been pushing strong stance against that kind of struggle - especially today!

Искра

14th May 2012, 16:50

The syndicalism is in forming workers councils (or soviets) by which the working class would organize. The syndicalist method leads to a market economy where surplus value could be extracted from one work place by another as Bordiga correctly points out.You are wrong here and I would advise you to re-read Bordiga on Soviets.

Bordiga didn't have anything against Soviets, but against factory commities. There's big difference. Soviets are bodies for taking political power by working class of certain area, while factory commities are organisations of workers inside of one factory. Bordiga was against them because they were syndicalist deviations which would lead to market economy. That's why he was against Gramsci and anarchists...

Tim Finnegan

14th May 2012, 17:17

Of course, in the process he had to concede to the bourgeoisie the proposition that the workplace is not itself a sphere of political activity, so perhaps we shouldn't parrot him all too enthusiastically...

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th May 2012, 19:17

left-communists believe that distinctions like "authoritarian" and "libertarian" have little to no meaning for marxists.

Right, so you're speaking for every left-communist are you?

To the person who asked the question, of course every answer will be different down to a person, but in general on the question of the state, left-communists will be more libertarian, in the sense that many of us (again, i'm not claiming to speak officially or on behalf of the entire tendency) are avowedly against the Stalinism of the 20th century, that manifested in work camps, the expansion of state terror and of course, social conservatism.

Left Communism is varied, and answers to specific questions of attitudes or policies will be different as such.

ed miliband

14th May 2012, 20:24

Right, so you're speaking for every left-communist are you?

To the person who asked the question, of course every answer will be different down to a person, but in general on the question of the state, left-communists will be more libertarian, in the sense that many of us (again, i'm not claiming to speak officially or on behalf of the entire tendency) are avowedly against the Stalinism of the 20th century, that manifested in work camps, the expansion of state terror and of course, social conservatism.

Left Communism is varied, and answers to specific questions of attitudes or policies will be different as such.

well i kinda agree with devrim's idea of what it means to be a left-communist so a) i'm not a left-com and thus b) i can't speak for "every left-communist"

i'm just going by what i've previously read/seen/experienced and ya know? a lot of people seem to agree

ed miliband

14th May 2012, 20:27

but seriously if "ghost babel" was grenzer or whatever i swear like a month ago he was claiming to be a left-communist and now he's acting like left-coms are satan or something

Rafiq

14th May 2012, 20:42

on. There is no surer way to ensure communism's irrelevancy than through economism.

And I tought that DNZ is unique clown... well with Ghost Babel DNZ you have competition! Puting Left Communism in the same line with anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalism is like to say that something black is actualy white. But what the hell... Internet is breading idiots...

To be fair, though, I don't think Left Communists can be grouped together in a homogeneous group. There can be no doubt that the likes of Panakoek, and other "Dutch Germans" were a rehash of Anarchism. But it isn't fair to group Italian Left Communism into the same category, which is a different species of revolutionary thought all together.

Rafiq

14th May 2012, 20:44

Tim Finnegan

14th May 2012, 20:45

There can be no doubt that the likes of Panakoek, and other "Dutch Germans" were a rehash of Anarchism.
Go on.

ed miliband

14th May 2012, 20:56

pannekoek on anarchism

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-not-suitable-anton-pannekoek

yeah - not so positive

Rafiq

14th May 2012, 21:02

Go on.

A mutated form of Marxism, which held on to the notion that "Power corrupts", plus the universalist ethical stance against things like "Authority" and "Hierarchy", just used in a different way. I do recognize, though, that him in his earilier years, before his Council Communist garbage, wasn't a rehash of Anarchism at all.

It really comes down to this: Those Left Communists who recognize the October Revolution as proletarian, and attribute it's failure not to "Wrong" choices on behalf of the bolsheviks, but to the isolation of the revolution and the defeat of the German revolution, etc. Have nothing to do with Anarchism, and are indeed Marxists.

But those who say the Bolshevik Revolution was bourgeois in nature, who stress council fetishism, are indeed a rehash of syndicalism, of anarchism, and so on.

This is why it's difficult to categorize what exactly one means by German/Dutch Left Communism, as the distinctions with it and Council Communism are limited. Panakoek, for one, whom is credited as a founder of sorts, didn't remain consistent and had a change in positions sometime I believe (I could be wrong) in the 20's.

Grenzer

14th May 2012, 21:03

To be fair, though, I don't think Left Communists can be grouped together in a homogeneous group. There can be no doubt that the likes of Panakoek, and other "Dutch Germans" were a rehash of Anarchism. But it isn't fair to group Italian Left Communism into the same category, which is a different species of revolutionary thought all together.

This is true, but I don't typically consider the Italian left to be part of Left Communism in the traditional sense, as they were self-described "Leninists". I would consider Bordigism to be its own thing separate from Left Communism. However, Bordiga too was infected by economism and apoliticism to some degree. He made some good theoretical works, no doubt; but in the context of revolutionary strategy, he is useless to us.

The Dutch/German Left were not opposed to organizing in parties, but they were also economist and apolitical. They are also against the party as the class for itself seizing state power. This basically reduces the party into a political entity which refuses to assert itself politically, thus making it useless.

To continue on the subject of the Leninist vanguard party, the primary purpose of the vanguard model is twofold: to prevent the rightist deviation which caused the failure of the Second International's mass parties, and to prevent the factionalism which had harmed the RSDLP. As the historical experience has shown us, the vanguard model has solved neither of the problems which it was created to remedy, and has come at the expense of the political power and influence which the mass parties of the Second International had.

As for the idea that, as some here have posed, Left Communism is the continuation of Bolshevism; it's laughable. Left Communism is a direct repudiation of Lenin's revolutionary strategy, which echoed in many ways the line set down by the pre-war SPD in the Erfurt programme. Anti-economism and anti-spontaneity were key to the Bolshevik strategy; economism and worship of spontaneity have been fully embraced by Left Communism, which strategically places them in the same exact place as the Anarchists.

Caj

14th May 2012, 21:03

Yes, but are Left Communists of the Dutch/German tradition not opposed to the party? Perhaps, for the same reason the Anarchists are not..?

Dutch-German current is pro-party. It's council communism, which was a degeneration of the Dutch-German current, that is anti-party and can really be considered a re-hash of anarchist economism.

Rafiq

14th May 2012, 21:06

Dutch-German current is pro-party. It's council communism, which was a degeneration of the Dutch-German current, that is anti-party and can really be considered a re-hash of anarchist economism.

Well, if this is indeed how Left Communism of the Dutch-German current is categorized, i.e. Before the switch to Councilism then you are indeed correct. I suppose it was just a semantics issue on my behalf.

Grenzer

14th May 2012, 21:14

It really comes down to this: Those Left Communists who recognize the October Revolution as proletarian, and attribute it's failure not to "Wrong" choices on behalf of the bolsheviks, but to the isolation of the revolution and the defeat of the German revolution, etc. Have nothing to do with Anarchism, and are indeed Marxists.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, comrade.

What is really key is not their historical position on the October Revolution, but their strategic line here and now. You have to recall that there are many left communists who, in theory, support the Bolshevik's line in its historical context(they do not, in reality; having succumbed to the Third Congress' historical revisionism in regards to the Bolsheviks always having been organized along the Leninist vanguard principle, as opposed to the Erfurtian style party); but now believe the Bolshevik's strategic to be invalidated due to capitalism being in its "decadent" phase.

Whether they are council communists, left communists, or bordigists; they have all completely succumbed to political nihilism, economism, and worship of spontaneity. In the context of strategy, they all repeat the old Bakuninist canard. The German/Dutch Left is most certainly a "rehash of Anarchist economism". They all reject genuine political struggle on grounds of economism.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

14th May 2012, 21:42

What is really key is not their historical position on the October Revolution, but their strategic line here and now. You have to recall that there are many left communists who, in theory, support the Bolshevik's line in its historical context(they do not, in reality; having succumbed to the Third Congress' historical revisionism in regards to the Bolsheviks always having been organized along the Leninist vanguard principle, as opposed to the Erfurtian style party); but now believe the Bolshevik's strategic to be invalidated due to capitalism being in its "decadent" phase.
It seems you are writing about the ICC and generalizing from them.

Whether they are council communists, left communists, or bordigists; they have all completely succumbed to political nihilism, economism, and worship of spontaneity. In the context of strategy, they all repeat the old Bakuninist canard. The German/Dutch Left is most certainly a "rehash of Anarchist economism". They all reject genuine political struggle on grounds of economism.
More feeble generalizations and tautology. what exactly is this genuine political struggle everyone should be embracing? Parliamentary cretinism?
I do think, however, that more issues need focus than mere economic struggle, i.e. social issues which are not strictly economic, but for a lot of leftists "political struggle" is just shitty electoralism.

Rafiq

14th May 2012, 21:55

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, comrade.

What is really key is not their historical position on the October Revolution, but their strategic line here and now. You have to recall that there are many left communists who, in theory, support the Bolshevik's line in its historical context(they do not, in reality; having succumbed to the Third Congress' historical revisionism in regards to the Bolsheviks always having been organized along the Leninist vanguard principle, as opposed to the Erfurtian style party); but now believe the Bolshevik's strategic to be invalidated due to capitalism being in its "decadent" phase.

While I don't know much about the revolutionary strategy deployed by the Left Communists, that of which I may very well be divorced from, The historical positions I can say can allow us to divorce Bourgeois Left Communism, decedent, with Marxian Left Communism, whether it be theoretically invalid or not, in regards to their strategy.

Whether they are council communists, left communists, or bordigists; they have all completely succumbed to political nihilism, economism, and worship of spontaneity. In the context of strategy, they all repeat the old Bakuninist canard.

In what way, in regards to the Bordigists?

The German/Dutch Left is most certainly a "rehash of Anarchist economism". They all reject genuine political struggle on grounds of economism.

But we can agree, that in regards to their Historical Positions, they are not a rehash of Anarchism, no?

Grenzer

14th May 2012, 23:29

It seems you are writing about the ICC and generalizing from them.

Not really. The theory of decadence is rather irrelevant since whether it is accepted or not, their strategic line remains one of political impotence. The theory of decadence is just used as justification.

More feeble generalizations and tautology. what exactly is this genuine political struggle everyone should be embracing? Parliamentary cretinism?
I do think, however, that more issues need focus than mere economic struggle, i.e. social issues which are not strictly economic, but for a lot of leftists "political struggle" is just shitty electoralism.

It can't be all that feeble since you've proven utterly incapable of refuting them. You don't know what political struggle is if you think it's embracing bourgeois rule of law.

This is a lot of rubbish for the most part, "focusing on social issues" is illusory, since they are a reflection of the economic conditions.

Ravachol

14th May 2012, 23:36

What's all this bollocks about 'anarchist economism' here ey?

Tim Cornelis

14th May 2012, 23:49

And yet, anarchist Prince Bakunin is "libertarian" and Marx is "authoritarian". Or even better, Bolsheviks are "authoritarian" while Makhnovists/CNT are/is "libertarian"...

I thought it was Prince Kropotkin. In any case, Marxism is only authoritarian if we believe in the misrepresentations as formulated by Bakunin. Marxism itself is neither authoritarian nor libertarian.

I dunno, Bakunin proposed (I'm not that much into his personal history so I can't speak for all his actions) some very authoritarian conspiratory structures, so meh.

As far as I know these are Marxist misrepresentations of Bakunin.

Yes, but are Left Communists of the Dutch/German tradition not opposed to the party? Perhaps, for the same reason the Anarchists are not..?

And why do anarchists oppose "the Party"?

Tim Cornelis

15th May 2012, 00:11

I do not understand why the libertarian-authoritarian narrative cannot be used to describe and distinguish different modes of social organisation. Quite clearly, when you advocate a top-down social organisation that expects strict obedience, you are authoritarian. Irrespective of the presence or absence of any materialist analysis. On the other hand, when you advocate decentralisation of power and federalism you advocate libertarian social institutions.

Are these not accurate descriptions of different modes of social organisation?

What's all this bollocks about 'anarchist economism' here ey?

My guess is the idea that the base (economy) precedes the superstructure (political structure), and therefore the struggle for the emancipation of the working class is a fundamentally economic struggle.

Grenzer

15th May 2012, 00:16

While I don't know much about the revolutionary strategy deployed by the Left Communists, that of which I may very well be divorced from, The historical positions I can say can allow us to divorce Bourgeois Left Communism, decedent, with Marxian Left Communism, whether it be theoretically invalid or not, in regards to their strategy.

One of the primary strategic bedrocks of the non-bordigist communist left is the mass strike. The mass strike completely echoes the strategic line of Bakuninism, and is in fact a form of blanquism. Well I should clarify here that the mass strike as a strategy for achieving political power is blanquist, not the mass strike used as a tactic. The mass strike encouraged as a spontaneous movement of the working class, as done by Anarchists and "left communists"(Neo-bakuninists, really) is done out of trade-union consciousness, not revolutionary socialist consciousness. The strike is undertaken by workers without socialist consciousness as trade-union struggle: to struggle for an increase in wages, and other conditions. The Bakuninists encourage it with the hope that it will topple society, and the working class has been fooled into taking power without actually consciously demanding socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx has stated that the socialism must be established by the self-emancipation of the working class, not intrigue. The mass strike as a strategy is contrary to this, and amounts to blanquism. This doesn't even get into the logistical issues of why the mass strike as a strategy usually doesn't work either.

Anyway, this is just one of their strategic positions which is just borrowed from Bakuninism second hand, there are many others which I don't feel like going into right now.

In what way, in regards to the Bordigists?

This is more difficult to answer, mainly because to a large degree Bordigism doesn't exist to a significant degree anymore. I believe the the ICP still exists, but it can't be anything more than a glorified historical society these days.

I can tell you they entirely reject the idea of participation in a parliamentary framework, not even including the idea of participating in elections. This by itself is not problematic, but they are not even willing to organize a mass spoilage campaign. In other words, they are not truly prepared to present themselves as an alternative to the bourgeois state as a source of political power and authority.

I will get back to you again when I have researched the matter in more detail, but the Bordigists are definitely the most agreeable of the left communist tendencies. However, Bordigism as relevant political current doesn't really exist to a significant degree, and this is no coincidence. Although a correct strategic line doesn't guarantee success by default, it does play a large role.

But we can agree, that in regards to their Historical Positions, they are not a rehash of Anarchism, no?

It depends on what you mean by historical positions. If you mean their position on the October Revoltuion, then I would agree that their position is the correct Marxist position.

Aside from that, the political positions they've held since 1919 have been ultra-left and incorrect(with the exception of Bordiga to a degree). Take the complete rejection of the NEP as an example(which is uniformly rejected by them with the exception of Bordiga again), which was actually an advance over "war communism". Their criticisms in this regard are eerily reminiscent of the anarchist thesis that there should be no transition to communism, and that capitalism can be spontaneously abolished. This even appears in Bordigism in the form of an insistence on labor credits. This is an idealist imposition on communism, which is the movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things, not an ideal to which we should aspire.

The following isn't addressed to you Rafiq, as you can always be counted on for an interesting political discussion. This will be my last post in this thread, as the left communists on this site constantly display the peak of emotional immaturity and childishness. For as much as they complain about child-stalinists, the stalinists are actually an improvement over the attitudes that have been displayed: flaming, trolling, flame-bait. I really only posted in this thread because someone specifically asked me to. To any criticisms, the ultra-left goon squad drowns it out in a sea of flaming to obfuscate their strategic bankruptcy. It is also for this reason that DNZ is reluctant to participate in threads of this nature. Perhaps Lenin was on to something when he derided left communism as an infantile disorder.

In any case, it's very difficult to overstate how irrelevant left communism is, and it's for good reason. You know something is wrong when even anarchism is beating you in influence..

Rafiq

15th May 2012, 00:30

As far as I know these are Marxist misrepresentations of Bakunin.

How are they misinterperitations (This isn't a confrontational question, it's a real, curious question)?

It's quite simple to point out that criticisms railed against Marxism by the likes of Bakunin or Kropotkin can be classified as misinterperitations to a certain extent, as a lot of scientific terminology is used, and Marx, as we all know, speaks to a certain extent a difficult langauge for most people. Bakunin, on the other hand, couldn't be more presicse and clear with his works.

And why do anarchists oppose "the Party"?

I shouldn't have simply lumped them all in. I know, for exmaple, some Anarchists support the conception of the party.

But, none the less, Anarchists generally oppose the concept of the party because they consider it an entity, which is naturally divorced from the proletarian class and carries within itself the possibility to override a proletarian dictatorship with a party dictatorship. They consider it, I believe, a structure unique only to Bourgeois society.

This is exactly what the Council Communists believe, minus the Anarchist jargon about Authoritarianism and such. Of course, I'd say it's a ridiculous position.

Искра

15th May 2012, 00:34

Yes, but are Left Communists of the Dutch/German tradition not opposed to the party? Perhaps, for the same reason the Anarchists are not..?
Have you ever heard of KAPD? It was a communist party in German and Dutch/German tradition comes out of it.

As I've stated few times, council communism is degeneration which is a product of general Worlds counter revolution after 30's, but also product of wrong interpretation of Russian revolution by leading KAPD (aka. German/Dutch left communist) thinkers and which later lead to anti-party positions. But, KAPD itself was a communist party with almost 30 000 members who opposed KPD and SPD and all other shitheads.

So, it's quite wrong to put things like:
a) German/Dutch Left Communists = council communists
b) Italian Left Communists = Bordigists/ultra-Leninists

Both Bordigism and Council Communism are products of counter-revolution of 30's and wrong interpretations of Russian Revolution. Council Communism had anti-party position, while Bordigism created Party mythology and all that psychotic party bollocks...

Left Communism today is mixture of both German/Dutch and Italian tradions. It is pro-Party (even ICC and ICT/IBRP have different positions on it), it's internationalist and blahblahblah... Neither ICC or ICT are councilists nor Bordigists. Therfore to claim that Left Communists are anarchists is to play on a card of Internet stupidity. Only playful wanna be Kautsky jackasses like DNZ and his new apprentice can come to such conclusions... Conclusions which fall from the sky like broken birds and have no materialistic basis within movement or it's history.

Искра

15th May 2012, 00:44

[Something...] In any case, it's very difficult to overstate how irrelevant left communism is, and it's for good reason. You know something is wrong when even anarchism is beating you in influence..I love this my dick is bigger than yourse discourse.

What are you messures to messure relevancy of movement/ideology? If you are going to use quantity I have to say that noone can beat liberals, left populists, ex-Stalinists or social democrats. But does that make them right? Does that mean that their opportunistic ways are The Way to communism? Of course not....

Or does it mean that to reach communist society you just need to have numbers?

Of course not... Marxists are materialists and they are quite aware that in order to reach communist society there must be revolution. Revolution is an act of violence in which working class should overthrow capitalist one. But how will working class do that? Just by numbers? Of course not, because the most important thing is class consciousness. And unlike bourgeuise proletariat doesn't have any kind of property or property relations which it would like to defend. Proletariat class consciousness lies in destruction of everything which existed till now... Proletarian class consciousness is therefore the most important thing for communist party and revolution.

And how does class consciousness develop?

You can not develop it by going around preaching like a monk. People don't give a shit about that. What develops proletarian class consciousness are material conditions of capitalist crisis. First you'll have small groups and with crisis these groups will grow. Of course, if they are not reformist shitheads without class consciousness... The biggest crisis will create revolution in which the rest of working class should reach class consciousness aka. idea of proletariat taking power.

There are no shortcuts and also it's pretty naive to believe that it's possible to build mass organisation in pre-revolutionary time. It may sound nice to you to build new SPD and share this weird fetish with your master DNZ, but you should realise that his theories are idealist bollocks without any kind of backbone in real life struggle or organising...

Caj

15th May 2012, 00:55

How are they misinterperitations (This isn't a confrontational question, it's a real, curious question)?

I've read quite a bit of Bakunin, and it seems that most of the claims of Bakunin's "conspiratorial authoritarianism" are based upon his early works written during his temporary Blanquist phase. He was consistently a vanguardist, but to say he was anything beyond this once his views had developed is kind of doubtful in my opinion.

Искра

15th May 2012, 00:57

For God's sake, fuck the Bakunin and read this: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism

Die Neue Zeit

15th May 2012, 04:28

Except that the Dutch - Left renounced "syndicalism" for being a - political, advocating a political party "as clear as glass, as hard as steel" under the premise of a vanguard party much like Lenin's that would a small party until times of high class struggle where it would become a mass party.

Comintern-era Lenin may have advocated that, but the earlier Lenin didn't. He advocated a mass political party even before "high class struggle." This flies against tirades of "Power Corrupts," "Authority," "Hierarchy," and "Bureaucracy." The Alternative Culture is a fine example of worker-class bureaucracy-as-process.

So no, Left Communism and Syndicalism are worlds apart.

That depends on which left-com school. Aside from Bordigism, they both share the same "grow the revolutionary organization during revolutionary periods" line, "keeping pure" before then, and on top of this they add that "the mass strike signals the beginning of the revolutionary period" or whatever. "Keeping pure" conflates principles with strategy; it's necessary to stick to principles, but a strategy that keeps enthusiasts out and keeps the numbers down before revolutionary periods isn't good.

Die Neue Zeit

15th May 2012, 04:38

This is true, but I don't typically consider the Italian left to be part of Left Communism in the traditional sense, as they were self-described "Leninists". I would consider Bordigism to be its own thing separate from Left Communism. However, Bordiga too was infected by economism and apoliticism to some degree. He made some good theoretical works, no doubt; but in the context of revolutionary strategy, he is useless to us.

Bordiga did provide a transnational party model, though.

What is really key is not their historical position on the October Revolution, but their strategic line here and now.

[...]

They all reject genuine political struggle on grounds of economism.

Speaking of which...

More feeble generalizations and tautology. what exactly is this genuine political struggle everyone should be embracing? Parliamentary cretinism?
I do think, however, that more issues need focus than mere economic struggle, i.e. social issues which are not strictly economic, but for a lot of leftists "political struggle" is just shitty electoralism.

Occupy, for all its problems, isn't parliamentary cretinism or "shitty electoralism." Mass spoilage campaigns aren't parliamentary cretinism or "shitty electoralism." Mass civil disobedience isn't parliamentary cretinism or "shitty electoralism."

And I tought that DNZ is unique clown... well with Ghost Babel DNZ you have competition! Puting Left Communism in the same line with anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalism is like to say that something black is actualy white. But what the hell... Internet is breading idiots...

The comrade explained why yet again. Re-read his words more slowly if you can't comprehend. He is speaking from the perspective of a former left-communist, so he has valuable insights.

black magick hustla

15th May 2012, 05:10

He is speaking from the perspective of a former left-communist, so he has valuable insights.

lol he entertained that "left communism" for a few months.

anyway, to me its just strange that anybody would entertain your empty phraseology and barroque and schizoid web of empty conceptual terms that you stole from skimming google books. but whatever man, we all are bakuninist nihilists or whatever the fuck you go on about

Die Neue Zeit

15th May 2012, 05:33

DNZ and his new apprentice

For God's sake, fuck the Bakunin and read this: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism

Strawman stuff, how about this instead?: The Bakuninists at Work (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm) by Engels

That's the strategic line shared by non-Bordigist left-coms and the syndicalists, for "On the other hand, Bakunin - and from Bakunin's ideas we get the syndicalists and Sorel, and Sorel's ideas are profoundly influential on Rosa Luxemburg and somewhat less influential on Trotsky, and certainly influential on Bogdanov and a whole lot of people... Herman Gorter, Korsch, the people who were the left wing of the Second International..." (Mike Macnair)

[The comrade skips over Pannekoek to further substantiate the links between Sorel and Luxemburg, but there are enough links.]

Paulappaul

15th May 2012, 07:47

Comintern-era Lenin may have advocated that, but the earlier Lenin didn't. He advocated a mass political party even before "high class struggle."

.. well that's because Lenin hadn't had the experience of, you know, the Russian Revolution. One of the single most profound instances of working class insurgency which for everyone in Russia and outside who experienced similar trends in class struggle to endorse the idea of a Mass Strike and the relationship between Party and Class being one where the party is subordinate to the class until the class takes its shape and its program as one of its own. The KAPD's thinkers drew from examples when class struggle was high, its membership surged and when it was low its militants drifted. Lenin remarks on a similar tendency in the years preceding the Russian Revolution of 1917 when class struggle would "boom and bust" and with it, the membership and effectiveness of the party. The key is, the realization of Marx's idea aganist the Bakuninism which some would accuse "Left - Communists" of, that class struggle is a product of material conditions and can't be concocted by any party.

Aside from Bordigism, they both share the same "grow the revolutionary organization during revolutionary periods"

Because you can't grow the apparatus of the new in the shell of the old and we don't know what the "revolutionary organization" capable of taking over state power until it unfolds by the initiative of the working class. There are so many fine details and conditions which not even the smartest mind can capture, only those who truly walk along those conditions can understand their complexity and understand the way to fight. Communists are conscious of systems of exploitation and the institutions of their maintenance. We are not however the means by which to push the wheel of social progress forward, to this befalls the working class and while we can show them how and help them understand why the task is their own and we have but the experience to assist in the process and lend to their autonomous free development, it is still their own. Because the seeds of the new social system exist in the hearts of every working person and are a fact not by reading of the Communist Manifesto or Mike Mcnair, but by the fact that the conditions of the world compels us to fight for Communism. Marxism isn't actualized in books, its actualized by this process.

on top of this they add that "the mass strike signals the beginning of the revolutionary period" or whatever.

That's not Mass Strike theory. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about. Luxemburg said that the Mass Strike isn't any sort of given event, but a totality of class struggles ranging from street fights, rallies to strikes and general strikes stemming from either political or economic struggles which by their nature compliment each other and push each other forward.

Искра

15th May 2012, 13:18

He is speaking from the perspective of a former left-communist, so he has valuable insights.
With all due respect this is funny. A lot of users on this board consider themselves Left-Communist and yet a lot of them do not share basic Left-Communist positions. When somebody on Internet board says: I'm something-something, to me it doesn't mean anything. Ideology is not something you can just change like that and if you do, you probably didn't understand your previous one and you don't understand your new one. This kind of approach is the best way for you to end up as social-democrat or liberal in the end.

From my personal experience it took me 2 years (and something) to start to form my views. I used to be an anarchist, I broke with it and I didn't know what exactly I am. I started to read firstly Council Communist stuff, then I've moved to Luxemburg, Lenin and at the end to Marx & Engels and then I got in contact with Left Communists here... I could just like our comrade say I'm something-something and I was something-something and it took me 2 days and 10 DNZ's posts to find the truth.

So, when somebody says that he/she is something-something it means nothing. Tbh, even if you pursue in your political positions and you understand them quite well and you can defend them, without putting them in practice (like famous Marx 11th thesis said) they don't mean anything..

To conclude, if comrade Ghost Babel was really a Left-Communist he wouldn't write such silly stuff, which I tough that can come only from your keyboard. I used to be an anarchist and even sometimes I have pretty "hard" discussions with some anarchists here, most of them can find references to my positions - especially if they are not just "Internet anarchists" but comrades who are engaged in the movement, i.e. I'm not the type of person how brakes up with one position and then goes around saying: this is bourgeoisie something-something... So, and this is an advice to comrade Ghost Babel, if you wanna criticise something read about it from different perspectives!

Mass Grave Aesthetics

15th May 2012, 13:22

Not really. The theory of decadence is rather irrelevant since whether it is accepted or not, their strategic line remains one of political impotence. The theory of decadence is just used as justification.
And you are so sure this applies to every left- com org. Marvellous a priori judgement.

It can't be all that feeble since you've proven utterly incapable of refuting them. You don't know what political struggle is if you think it's embracing bourgeois rule of law.

This is a lot of rubbish for the most part, "focusing on social issues" is illusory, since they are a reflection of the economic conditions.
I really don´t have time these days to write long and detailed posts.
First, I really don´t get how you can charge Bordiga of economism. He was unabiguous in stating the class needing to struggle for and seizing political power. I wonder if Bordiga and the Bordighist tendency is economist in your view, what the fuck is genuine political struggle then?
"Social issues" are reflections of material conditions (and economic ones) but not necessarily strictly economical in nature, f.e. racial discrimination, sexism etc. I was thinking something along the lines of Lenin when he stated the party needing to be "the tribune of the people" or I´d rather phrase it as tribune of the class, that is; not just narrowly economist.

Искра

15th May 2012, 13:33

First, I really don´t get how you can charge Bordiga of economism.
Bordiga was so economist :rolleyes: ... read this for example:

So long as political power remains in the hands of the capitalist class, a representative organ embodying the general revolutionary interests of the proletariat can only be found in the political arena. It can only be a class party that has the personal adherence of the sort of people who, in order to dedicate themselves to the cause of the revolution, have managed to overcome their narrow selfish, sectional and even sometimes class interests (the latter case obtaining when the party admits deserters from the bourgeois class into its ranks, provided they are supporters of the communist programme). It is a serious error to believe that by importing the formal structures which one expects to be formed to manage communist production into the present proletarian environment, among the wage-earners of capitalism, one will bring into being forces which are in themselves and through inner necessity revolutionary. This was the error of the syndicalists, and this too is the error of the over-zealous supporters of the factory councils. (Bordiga, Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/workers-councils.htm), 1920)

Thirsty Crow

15th May 2012, 14:01

Yes, but are Left Communists of the Dutch/German tradition not opposed to the party? Perhaps, for the same reason the Anarchists are not..?
No, they were most certainly not. Or would you argue that the same people who advocated a disciplined political party of the proletariat, its character encapsulated in the formula of "hard as steel, clear as glass", and who actually went on and formed KAPD, also opposed the party form as bourgeois and counter-revolutionary?

Your mistaking Otto Ruhle for the German-Dutch strand of left communism.

I love this my dick is bigger than yourse discourse.

Essentially, it's a popularity contest. Relevance isn't determined whether a strand of political thought offers appropriate organizational and political guides for action, and not by offering a correct analysis of historical and contemporary class struggle, but by the number of self-described adherents to it.

Essentially, according to that criterion, communism is irrelevant, and we stop at that and choose something that is relevant (since otherwise we'd show ourselves to be masochistic idiots).

Искра

15th May 2012, 14:15

Yeah, I agree with you and that's what I tried to point out when I've discussed numbers as something relevant... I could also write it's popularity contest but you know my style hehe and whole this childish discourse reminds me of kindergarten kids who go around saying "my father is bigger than yours and he'll beat the shit of yours"... Well, our replay should be, yeah my father is small, but so was Bruce Lee.

Tim Finnegan

15th May 2012, 14:23

Left Communism today is mixture of both German/Dutch and Italian tradions. It is pro-Party (even ICC and ICT/IBRP have different positions on it)...
Why are we defining "left communism" as "ICC and ICT"? What about people like Dauve or the Aufheben group- they're generally described as "left communists", in my experience, but they generally aren't dripping over with enthusiasm for the Party, at least in the Orthodox sense of the word. (End Notes go so far as to say that the practical foundation of the mass-party, a positively self-identifying working class, is impossible in this cycle of struggle.) Is there some monopoly held on the label by the "official leftcom" groupings that I'm not aware of?

Искра

15th May 2012, 14:30

Why are we defining "left communism" as "ICC and ICT"? What about people like Dauve or the Aufheben group- they're generally described as "left communists", in my experience, but they generally aren't dripping over with enthusiasm for the Party, at least in the Orthodox sense of the word. Is there some particular monopoly held on the label by the "official leftcom" groupings that I'm not aware of?
I think that you are making a mistake by identifying Left Communism with "ultra-left". Left Communism is political current which came out from split withing Comintern in 20's.

This is interesting post of comrade Android from Red Marx forum:

Yeah, I can appreciate that. Personally, I view left communism or the communist left as a historical tendency, what exists toady is essentially remnants of that tendency or probably more accurately remnants of remnants.

I guess there are three senses in which ultra-left is used: (1) as a vague, all-encompassing description of communist trends (2) as a reference to the products of post-68, with the most notable today being the fashionable communisation current. (3) as a historico-political periodisation - (i) paleo ultra left (1920s-WWII): produced the wave of class struggle after WWI and the historical tendency that emerged in opposition to the rightward drift of the Comintern, that was defeat in the mid-1920s and continued its political struggle up to the WW2 in sect form, today it exists in the form of various left communist groups that draw inspiration form that historical experience (ii) meso ultra-left (post-WW2): the myriad of the political trends which either broke from the ruling (Stalinist etc) or radical wing (i.e. Trotskyist) of the traditional workers movement that emerged, i.e. Jamesians, Marxist-Humanists, Situationists, operaists and various elements breaking off from Trotskyism, it exist today largely in influence then more then in a given set of organisations (iii) neo ultra left (1968-present): emerged out of the wave of class struggle at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s based on the previous two trends of the ultra left. A feature of this trend was a critique of the paleo ultra left, to varying degrees. Today, this most notable embodiment is the fashionable communist current, that has acquired a sub-cultural following.

The term 'ultra-left' I feel by some on here is used in the vague sense of essentially denoting communist currents who remain consistent with Marx's Marxism - e.g. rejection of voluntarism etc.

Tim Finnegan

15th May 2012, 14:43

I dunno, you certainly tend to find "communist left" used to denote the "paleo-ultra-left", but in practice "left communist" seems to describe any of those parts of the "ultra-left" that are Marxian but don't locate their genealogy specifically within anarchism, Trotskyism, operaismo, etc. But, I could certainly be mistake on this. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

Die Neue Zeit

15th May 2012, 15:11

.. well that's because Lenin hadn't had the experience of, you know, the Russian Revolution. One of the single most profound instances of working class insurgency which for everyone in Russia and outside who experienced similar trends in class struggle to endorse the idea of a Mass Strike and the relationship between Party and Class being one where the party is subordinate to the class until the class takes its shape and its program as one of its own. The KAPD's thinkers drew from examples when class struggle was high, its membership surged and when it was low its militants drifted. Lenin remarks on a similar tendency in the years preceding the Russian Revolution of 1917 when class struggle would "boom and bust" and with it, the membership and effectiveness of the party. The key is, the realization of Marx's idea aganist the Bakuninism which some would accuse "Left - Communists" of, that class struggle is a product of material conditions and can't be concocted by any party.

Of course membership can "boom and bust," but that does not mean that "bust" should be encouraged and egged on as typical of sectarian and/or liquidationist behaviour.

What do you make of the formation of the Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany, or of Lassalle's ADAV? Class struggle, though a product of material conditions, was also quite "concocted" by those two organizations in their, ahem, "voluntarism."

That's not Mass Strike theory. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about. Luxemburg said that the Mass Strike isn't any sort of given event, but a totality of class struggles ranging from street fights, rallies to strikes and general strikes stemming from either political or economic struggles which by their nature compliment each other and push each other forward.

That's what the hardcore left-coms here said about Luxemburg's book.

I think that you are making a mistake by identifying Left Communism with "ultra-left". Left Communism is political current which came out from split withing Comintern in 20's.

This is interesting post of [...] Android

This left-com conveniently ignores the left wing of the Second International and the left outside of it, neither of which did most Bolsheviks were part of. "Ultra-left" has another, more meaningful definition, that given by comrade Ghost Bebel above on strategic line.

Tim Cornelis

15th May 2012, 15:14

Could someone direct me to texts regarding the discussed topics:

Left communist criticisms of anarchism; criticism or embrace of the notion of a Party; and so forth. Especially texts on revolutionary strategy (Texts like 'Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy' seem interesting).

Thanks in advance.

Paulappaul

15th May 2012, 16:09

Your mistaking Otto Ruhle for the German-Dutch strand of left communism.

This isn't even true. Ruhle just advocated a "federally" organized party aganist a "centrally" organized party which he ascribed to as being "Bourgeois". He went to organize the AAUD-E which combined party and factory organizations into a single dual political - economic unit. Ruhle was certainty a Left Communist till the last 20s/early 30s when the AAUD-E and the KAPD banged heads which drew Pannekoek to Ruhle's side and the foundation of the Council Communist current which wasn't "anti-party" as both Pannekoek, Ruhle and even Mattick still spoke of the party till the 50s but realized the institution couldn't be saved from opportunism.

Paulappaul

15th May 2012, 16:15

Of course membership can "boom and bust," but that does not mean that "bust" should be encouraged and egged on as typical of sectarian and/or liquidationist behaviour.

No it's just something we can't control, people fall in and out, hell I know I sure as hell do too. It's a product of the fact that there are no longer the conditions to make certain struggles realizable and that party membership is a question of level of class struggle.

What do you make of the formation of the Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany, or of Lassalle's ADAV? Class struggle, though a product of material conditions, was also quite "concocted" by those two organizations in their, ahem, "voluntarism."

There is a difference between formation and relevancy. The foundation of the Social - Democratic Party in Germany was evident due to the conditions which necessitated it - the fact the proletariat was not organized along political lines thanks to the overall conditions of the country which suppressed it (Bismark's "People's Budget", National Bourgeois Struggles for a National Identity, etc.), that doesn't mean that every party everywhere will have the same results and with exception to these few examples, they don't have the same results and because it is that adventurism inherent in the works of Bakunin.

Per Levy

15th May 2012, 16:29

Left communist criticisms of anarchism; criticism or embrace of the notion of a Party; and so forth. Especially texts on revolutionary strategy (Texts like 'Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy' seem interesting).

open letter to comrade lenin is a good text about revolutionary strategety, in the text he is critizizing that the bolshevik tactics wont work in west europe and that west europe need different tactics.

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

Android

15th May 2012, 17:40

Android

15th May 2012, 17:50

This left-com conveniently ignores the left wing of the Second International and the left outside of it, neither of which did most Bolsheviks were part of. "Ultra-left" has another, more meaningful definition, that given by comrade Ghost Bebel above on strategic line.

Well, obviously, there is a distinction to be made between the left wing of classical social democracy and left communism as a political movement.

I didn't go into the origins of the later which is in the former, as it would have unnecessarily complicated the purpose of the post. As it would have required going into the distinction to be made between various sides in the debates in the Second International.

I don't see how the fact that I didn't describe the origin of left communism in the left wing of social democracy as being some convenient side step, as it didn't directly bare down on the purpose of that post.

Devrim

15th May 2012, 18:49

Why are we defining "left communism" as "ICC and ICT"? What about people like Dauve or the Aufheben group- they're generally described as "left communists", in my experience, but they generally aren't dripping over with enthusiasm for the Party, at least in the Orthodox sense of the word. (End Notes go so far as to say that the practical foundation of the mass-party, a positively self-identifying working class, is impossible in this cycle of struggle.) Is there some monopoly held on the label by the "official leftcom" groupings that I'm not aware of?

I think that it is worthwhile to try to define what we are actually talking about.I think that the term 'left communist' today usually does refer to the ICC, the ICT and a few other groups. Obviously historically it meant a different thing, which included all of those on the left of the Third International.

Secondly, as far as Dauve, Aufheben et al go, I don't know about Dauve but I am pretty sure Aufheben would reject the label 'left-communist'.

I don't think it is a label that is used by Dauve either.

I dunno, you certainly tend to find "communist left" used to denote the "paleo-ultra-left", but in practice "left communist" seems to describe any of those parts of the "ultra-left" that are Marxian but don't locate their genealogy specifically within anarchism, Trotskyism, operaismo, etc. But, I could certainly be mistake on this.

I don't think that this is really true.

What then are council communists? Historically the term has been used to identify the currents that split from the KAPD in the early 1920s* (specifically around Rühle) and the remenant of the German/Dutch left, which adopted similar positions.

There aren't really any council communist groups around today in the strict sense, except for perhaps E&M in France.

Other groups are sometimes described as council communists ranging from SouB to the present day 'The Commune' in the UK, but I don't think they are that close to what council communist politics were historically. Generally they don't describe themselves like that either.

Devrim

*The KAPD also used it themselves in the very early years. I can remember their doccuments refering to them being "left or council communists", which of course doesn't help us in this discussion.

Devrim

15th May 2012, 18:56

We don't believe in Socialism in One Country; therefore, in an isolated revolutionary territory, the revolution can only go backwards - it can't go forwards. No matter what the revolution did in Russia, no matter what the circumstances of the revolution, if it was isolated it must inevitably decline.

To believe otherwise means that either:
1 - the 'correct application of policy' can bring about socialism (which is another way of saying that there can be Socialism in One Country); or
2 - that socialism is possible in some countries but not others due to their material development (which is another way of saying, there can be Socialism in One Country).

the Bolsheviks certainly made many errors, but even if they'd done everything right in Russia, if the revolution failed to spread then Russia was doomed anyway.

This is all true, but I think that there are two further points to consider;

a) Could the policy of the Bolsheviks in Russia have had a detrimental effect on the international revolution?

b) If the revolution had spread could the policies of the Bolsheviks in Russia had still meant that the revolution would have failed?

I don't mean to try to answer these questions here, but I do think that the idea that it was 'doomed anyway' is often used to let the Bolsheviks off the hook a little.

Devrim

Devrim

15th May 2012, 18:58

And I tought that DNZ is unique clown... well with Ghost Babel DNZ you have competition! Puting Left Communism in the same line with anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalism is like to say that something black is actualy white. But what the hell... Internet is breading idiots...

I am surprised that DNZ has found somebody to share his inanity with. However, I wish them both well, and hope that now there are two of them, they can go off and found their 'mass party/movement', or whatever it is, and stop trolling threads about left communism.

Devrim

Devrim

15th May 2012, 19:05

With all due respect this is funny. A lot of users on this board consider themselves Left-Communist and yet a lot of them do not share basic Left-Communist positions. When somebody on Internet board says: I'm something-something, to me it doesn't mean anything. Ideology is not something you can just change like that and if you do, you probably didn't understand your previous one and you don't understand your new one. This kind of approach is the best way for you to end up as social-democrat or liberal in the end.

From my personal experience it took me 2 years (and something) to start to form my views. I used to be an anarchist, I broke with it and I didn't know what exactly I am. I started to read firstly Council Communist stuff, then I've moved to Luxemburg, Lenin and at the end to Marx & Engels and then I got in contact with Left Communists here... I could just like our comrade say I'm something-something and I was something-something and it took me 2 days and 10 DNZ's posts to find the truth.

So, when somebody says that he/she is something-something it means nothing. Tbh, even if you pursue in your political positions and you understand them quite well and you can defend them, without putting them in practice (like famous Marx 11th thesis said) they don't mean anything..

To conclude, if comrade Ghost Babel was really a Left-Communist he wouldn't write such silly stuff, which I tough that can come only from your keyboard. I used to be an anarchist and even sometimes I have pretty "hard" discussions with some anarchists here, most of them can find references to my positions - especially if they are not just "Internet anarchists" but comrades who are engaged in the movement, i.e. I'm not the type of person how brakes up with one position and then goes around saying: this is bourgeoisie something-something... So, and this is an advice to comrade Ghost Babel, if you wanna criticise something read about it from different perspectives!

This is a very good post that I think lots of people on RevLeft should read (It is a shame the writer has now been banned).
The poster 'Ghost Babel' was obviously not a left communist. Being a communist is not just about declaring something on the Internet, but about militant political activity.

Devrim

Tim Finnegan

15th May 2012, 19:14

@Devrim, Anroid- Fair dos. As I said, I'm quite prepared to admit that I'm mistaken on this one.

Out of interest, though, how would you describe folk like Dauve, the Aufheben group, Theorie Communiste, etc.? Would they simply be described as "ultra-left"? (My problem, y'see, is that everyone I actually know just calls themselves an "anarchist" or a "libertarian communist" or a "fuck man i dunno know stop asking stupid questions", so the details of nomenclature are for me constrained to the often clear-as-mud realms of books, journals and internet forums.)

Paulappaul

15th May 2012, 19:40

Out of interest, though, how would you describe folk like Dauve, the Aufheben group, Theorie Communiste, etc.? Would they simply be described as "ultra-left"?

I feel as though Dauve has called himself and the group around him "Ultra-Left" for the Communization theory. Aufheben if I recall doesn't use any label but draws from Autonomism and Operaismo more then Left Communism.

see this:

Our influences included the Italian autonomia movement of 1969-77, the situationists, and others who took Marx's work as a basic starting point and used it to develop the communist project beyond the anti-proletarian dogmatisms of Leninism (in all its varieties) and to reflect the current state of the class struggle. We also recognized the moment of truth in versions of class struggle anarchism, the German and Italian lefts and other tendencies. In developing proletarian theory we needed to go beyond all these past movements at the same time as we developed them - just as they had done with previous revolutionary movements.

For these groups I get the feeling "labels" or who they follow doesn't mean much to them, but the content of their own theories - which with exception to Aufheben are mostly around Communization.

Blake's Baby

15th May 2012, 20:37

...

It really comes down to this: Those Left Communists who recognize the October Revolution as proletarian, and attribute it's failure not to "Wrong" choices on behalf of the bolsheviks, but to the isolation of the revolution and the defeat of the German revolution, etc. Have nothing to do with Anarchism, and are indeed Marxists...

So, Left Communists, you mean, either of the Italian or Dutch-German tradition...

...
But those who say the Bolshevik Revolution was bourgeois in nature, who stress council fetishism, are indeed a rehash of syndicalism, of anarchism, and so on...

So, Council Communists not Left Communists then. Which was the distinction I drew on the first page of this thread.

...This is why it's difficult to categorize what exactly one means by German/Dutch Left Communism, as the distinctions with it and Council Communism are limited. Panakoek, for one, whom is credited as a founder of sorts, didn't remain consistent and had a change in positions sometime I believe (I could be wrong) in the 20's.

I think it was in the 1930s, but yes I agree he changed his position. Certainly by the time of 'Why past revolutionary movements have failed' (1940) he was a long way from his position in 1920.

Left Communists (Dutch/German, or Italian) accept the proletarian nature of the October Revolution and the Bolshevik Party, though they criticise the errors of the Bolsheviks; Council Communists reject the proletarian nature of October (sometimes they see it as having a dual nature, both proletarian and bourgeois) and the Bolshevik Party (who they see as thebourgeois bearers of capitalist development).

That's what separates Council Communists from Left Communists.

Rafiq

15th May 2012, 21:14

No, they were most certainly not. Or would you argue that the same people who advocated a disciplined political party of the proletariat, its character encapsulated in the formula of "hard as steel, clear as glass", and who actually went on and formed KAPD, also opposed the party form as bourgeois and counter-revolutionary?

Your mistaking Otto Ruhle for the German-Dutch strand of left communism.

Indeed. I wasn't aware there exists currents of German Dutch Left Communism that is separate from Council Communism. My criticisms, though, still hold.

Die Neue Zeit

16th May 2012, 04:33

No it's just something we can't control, people fall in and out, hell I know I sure as hell do too. It's a product of the fact that there are no longer the conditions to make certain struggles realizable and that party membership is a question of level of class struggle.

It also depends on how the party approaches the, ahem, "ask what you can do for your party" and "ask what your party can do for you" questions. The latter necessarily entails Alternative Culture, and rejection of this is what I refer to as encouraging "bust."

black magick hustla

16th May 2012, 10:10

communist is not just about declaring something on the Internet, but about militant political activity.

this really seems a very arbitrary statement. we both know most "left communist" groupings today are little more that glorified tree house clubs/friendship societies. i don't see how is this fundamentally different than posting in the internet. for example, most people in R*dMarx identify as left communist but aren't part of "political organizations", and frankly they aren't missing out much lol (except some very interesting drinking buddies). another example is, goldner. I mean he is invariably a left communist but his political activism amounts to drinking beer with other fellow wingnuts around the world and writing interesting articles. he isn't in a political organization though. well i guess now he kindof is if we assume insurgent notes is a militant organization.

my point is that this whole thing about how the only communists are "militants" is a bit strange to me. you don't stop being a christian just cuz' you pray by yourself. and certainly, the "militancy" of most left communists amounts to what you do in a social club.

black magick hustla

16th May 2012, 10:15

Other groups are sometimes described as council communists ranging from SouB to the present day 'The Commune' in the UK, but I don't think they are that close to what council communist politics were historically. Generally they don't describe themselves like that either.

the situationists described themselves as council communists.

i think the definition of "left communism" here is being given by people who were part or support synthesist groups. i think in general parlance, council communism is generally associated with left communism. TPTG, is sometimes described as left communist but owes more to situationism, anarchism and post 1968 ultraleft theory, than to "paleo left communism". i don't see what is really the point of being particularly anal about what is left communist or not.

Thirsty Crow

16th May 2012, 11:16

Indeed. I wasn't aware there exists currents of German Dutch Left Communism that is separate from Council Communism. My criticisms, though, still hold.
How does your criticism still hold when you were talking about council communism, when this criticism was aimed exclusively at this specific strand of political thought (and admitted that you knew nothing about German-Dutch left communism)?

And which criticism would that be? Perhaps this:

A mutated form of Marxism, which held on to the notion that "Power corrupts", plus the universalist ethical stance against things like "Authority" and "Hierarchy", just used in a different way. I do recognize, though, that him in his earilier years, before his Council Communist garbage, wasn't a rehash of Anarchism at all. It seems that you swallowed the neat pile of shit served by Ghost Bebel. It's ridiculous to claim that left communists held on to the notion that "power corrupts" and is moreover a gross misrepresentation. But here you're talking about one theorist, namely, Pannekoek, and this even doesn't apply wit regard to his political life prior to the development of councilism.

It really comes down to this: Those Left Communists who recognize the October Revolution as proletarian, and attribute it's failure not to "Wrong" choices on behalf of the bolsheviks, but to the isolation of the revolution and the defeat of the German revolution, etc. Have nothing to do with Anarchism, and are indeed Marxists. If it really comes down to this, then I can't see how your criticism still holds. The October Revolution was almost uniformly recognized as proletarian in left communist circles and still is by contemporary left communists.

Rafiq

16th May 2012, 22:26

How does your criticism still hold when you were talking about council communism, when this criticism was aimed exclusively at this specific strand of political thought (and admitted that you knew nothing about German-Dutch left communism)?

And which criticism would that be? Perhaps this:

It seems that you swallowed the neat pile of shit served by Ghost Bebel. It's ridiculous to claim that left communists held on to the notion that "power corrupts" and is moreover a gross misrepresentation. But here you're talking about one theorist, namely, Pannekoek, and this even doesn't apply wit regard to his political life prior to the development of councilism.

If it really comes down to this, then I can't see how your criticism still holds. The October Revolution was almost uniformly recognized as proletarian in left communist circles and still is by contemporary left communists.

I'm sorry for not being specific or clear enough :rolleyes:

My criticisms of Left Communism of the Dutch/German tradition is external from the criticisms I deployed in this thread against Council Communism.

It's why I don't label myself a Left Communist or Bordigist, but these are reasons external from my criticism of Council Communism.

I don't want to have a debate in regards, honestly. It's mostly that I don't buy into their revolutionary programme. Of course a lot of their historical analysis I can concur with, a lot of their positions I do with as well, specifcially in regards to Imperialism, Bordiga's thesis on the class nature of the Soviet Union, self determination and so on, I may very well almost fully agree with.

But it's the organizational methods and policies deployed by them today which I don't seem myself buying into, indeed, I don't think they any longer correlate with reality, as virtually every other revolutionary communist current does not. Indeed, I am a Radical Socialist, who is a supporter of Revolutionary struggle and so on, but I think something new is necessary, especially for modern times. This is largely why I disdain from calling myself a Left Communist. For now, I stick mostly with strengthening my Theoretical knowledge of Marxism, at least until I can get a job, or attend college. If you didn't know, I'm still just in High School (Yeah, yeah, go ahead and poke fun or whatever).

Tim Finnegan

16th May 2012, 22:47

It's kinda funny to see someone still working with a warmed over Second International positivism talking about how other tendencies "don't any longer correlate with reality".

Rafiq

17th May 2012, 00:11

It's kinda funny to see someone still working with a warmed over Second International positivism talking about how other tendencies "don't any longer correlate with reality".

I said the tactics don't. And again, there hasn't been a historical situation in which Scientific Marxism of Orthodox Marxists has been discredited. Among these Orthodox Marxists include Lenin, and so on. I do, if you were not aware, fully denounce Karl Kautsky for his support of the Bourgeois class during the World War, but do not dismiss him before that.

Thirsty Crow

17th May 2012, 13:00

But it's the organizational methods and policies deployed by them today which I don't seem myself buying into, indeed, I don't think they any longer correlate with reality, as virtually every other revolutionary communist current does not. Indeed, I am a Radical Socialist, who is a supporter of Revolutionary struggle and so on, but I think something new is necessary, especially for modern times. This is largely why I disdain from calling myself a Left Communist. For now, I stick mostly with strengthening my Theoretical knowledge of Marxism, at least until I can get a job, or attend college. If you didn't know, I'm still just in High School (Yeah, yeah, go ahead and poke fun or whatever).
How can your criticism then still hold when you didn't put forward any clear criticism except for your opinion on the viability of concrete organizational methods (and even that is not specfic to contemporary left communism but rather o virtually every other revolutionary communist current as you say)?

And it's fine to postpone the debate on these specifics (which are vitally important) but then, it's something entirely different to throw around vague, empty assertions which are not supported by any kind of an argument. So, no, I don't think your criticism still holds since you haven't actually made any (apart from the ramblings of the likes of DNZ and Ghost Bebel, if you would actually want to uphold their views, on neo-bakuninism, sponteneism or whichever crap they managed to pull out of their arses).

fabian

17th May 2012, 13:18

OT

If get it correcly, these tendencies are exclusivistly for or against democratic centralism / vanguardism and democratic decentralism?

Why not apply vanguarism to party to perserve ideological cohesivness, but apply democratic decetralism (worker soviets system) to economy to perserve wokers' organisational freedom?

Rafiq

17th May 2012, 20:09

How can your criticism then still hold when you didn't put forward any clear criticism except for your opinion on the viability of concrete organizational methods (and even that is not specfic to contemporary left communism but rather o virtually every other revolutionary communist current as you say)?

And it's fine to postpone the debate on these specifics (which are vitally important) but then, it's something entirely different to throw around vague, empty assertions which are not supported by any kind of an argument. So, no, I don't think your criticism still holds since you haven't actually made any (apart from the ramblings of the likes of DNZ and Ghost Bebel, if you would actually want to uphold their views, on neo-bakuninism, sponteneism or whichever crap they managed to pull out of their arses).

I told you I didn't want to debate this in this specific thread which was in regards to the differences between Left Communism and Council Communism.

I will put it plain and simple: All Communist currents that existed in the 20th century no longer correlate with reality and must be brutally revised, edited, and so on. We can learn a lot from most of them. Hence, why I call myself an Orthodox Marxist, it's not just that I think a lot of works from Orthodox Communists were disregarded (thanks to the likes of theorists such as Gramsci, and their movements)and could be of use, I am, plain an simple, just a plain old Marxist with several views on several things which could be in regards to several of these currents.

I'll name an example: I don't buy into Worker's Councils as being a supreme means in organizing a party or a revolution.

If someone can split this thread from Menechios post on, it would be of great appreciation.

Noa Rodman

18th May 2012, 20:40

I do, if you were not aware, fully denounce Karl Kautsky for his support of the Bourgeois class during the World War, but do not dismiss him before that.

Kautsky didn't support the bourgeoisie. He wrote a book (which had to be published in Austria due to censorship) late 1917 (it came out in the spring of 1918) where he is unambiguously for class struggle. (It's at archive.org/details/Kriegsmarxismus ) Here is a quote:

Ja, Organisation ist das Prinzip der Arbeiterklasse. Aber nicht Organisation
überhaupt, sondern proletarische Organisation. Und die geschlossene Organisation ist
seine beste Waffe — jedoch eine Waffen nur zum Kampfe. Nicht aber frommt ihm der
Zusammenschluss, um einhellig einem Rattenfänger von Hameln zu folgen der im das
Liedlein von der arbeiterfreundlichen Staatsgewalt vorpfeift, die immer mehr darauf
bedacht sei, im Gegensatz zum Kapital dem Proletariat zu dienen, und der es durch diese
schöne Melodie von der .,Staatsferne" in die „Staatsnähe" verlocken, das heisst, aus einer
Partei der Opposition in eine Regierungspartei — aber noch lange nicht in eine regierende
Partei — verwandeln will.
Diese Melodie hat die Deutsche Sozialdemokratie gesprengt, einen growen Teil
von ihr entmannt, sie praktisch in einer Epoche gewaltigster Entscheidungen auf das
höchste geschwächt. Es ist die Melodie vom 4. August.

Rafiq

19th May 2012, 01:52

Doesn't matter. He supported a Bourgeois state in war, and for this, he is a traitor and a counterrevolutionary.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Noa Rodman

19th May 2012, 13:43

He exposed the reasoning of social-chauvinists in the Neue Zeit and after the war documented that Germany was responsible for the war. A fact which is not sufficiently appreciated is that among the leading national socialists were former left-wing figures such as Cunow and Lensch. So for instance the latter in 1912 had accused Kautsky of fostering reformist illusions. So one can imagine how Kautsky must have thought about Lenin using these same pre-1914 arguments of the leftwing; yes, yes, it's easy to call me a shithead, why don't you try going against these open war ideologues who just a few years back were singing your tune against reformist illusions!

Die Neue Zeit

19th May 2012, 15:55

So one can imagine how Kautsky must have thought about Lenin using these same pre-1914 arguments of the leftwing; yes, yes, it's easy to call me a shithead, why don't you try going against these open war ideologues who just a few years back were singing your tune against reformist illusions!

Except, comrade, that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were part of the "Kautskyan" Marxist Center of the Second International. I'm sure that Cunow and Lensch weren't, being more part of the "Hegelian" Marxist left of Luxemburg, Korsch, Pannekoek, etc. In the most extreme of scenarios, the likes of Sorel and Michels became fascists or sympathizers, after their stints further to the left of the "Hegelian" Marxist left - as left syndicalists.

Lenin was using the pre-1914 arguments of the Marxist Center, whether undiluted or distorted (as in Left-Wing Communism).

Noa Rodman

19th May 2012, 17:27

Question is (better for another thread perhaps), did Kautsky uphold the Kautskyan Center after 1909? If your answer is no, then Lensch&co's polemics 'round 1912 feature the same aggressive unoriginality as Lenin's did later.

Die Neue Zeit

20th May 2012, 02:23

Comrade, you should have the honour of starting that thread.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

20th May 2012, 22:43

Oh stop masturbating over Kautsky's dead fucking corpse. Nobody gives a shit. Fuck off.

Tim Finnegan

20th May 2012, 22:50

Dauvé already covered it (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve) anyway.

TheGodlessUtopian

20th May 2012, 23:24

Oh stop masturbating over Kautsky's dead fucking corpse. Nobody gives a shit. Fuck off.

Verbal warning for flaming.

Die Neue Zeit

21st May 2012, 03:16

Dauvé already covered it (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve) anyway.

Yes, and we're simply throwing Dauve's arguments right back his alley on precedents (Bakunin and Sorel for the left and Kautsky for the center). :)

Grenzer

21st May 2012, 03:55

It is ironic that the people who claim that there is nothing positive to be found in Kautsky and that his doctrines are anachronistic are simply echoing Bakunin's strategic line, which had been entirely discredited in times past, but has now been allowed to make a resurgence.

Contrary to Mennochio's vague attempts at protestation, many of left communism's views and strategies, such as the mass strike, view of the state, economism, and apoliticism are just a literal rehashing of Bakuninism. This is undeniable fact that Bakunin advocated many of the same strategies. Lenin correctly pointed out that left communism is a form of petit-bourgeois opportunism that arose as a result of the demoralization of the revolutionary movement. Ultra-leftists get more credit than they deserve, as if revolutionary sloganeering is somehow worthy of prole cred. The reality is that ultra-leftism and "left communism"(which is really just a novel manifestation of Bakuninism with a pseudo-Marxist veneer in the 20th century) are just as bad as reformism since they alienate workers from Marxism, and actually cripple the ability for revolutionary organizations to merge with the working class, thus precluding revolution.

All hitherto existing "left communist" organizations have been tiny confessional circle-sects and irrelevant groupuscules. They are a proven dead end and symptomatic of the weakness and petit-bourgeois opportunism that is endemic throughout the movement at the moment. I do not doubt that many "left communists" are genuinely dedicated proletarian "militants" as they like to say, but the ideology itself is petit-bourgeois in nature.

black magick hustla

21st May 2012, 04:06

All hitherto existing "left communist" organizations have been tiny confessional circle-sects and irrelevant groupuscules. They are a proven dead end and symptomatic of the weakness and petit-bourgeois opportunism that is endemic throughout the movement at the moment. I do not doubt that many "left communists" are genuinely dedicated proletarian "militants" as they like to say, but the ideology itself is petit-bourgeois in nature.

all hithertho existing dnz-ghostbebel orgs ....

oh wait

Paulappaul

21st May 2012, 04:25

Contrary to Mennochio's vague attempts at protestation, many of left communism's views and strategies, such as the mass strike, view of the state, economism, and apoliticism are just a literal rehashing of Bakuninism.

You are an idiot that hasn't read anything on left communism. Bordiga literally rejected economism and apoliticalism on the same lines as Lenin you tard. Lenin's "State and Revolution" I think sums up the left communist approach to the state in alot of ways.

Your posts are garbage, gtfo.

WanderingCactus

21st May 2012, 04:32