The Unity of the Libertarian Left

[Rational Radical]

I was wondering if Left Communists,Council Communists,Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists can sit down and actually discuss how to start a revolution and what we can borrow from each tendency in a post revolutionary society? Would one ideology/tendency dominate the others or could a libertarian society have elements of each? If a vanguard party is extremely limited as proposed by Left Communists, should anarchists support it as a means of bringing about a communist/anarchist society or should left communists look into anarchist federations/the catalyst group? I would much rather hear about starting a revolution in discussions with those that believe in individual liberty and see the potential failures in leninism and all of its derivatives than a leninist who cant acknowledge that an all powerful party is not the way to liberate the proletarian

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I was wondering if Left Communists,Council Communists,Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists

Most left-communists see authoritarian-libertarian as a false dichotomy and would not want to be called "libertarian" socialist.

[Welshy]

Most left-communists see authoritarian-libertarian as a false dichotomy and would not want to be called "libertarian" socialist.

On top of it if they bothered to read what we write, they may rethink putting us in the libertarian camp lol.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If a vanguard party is extremely limited as proposed by Left Communists, should anarchists support it as a means of bringing about a communist/anarchist society or should left communists look into anarchist federations/the catalyst group?

Also, just wanted to tackle this.

Coming from a left communist position (specifically Bordigist) I would say that, of course, it would be crazy for any left communist to say that internationalist, class struggle anarchists are not allies and would not be allies in a revolutionary situation. Now, in those material conditions, the best form of organization (whether vanguard party or only councils) will show themselves. I would argue for the vanguard party, but when we get into such a situation, the form of organization that we should take will show itself. This isn't to say everyone will be in agreement, but it is just to say that the most durable form of organization will be the one that lasts out.

I am a little drunk, so I don't know if I just rambled or what, but I hoped that helped.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

On top of it if they bothered to read what we write, they may rethink putting us in the libertarian camp lol.

Lol yep. Same goes for Rosa Luxemburg and other thinkers that are usually grouped into the "libertarian socialist" grouping.

[eric922]

Aren't Council Communists considered Left Communists? Based on what little I know they seem libertarian, but I could be wrong so please correct me if I am.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Aren't Council Communists considered Left Communists? Based on what little I know they seem libertarian, but I could be wrong so please correct me if I am.

Well, they consider themselves "left communists" but most other left communists would disagree that they are, rather seeing them as a rehashing of anarchism with more Marxist rhetoric.

[Caj]

Aren't Council Communists considered Left Communists?

No, council communism emerged as a degeneration of the German-Dutch current of left communism in the 1920s.

[eric922]

Well, they consider themselves "left communists" but most other left communists would disagree that they are, rather seeing them as a rehashing of anarchism with more Marxist rhetoric.
Ahh thanks for clearing that up. Council Communists were the first "Left Communists" I heard about so I lumped them all together. It seems I was wrong. Since we are on this topic, are there any good writers to read to learn more about Left Communist thought? I've read some of Rosa Luxemburg and really like what I've read, but she seems closer to an Orthodox Marxist than a Left Communist.

[Caj]

Since we are on this topic, are there any good writers to read to learn more about Left Communist thought?

Well, left communism is a pretty broad tendency. There are two main currents: the German-Dutch current and the Italian current.

For the German-Dutch current, read anything by Anton Pannekoek, Hermann Gorter, Otto Ruhl, etc. before c. 1920.

For the Italian current, read anything by Amadeo Bordiga. There's a usergroup called Bordiga Literati (linked in my signature) for reading and discussing his works if you're interested.


I've read some of Rosa Luxemburg and really like what I've read, but she seems closer to an Orthodox Marxist than a Left Communist.

Rosa Luxemburg wasn't actually a left communist, but she did have a lot of influence on left communist thought.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm getting pretty sick of being called a libertarian.
I am for the unfettered domination of economically parasitic or counterrevolutionary elements under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[JPSartre12]

Most left-communists see authoritarian-libertarian as a false dichotomy and would not want to be called "libertarian" socialist.

Why is that?

I'm not well-read on left communism, but from what little I know of it I was under the impression that it was very libertarian (and I mean "libertarian" as "anti-authoritarian", as in the other end of that dichotomy).

[Yuppie Grinder]

We are for a one party proletarian dictatorship.
If it were necessary to establish a secret police force, massive surveillance system, and other things considered classically "totalitarian", to secure the proletarian dictatorship, most of us would be for it.
Also, left communism wasn't a distinct tendency during Rosa Luxemburg's life, although she is one of the biggest influences on it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why is that?

I'm not well-read on left communism, but from what little I know of it I was under the impression that it was very libertarian (and I mean "libertarian" as "anti-authoritarian", as in the other end of that dichotomy).

It has to do with relations in society.

For example, us communists believe in confiscating the property of the bourgeoisie. To the proletariat, this is an act of great authority, while to the proletariat this is an act of great liberty. The best quote I have found on this is, actually, from Bordiga (not simply because I am a Bordigist, but because it truly is the best quote on this subject).


It is thus a metaphysical error to seek to resolve human problems in one of either two ways, as is done for example by those who counterpose violence and the State: either one declares oneself in favor of the State and for violence; or against the State and against violence. Dialectically, however, these problems are situated in the context of their historical moment and are simultaneously resolved with opposed formulas, by upholding the use of violence in order to abolish violence, and by using the State to abolish the State. The errors of the authoritarians and the errors of the libertarians are in principle equally metaphysical.

From On The Dialectical Method (http://libcom.org/library/dialectical-method-amadeo-bordiga)

[Rational Radical]

I know Anarchists and Left Communists disagree on organization during a revolution but dont left communists believe in decentralization in a post-revolutionary society?

[Welshy]

Aren't Council Communists considered Left Communists? Based on what little I know they seem libertarian, but I could be wrong so please correct me if I am.

They are historically descended from the German/Dutch Left Communists, hell they had some of the same thinkers but by the time they had become council communists their positions had changed from when they were the German/Dutch Left Communists.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Now that us left-coms have made it clear we don't fit into the anarchist conception of "libertarian", lets get back on track.

I was wondering if Left Communists,Council Communists,Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists can sit down and actually discuss how to start a revolution and what we can borrow from each tendency in a post revolutionary society? Would one ideology/tendency dominate the others or could a libertarian society have elements of each? If a vanguard party is extremely limited as proposed by Left Communists, should anarchists support it as a means of bringing about a communist/anarchist society or should left communists look into anarchist federations/the catalyst group? I would much rather hear about starting a revolution in discussions with those that believe in individual liberty and see the potential failures in leninism and all of its derivatives than a leninist who cant acknowledge that an all powerful party is not the way to liberate the proletarian
I am for cooperation between different genuinely revolutionary proletarian organizations, and that includes class struggle anarchists.
I also believe we need a mass, international, working class organization organized through democratic centralism.
Unlike most leftcoms, I believe we should actively campaign for the creation of a mass workers party instead of hanging out on university campuses and creepy internet places like this. Too much of the left is content with having tiny little groups with clearly defined political enemies (everyone but themselves).

[JPSartre12]

We are for a one party proletarian dictatorship.
If it were necessary to establish a secret police force, massive surveillance system, and other things considered classically "totalitarian", to secure the proletarian dictatorship, most of us would be for it.

I most certainly would not be - that sounds extraordinarily authoritarian and profoundly anti-democratic. I have no interest in abolishing one mode of oppression simply to replace it with another.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Now that us left-coms have made it clear we don't fit into the anarchist conception of "libertarian", lets get back on track.

I am for cooperation between different genuinely revolutionary proletarian organizations, and that includes class struggle anarchists.
I also believe we need a mass, international, working class organization organized through democratic centralism.
Unlike most leftcoms, I believe we should actively campaign for the creation of a mass workers party instead of hanging out on university campuses and creepy internet places like this. Too much of the left is content with having tiny little groups with clearly defined political enemies (everyone but themselves).

I agree with your post, but I would say organic centralism (or what is sometimes called dialectical centralism).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2485538&postcount=10

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2486230&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2486251&postcount=28

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2486265&postcount=33

[Welshy]

For the Italian current, read anything by Amadeo Bordiga. There's a usergroup called Bordiga Literati (linked in my signature) for reading and discussing his works if you're interested.


There was a period where Bordiga was inactive in politics and the italian communist left continued with its journal Bilan. There is a thread on R3dmarx about it being archived, so it may be useful to check it out since while Bordiga was definitely an important theorist for the italian communist left, he wasn't the only one in that group :lol:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There was a period where Bordiga was inactive in politics and the italian communist left continued with its journal Bilan. There is a thread on R3dmarx about it being archived, so it may be useful to check it out since while Bordiga was definitely an important theorist for the italian communist left, he wasn't the only one in that group :lol:

Onorato Damen is another really interesting Italian Left Communist thinker.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I know Anarchists and Left Communists disagree on organization during a revolution but dont left communists believe in decentralization in a post-revolutionary society?

We are not opposed to centralization if that is your question.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I most certainly would not be - that sounds extraordinarily authoritarian and profoundly anti-democratic. I have no interest in abolishing one mode of oppression simply to replace it with another.

It's a class dictatorship, just like every other form of state. Yes it's going to be authoritarian, what the fuck is an "anti-authoritarian state"?
You have to let go of the liberal conception of government. The state does not exist to represent and serve everyone under it. The state is the executive branch of the ruling class.
Also, define democracy? If you mean majority rule, that would mean proletarian rule and we are for that.

[JPSartre12]

It's a class dictatorship, just like every other form of state. Yes it's going to be authoritarian, what the fuck is an "anti-authoritarian state"?
You have to let go of the liberal conception of government. The state does not exist to represent and serve everyone under it. The state is the executive branch of the working class.
Also, define democracy? If you mean majority rule, that would mean proletarian rule and we are for that.

I strongly disagree with the notion that the post-capitalist "state" that we have is going to be authoritarian in any way. Yes, I acknowledge and accept the whole concept of revolutions being authoritarian activities in and of themselves, but the society post-revolution should not be.

I did not know what you are referring to with the phrase "anti-authoritarian state", but I would prefer to have our socialist society be a place of liberation from capitalist oppression, rather than the institution of a new, élite party member-led police-like state. Secret police and mass surveillance? That does not sound like a freer society to me in the least.

And yes, comrade, I agree with you on the notion of democracy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I strongly disagree with the notion that the post-capitalist "state" that we have is going to be authoritarian in any way. Yes, I acknowledge and accept the whole concept of revolutions being authoritarian activities in and of themselves, but the society post-revolution should not be.

But the dictatorship of the proletariat would necessarily be authoritarian, involving the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (whether you see this involving a centralized vanguard, decentralized councils, etc.) until class society is abolished (along with the state).


I did not know what you are referring to with the phrase "anti-authoritarian state", but I would prefer to have our socialist society be a place of liberation from capitalist oppression

But liberation from who? Essentially, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will not give up power peacefully and, if history has shown anything, will mount a violent counter-revolutionary response.


rather than the institution of a new, élite party member-led police-like state. Secret police and mass surveillance? That does not sound like a freer society to me in the least.

These measures would exist in only extreme circumstances (such as a situation like the Bolsheviks faced in the October revolution). If material conditions necessitate such measures, why not? Of course, any sane person would try to avoid these measures at all costs (as we should) but if they have to be implemented to save the revolution, then they should. Again, this is in extreme cases of intense counter-revolution (otherwise, such measures would be obviously counterproductive).

[Rational Radical]

The reason why i thought that left communists could be considered libertarian was because of their opposition to state capitalist nations but i was wrong,does anyone have any good articles explaining the methods of it? Also i dont understand why libertarian socialist is in quotations since we do advocate the workers controlling the means of production and the immediate abolition of private property and the state. I created this thread in order to see what we can borrow from each tendency during a revolution,everyone would have to adapt to each method casting aside differences in order to establish a society that is in the control of the proletarian, would the posters of revleft go with this strategy or just let sectarianism prevent unity?

[JPSartre12]

But the dictatorship of the proletariat would necessarily be authoritarian, involving the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (whether you see this involving a centralized vanguard, decentralized councils, etc.) until class society is abolished (along with the state).

I agree, comrade, that the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat would be authoritarian in nature. What I'm pointing out, however, is that we should not allow that authoritarianism to become institutionalized and remain in place after bourgeois and bourgeois-sympathizing forces are removed from the equation. It should not become a norm in the long-run.



But liberation from who? Essentially, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will not give up power peacefully and, if history has shown anything, will mount a violent counter-revolutionary response.

Absolutely! There will almost certainly be a violent response from the bourgeois class in attempt to stamp out the revolution, and we must be prepared to meet that suppression with force if need be. What I'm referring to is the same as above: if we are fighting to liberate ourselves from the bourgeois class, we should not institute such authoritarian measures that we inadvertently create a perverted and unintentional police-state.



These measures would exist in only extreme circumstances (such as a situation like the Bolsheviks faced in the October revolution). If material conditions necessitate such measures, why not? Of course, any sane person would try to avoid these measures at all costs (as we should) but if they have to be implemented to save the revolution, then they should. Again, this is in extreme cases of intense counter-revolution (otherwise, such measures would be obviously counterproductive).

I'm on the fence with this. I do understand the logic behind what you are saying and yes, it does make sense that such conditions should be implemented if they are to save the revolution ... At the same time, though, I feel my inner purist telling me that instituting police-like powers for the sake of intended liberty is a betrayal of our principals, and that it rings strongly of the post-9/11 Homeland Security.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I agree, comrade, that the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat would be authoritarian in nature. What I'm pointing out, however, is that we should not allow that authoritarianism to become institutionalized and remain in place after bourgeois and bourgeois-sympathizing forces are removed from the equation. It should not become a norm in the long-run.

I disagree with the use of the term authoritarianism for a description for reasons I listed before, but yes, the state should not exist under communism.


Absolutely! There will almost certainly be a violent response from the bourgeois class in attempt to stamp out the revolution, and we must be prepared to meet that suppression with force if need be. What I'm referring to is the same as above: if we are fighting to liberate ourselves from the bourgeois class, we should not institute such authoritarian measures that we inadvertently create a perverted and unintentional police-state.

This stems from the logic that power corrupts, which it doesn't. I would rather not get into this, as it would most certainly derail the thread. If you want to discuss this point, pm me (or talk to Rafiq)


I'm on the fence with this. I do understand the logic behind what you are saying and yes, it does make sense that such conditions should be implemented if they are to save the revolution ... At the same time, though, I feel my inner purist telling me that instituting police-like powers for the sake of intended liberty is a betrayal of our principals, and that it rings strongly of the post-9/11 Homeland Security.

Well, there are huge differences.

For one, such measures were put into practice inside the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and are used for the suppression of the proletariat and other revolutionaries.

Second, such a response was not necessary at all. (I talk about this in my blog on the Afghanistan war. We did not need to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and much simpler measures could have been taken, etc.)

[Rational Radical]

Also if you believe in taking police state measures in order to secure the rule of the proletarian,what's your discrepancy with leninism when this is what they used to justify the intense political repression and human rights abuses?

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, the bourgeoisie isn't the only class antagonistic to the proletariat. The DoTP would involve the suppression of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie also.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I strongly disagree with the notion that the post-capitalist "state" that we have is going to be authoritarian in any way. Yes, I acknowledge and accept the whole concept of revolutions being authoritarian activities in and of themselves, but the society post-revolution should not be.

I did not know what you are referring to with the phrase "anti-authoritarian state", but I would prefer to have our socialist society be a place of liberation from capitalist oppression, rather than the institution of a new, élite party member-led police-like state. Secret police and mass surveillance? That does not sound like a freer society to me in the least.

And yes, comrade, I agree with you on the notion of democracy.
It is not a dictatorship of an exclusive elite that I'm talking about. I'm talking about a state belonging to the workers.
Freedom for the productive elements in society means the demolition of parasitic elements.
The oppression of our class enemy IS our liberation.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Comrade, the bourgeoisie isn't the only class antagonistic to the proletariat. The DoTP would involve the suppression of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie also.

Well, I was just breaking it down into 2 main, antagonistic classes, but yes of course.

[Welshy]

misread the post, sorry.

please delete

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The reason why i thought that left communists could be considered libertarian was because of their opposition to state capitalist nations but i was wrong

No, in that case you are correct.


does anyone have any good articles explaining the methods of it?

Of what?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Also if you believe in taking police state measures in order to secure the rule of the proletarian,what's your discrepancy with leninism when this is what they used to justify the intense political repression and human rights abuses?

...because such societies were not the rule of the proletariat...

Left Communists are highly opposed to Stalinism. We do not support China, Russia, Cuba, etc. if that is what you are trying to get at.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The reason why i thought that left communists could be considered libertarian was because of their opposition to state capitalist nations but i was wrong,does anyone have any good articles explaining the methods of it? Also i dont understand why libertarian socialist is in quotations since we do advocate the workers controlling the means of production and the immediate abolition of private property and the state. I created this thread in order to see what we can borrow from each tendency during a revolution,everyone would have to adapt to each method casting aside differences in order to establish a society that is in the control of the proletarian, would the posters of revleft go with this strategy or just let sectarianism prevent unity?

Yes, Left Communists are against State-Capitalist "Socialist" countries. All Communists are against the State and Capitalism, but while Left Communists accept the need for a transitional State, they do not accept the need of a transitional Capitalism and want to immediately build Proletarian society, Communism, i.e. Russia 1917-1921 Soviet "War Communism". But taking over an economy with the foundational relations of capitalism (Competition), and immediately socialising the whole economy, "Ad-hoc-ism", has lead to economic chaos. It took the german corporations VW and MAN two years to finally conjoin their enterprises recently, the practicalities of a conjunction of enterprises takes quite a while.
I am for a vanguard state planned transition to "unionise", monopolise, socialise the whole economy by pushing policy to conjoin enterprises to the existing state monopoly, and put the nationalised economy under workers democratic control.

[Rational Radical]

I was mainly addressing Amadeo Brodiga,it makes him no different than a leninist if he believes in authoritarianism to that extent even if it's "for the proletarian". I asked for some good articles describing left communism and its methods of starting a revolution. I think left communists want to seize state power in order socialize the means of production with a restricted vanguard party,so i guess anarchism and left communism are still incompatible then,thanks everyone for helping my understanding. If left communists took over would they allow the anarchists to form libertarian societies free of the state?

[Art Vandelay]

I agree, comrade, that the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat would be authoritarian in nature. What I'm pointing out, however, is that we should not allow that authoritarianism to become institutionalized and remain in place after bourgeois and bourgeois-sympathizing forces are removed from the equation. It should not become a norm in the long-run.

I don't think you really understand what a state is. A state is an organ of class rule. If the proletariat succeeds in its historical task of abolishing itself, then there will be no state to institute the "authoritarian" measures.


Absolutely! There will almost certainly be a violent response from the bourgeois class in attempt to stamp out the revolution, and we must be prepared to meet that suppression with force if need be. What I'm referring to is the same as above: if we are fighting to liberate ourselves from the bourgeois class, we should not institute such authoritarian measures that we inadvertently create a perverted and unintentional police-state.

It seems that you have some aversion to "authoritarianism" so I will quote you something from comrade Engels (I contemplated putting it in my sig recently):


Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.



I'm on the fence with this. I do understand the logic behind what you are saying and yes, it does make sense that such conditions should be implemented if they are to save the revolution ... At the same time, though, I feel my inner purist telling me that instituting police-like powers for the sake of intended liberty is a betrayal of our principals, and that it rings strongly of the post-9/11 Homeland Security.

What principles do you mean exactly?

Communists support everything which helps push forward the revolution; what is moral, is what strengthens the revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I was mainly addressing Amadeo Brodiga,it makes him no different than a leninist if he believes in authoritarianism to that extent even if it's "for the proletarian".

Well, considering Bordiga and some Left Communists are Leninists, I guess that really doesn't matter...


I asked for some good articles describing left communism and its methods of starting a revolution.

Herman Gorter's Open Letter To Comrade Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) (a critique of Lenin's Left Wing Communism-An Infantile Disorder.

Proletariat Dictatorship and Class Party by Bordiga

Party and Class by Bordiga

The Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (http://en.internationalism.org/series/1237)

These are all good left communist writings. (The Bordiga texts can be found in the Bordiga literati group, lazy and didn't feel like linking).


I think left communists want to seize state power in order socialize the means of production with a restricted vanguard party

Some think so, not all. Actually, most left communists are against the party taking state power. EDIT: Not to be confused with being against a vanguard party.


If left communists took over would they allow the anarchists to form libertarian societies free of the state?

Um, this is so hypothetical that there is no point in responding.

If you want to know more about left communism, from a Bordigist and non-Bordigist view, look at these posts.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2461022&postcount=14

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462721&postcount=16

[Rational Radical]

Thanks Brosa Luxembourg that's exactly what i needed, i was originally referring to left communists who are against the party seizing state power,which i first thought wasthe only left communists tradition. This discussion was made to talk about revolutinary methods from all anti-statist and ways of establishing democratic control from the bottom up

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Comrade, the bourgeoisie isn't the only class antagonistic to the proletariat. The DoTP would involve the suppression of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie also.

What would this suppression involve, and why would it be done in each case (peasant and petite-bourgeois)?


It is not a dictatorship of an exclusive elite that I'm talking about. I'm talking about a state belonging to the workers.
Freedom for the productive elements in society means the demolition of parasitic elements.
The oppression of our class enemy IS our liberation.

Nope, sorry, this sounds far too much like a revenge fantasy dressed up in political language for my liking.

If the bourgeoisie no longer have their mitts on the levers of power in any real material sense, then beyond taking steps to ensure such socio-political structures do not reform (which would equally apply to those who had never themselves been bourgeois), I do not see how "suppression" comes into it as a matter of necessity rather than as a matter of base motives.

[JPSartre12]

I don't think you really understand what a state is. A state is an organ of class rule. If the proletariat succeeds in its historical task of abolishing itself, then there will be no state to institute the "authoritarian" measures.

I understand the concept of the State being an instrument of class oppression, and of there being no State when our revolutionary goals are met. Perhaps I'm using the wrong language to describe my thoughts then :lol: - what I am thinking of is the administrative body (devoid of all class rule) that is present after the dictatorship of the proletariat that manages planning, production, etc.


It seems that you have some aversion to "authoritarianism" so I will quote you something from comrade Engels (I contemplated putting it in my sig recently):

That was a very thought-provoking quote, yes, and it does make a compelling case. I suppose what I'm thinking of when I talk about "anti-authoritarianism" is the society that we will have after the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat should not have any remnants of the harsh measures that we took to dispose of the bourgeoisie. I'm concerned that the police-like powers that we may use (yes, which I agree may be necessary in the short-term if the material conditions dictate that they would save the revolution) would become inadvertently institutionalized and become the norm, rather than have them disappear with the bourgeoisie.


What principles do you mean exactly?

I suppose that I am referring to this - that we, as revolutionaries, are dedicated to liberating the proletariat, and creating an environment wherein certain people (the bourgeois, bourgeois-sympathizing, anti-revolutionaries, and so on) are prosecuted with police-state-like powers sounds inherently "anti-liberty". Does that make sense? I realize that that might sound idealistic and romanticized though :rolleyes:


Communists support everything which helps push forward the revolution; what is moral, is what strengthens the revolution.

Indeed. I agree with what you say, but I have a sort of ambivalence towards some actions. See my "principals" above.

[Rational Radical]

What would this suppression involve, and why would it be done in each case (peasant and petite-bourgeois)?



Nope, sorry, this sounds far too much like a revenge fantasy dressed up in political language for my liking.

If the bourgeoisie no longer have their mitts on the levers of power in any real material sense, then beyond taking steps to ensure such socio-political structures do not reform (which would equally apply to those who had never themselves been bourgeois), I do not see how "suppression" comes into it as a matter of necessity rather than as a matter of base motives. EXACTLY thank you,if we abolish private property in favor a radical democratization via libertarian communes and free soviets i dont see the need for a dictatorship of the proletarian that suppresses our class enemies since their organs of oppression are now controlled by workers and commonly owned.

[l'Enfermé]

What would this suppression involve, and why would it be done in each case (peasant and petite-bourgeois)?

Physical suppression and extermination, terrorism, etc. And what a silly question? Why would the proletariat, wishing to attain ultimate victory, suppress classes that are antagonistic towards it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Physical suppression and extermination, terrorism, etc. And what a silly question? Why would the proletariat, wishing to attain ultimate victory, suppress classes that are antagonistic towards it?

Well presumably the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie have their own class interests, yes?

I guess I can understand how the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie align with the continuation of capitalism (although I imagine that to be signficantly tempered by circumstances - self-employed vs small business owner, for example), but I'm having trouble conceptualising how that is the case for the peasant class.

[Magón]

Physical suppression and extermination, terrorism, etc. And what a silly question? Why would the proletariat, wishing to attain ultimate victory, suppress classes that are antagonistic towards it?

I'd like you to explain to me, as myself coming from a peasant background, and still having family who are, how exactly those working/living on a ranch, farm, etc. is a threat to the proletariate in a revolutionary situation? I've never been able to understand any of the so called "leftist" rhetoric, that said the peasantry was a threat, rather than a possible ally. Everyone I've read and heard talk down about the peasantry, just sounds so disconnected with what the peasantry actually thinks (or can with the proper agitation), that they just seem to get egg on their faces. And then it's no wonder why those who hear this "leftist" rhetoric, feel alienated and against Communism.

I mean, who's to say in a revolutionary situation, those peasants who work on the ranch, farm, etc. don't just expropriate the land from the ranch/farm owner(s)? Urban workers can't be everywhere, so why not use the rural agrarian workers as a revolutionary force themselves? It just seems illogical to me.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I understand the concept of the State being an instrument of class oppression, and of there being no State when our revolutionary goals are met. Perhaps I'm using the wrong language to describe my thoughts then :lol: - what I am thinking of is the administrative body (devoid of all class rule) that is present after the dictatorship of the proletariat that manages planning, production, etc.

Oh, well in that case you are absolutely right. We shouldn't allow any remnants of the state in communism, because that means class rule.


That was a very thought-provoking quote, yes, and it does make a compelling case. I suppose what I'm thinking of when I talk about "anti-authoritarianism" is the society that we will have after the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat should not have any remnants of the harsh measures that we took to dispose of the bourgeoisie.

I completely agree.


I'm concerned that the police-like powers that we may use (yes, which I agree may be necessary in the short-term if the material conditions dictate that they would save the revolution) would become inadvertently institutionalized and become the norm, rather than have them disappear with the bourgeoisie.

The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't just about getting rid of the bourgeois class, but also about getting rid of other classes (including the proletariat). When this happens, the state, necessarily an organ of class rule, will disappear along with classes. This isn't, by the way, a utopian idea, but a prediction based off the study off historical events of the state.


I suppose that I am referring to this - that we, as revolutionaries, are dedicated to liberating the proletariat, and creating an environment wherein certain people (the bourgeois, bourgeois-sympathizing, anti-revolutionaries, and so on) are prosecuted with police-state-like powers sounds inherently "anti-liberty". Does that make sense? I realize that that might sound idealistic and romanticized though :rolleyes:

Again, you are viewing this outside of material conditions. If these conditions make it necessary of police-state measures to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, then they should most certainly be used. Of course, we would take every step to try to avoid wasting men and material on a Cheka-like institution (which most certainly would take men and material that could have been used for something more productive) but if it is necessary then, again, why not?

[Welshy]

I mean, who's to say in a revolutionary situation, those peasants who work on the ranch, farm, etc. don't just expropriate the land from the ranch/farm owner(s)? Urban workers can't be everywhere, so why not use the rural agrarian workers as a revolutionary force themselves? It just seems illogical to me.

I don't think its fair to equate all rural agrarian workers with the peasantry as peasantry can be a pretty wide category contain many different layers. I think its important to note that peasantry over all, not the agrarian workers, exist in a system that is opposed to modern agriculture which means eventually they will have to be phased out as a class as we update agriculture across the globe. This doesn't really involve suppressing them in the horrible ways Borz was talking about (extermination, seriously? I can't believe we allow such people on revleft).

[Magón]

I don't think its fair to equate all rural agrarian workers with the peasantry as peasantry can be a pretty wide category contain many different layers. I think its important to note that peasantry over all, not the agrarian workers, exist in a system that is opposed to modern agriculture which means eventually they will have to be phased out as a class as we update agriculture across the globe. This doesn't really involve suppressing them in the horrible ways Borz was talking about (extermination, seriously? I can't believe we allow such people on revleft).

That's true the peasantry is a wide category of different groups, but for the sake of simplicity, I just used the point of agrarian life, since that seems to be in most people's minds, what the peasantry equals to.

And of course the peasant class would be phased out, just like any other class, but I just don't understand why suppressing them (in anyway) is beneficial to creating a Communist society? Who better to help create new systems of agriculture, than those who've spent a lot of time in their lives, working with agriculture? There's a lot to growing food, that a lot of people don't understand, and alienating/oppressing those who do understand will just cause problems and other things to happen, down the road.

And your point about them being opposed to modern agricultural ways, sort of drives my point of how most people are really disconnected with the agrarian way of life. Where is it said, if a new and easier way to grow food was shown to them, that they'd just throw it away? Most would probably take to it if it meant not having to stand so much in the sun from dawn to dusk, going out to water, seed, etc. I mean, a lot of what is used on farms today for growing crops, wasn't created by some student in a college/university class room, it was a farmer figuring out a better way to water his/her crops, and so on.

[Welshy]

That's true the peasantry is a wide category of different groups, but for the sake of simplicity, I just used the point of agrarian life, since that seems to be in most people's minds, what the peasantry equals to.

And of course the peasant class would be phased out, just like any other class, but I just don't understand why suppressing them (in anyway) is beneficial to creating a Communist society? Who better to help create new systems of agriculture, than those who've spent a lot of time in their lives, working with agriculture? There's a lot to growing food, that a lot of people don't understand, and alienating/oppressing those who do understand will just cause problems and other things to happen, down the road.

I wasn't arguing for that. When it comes to oppressing classes other than the Capitalists and some part of the petty bourgeoisie, I subscribe to the idea that they should only be suppressed if they work against the working class while its abolishing capitalism and remnants of past class societies.



And your point about them being opposed to modern agricultural ways, sort of drives my point of how most people are really disconnected with the agrarian way of life. Where is it said, if a new and easier way to grow food was shown to them, that they'd just throw it away? Most would probably take to it if it meant not having to stand so much in the sun from dawn to dusk, going out to water, seed, etc. I mean, a lot of what is used on farms today for growing crops, wasn't created by some student in a college/university class room, it was a farmer figuring out a better way to water his/her crops, and so on.

I was saying the peasantry as individuals would be opposed to modern agriculture, but just that the existence of the peasantry requires non-modern agriculture. Also this is where simplifying the peasantry into one class is problematic because who will be more likely to be opposed to modern agriculture, a peasant who owns a farm or landless peasant who is effectively a wage laborer? Most likely the peasant with the farm as modern agriculture would mean that the peasant with the farm will either have to give up their farm to larger scale farms or they will have trouble competing with the larger scale farms (with in capitalism of course).

[eric922]

So kind of off topic, but would anyone mind sharing some Council Communist writers?

[Welshy]

So kind of off topic, but would anyone mind sharing some Council Communist writers?

Paul Mattick, Otto Ruhle and Anton Pannekoek are all council communists (starting in the 30's) I believe.

[eric922]

Regarding peasantry, there can't be many left in the world. To be a peasant doesn't one have to be a serf bound to the land? Isn't peasantry a remnant of feudalism? I know there are rural workers on farms and such, but are they technically peasants? I always thought serfdom was a requirement to be a peasant.

[Magón]

I wasn't arguing for that. When it comes to oppressing classes other than the Capitalists and some part of the petty bourgeoisie, I subscribe to the idea that they should only be suppressed if they work against the working class while its abolishing capitalism and remnants of past class societies.

Then that would likely mean, if they weren't continued to be alienated, that the peasantry wouldn't need to be oppressed like (some) Marxists say they should.


Also this is where simplifying the peasantry into one class is problematic because who will be more likely to be opposed to modern agriculture, a peasant who owns a farm or landless peasant who is effectively a wage laborer? Most likely the peasant with the farm as modern agriculture would mean that the peasant with the farm will either have to give up their farm to larger scale farms or they will have trouble competing with the larger scale farms (with in capitalism of course).

But you see, if the "peasant" who owns a farm lived in an urban setting, these "peasant" would be considered your typical petite-bourgeoisie who owned his/her own little business, and the (actual) peasants who worked for him/her, would be your typical working class. It's important to point out that like in urban settings, there is a differentiating hierarchy of who's in charge and who isn't in the peasantry sphere of things, just like in urban settings. There are those who own and control, and those who work and control nothing/very little.

Most peasants, or what who most in an urban setup would call peasants, don't equal those who own the farm or ranch, or whatever. Those who own the farm or ranch, are just as bourgeois in their own right, as the small business owner in the city. The actual peasant, is the who works the land for the farm/ranch owner. There is a big difference, because while the farm owner, obviously owns the land the peasants are working on, they don't own any of it (in most cases, there are some rare cases where farm/ranch owners give their workers "stock", but it is very rare and hardly a significant piece.) And it's the ones who work the farm/ranch, which Marxist alienate and condemn to not have revolutionary capabilities. The farm/ranch owners aren't alienated, because they already know their place is with those who own, not with those they employ to work their lands.

And so when (some) Marxists talk about oppressing the peasants, or seeing them as unable to be of a revolutionary mindset, then that causes a problem and alienates a group of people who like I said, if they were in an urban setting, would be considered working class and would be considered having the capability of a revolutionary mindset.

[Magón]

Regarding peasantry, there can't be many left in the world. To be a peasant doesn't one have to be a serf bound to the land? Isn't peasantry a remnant of feudalism? I know there are rural workers on farms and such, but are they technically peasants? I always thought serfdom was a requirement to be a peasant.

No, there is still in parts of the world, a peasant class. Mexico being one of those places, and Mexico also being one of those places where serfdom is not a requirement for peasantry. This isn't the 1800s, or early 20th Century, serfdom as far as I'm aware in the world, is extinct.

[eric922]

I don't think its fair to equate all rural agrarian workers with the peasantry as peasantry can be a pretty wide category contain many different layers. I think its important to note that peasantry over all, not the agrarian workers, exist in a system that is opposed to modern agriculture which means eventually they will have to be phased out as a class as we update agriculture across the globe. This doesn't really involve suppressing them in the horrible ways Borz was talking about (extermination, seriously? I can't believe we allow such people on revleft).

To be frankly honest I don't think this kind of talk should be allowed on Revleft period, even if we are discussing capitalists. It just strikes me as disturbing that some people seem to be hoping for mass slaughter.

[Welshy]

Then that would likely mean, if they weren't continued to be alienated, that the peasantry wouldn't need to be oppressed like (some) Marxists say they should.

Besides Borz, I'm curious who these marxist you are arguing against are.




But you see, if the "peasant" who owns a farm lived in an urban setting, these "peasant" would be considered your typical petite-bourgeoisie who owned his/her own little business, and the (actual) peasants who worked for him/her, would be your typical working class. It's important to point out that like in urban settings, there is a differentiating hierarchy of who's in charge and who isn't in the peasantry sphere of things, just like in urban settings. There are those who own and control, and those who work and control nothing/very little.

Actual peasants are limited to the landless ones who are essentially agrarian working class. It does include the landed peasants whether you are going to want to include them or not, which is why it is pointless to talk about the peasantry unless you are going specify if you are talking about the landed or landless peasantry. Both you and Borz face this same problem while you guys are arguing for the opposite things. Also I haven't denied anything you have said in that paragraph so I don't understand what you are arguing about or who you are truly arguing with.



Most peasants, or what who most in an urban setup would call peasants, don't equal those who own the farm or ranch, or whatever. Those who own the farm or ranch, are just as bourgeois in their own right, as the small business owner in the city. The actual peasant, is the who works the land for the farm/ranch owner. There is a big difference, because while the farm owner, obviously owns the land the peasants are working on, they don't own any of it (in most cases, there are some rare cases where farm/ranch owners give their workers "stock", but it is very rare and hardly a significant piece.) And it's the ones who work the farm/ranch, which Marxist alienate and condemn to not have revolutionary capabilities. The farm/ranch owners aren't alienated, because they already know their place is with those who own, not with those they employ to work their lands.

Since you consider the peasants who don't own land to be the actual peasants, I'm going to call you out on the no true scotsman fallacy.



And so when (some) Marxists talk about oppressing the peasants, or seeing them as unable to be of a revolutionary mindset, then that causes a problem and alienates a group of people who like I said, if they were in an urban setting, would be considered working class and would be considered having the capability of a revolutionary mindset.

I agree with we are talking about the landless peasants, but the peasants who own land will most likely have to be suppressed as we modernize agriculture across the globe with in the context of the revolution.

[Magón]

Besides Borz, I'm curious who these marxist you are arguing against are.

Others have said it on here before at times, and some Marxists I've met in person at various times, have said the peasant class would need to be oppressed for the revolution because they couldn't have the revolutionary mindset urban workers could have.


Actual peasants are limited to the landless ones who are essentially agrarian working class. It does include the landed peasants whether you are going to want to include them or not, which is why it is pointless to talk about the peasantry unless you are going specify if you are talking about the landed or landless peasantry. Both you and Borz face this same problem while you guys are arguing for the opposite things. Also I haven't denied anything you have said in that paragraph so I don't understand what you are arguing about or who you are truly arguing with.

Why would you consider the ones who own the land, "peasants", but say those who own factories, aren't working class? Neither of them are peasant or working class, they're apart of the ruling class, whether in a rural setting or urban setting, they rule and make things go their way, plain and simple, while the working class and the real peasant class, do the heavy lifting.

I mean a peasant is someone who works the land, and very few owners of those lands, work them. They observe and overlook the work done, but very few ever actually get down in the dirt and do the work themselves. Just like some small business owners who occasionally work the registers of their store themselves, or help out customers find something, they aren't considered working class. So why try and say it's different for the peasants, when it's not.


no true scotsman fallacy.

I don't know what that means.


I agree with we are talking about the landless peasants, but the peasants who own land will most likely have to be suppressed as we modernize agriculture across the globe with in the context of the revolution.

I agree, those who own the land should be removed from their position of power, and their land expropriated by the peasants.

[Welshy]

Others have said it on here before at times, and some Marxists I've met in person at various times, have said the peasant class would need to be oppressed for the revolution because they couldn't have the revolutionary mindset urban workers could have.

Alright




Why would you consider the ones who own the land, "peasants", but say those who own factories, aren't working class? Neither of them are peasant or working class, they're apart of the ruling class, whether in a rural setting or urban setting, they rule and make things go their way, plain and simple, while the working class and the real peasant class, do the heavy lifting.

Because peasant is defined to include both those who don't land and those that own small farms. Peasants aren't necessarily a coherent class with members who are similar to the petty bourgeoisie and those who are similar to the working class. I'm not talking about feudal lords who own huge farms when I say landed peasants, I'm talking about small farm owners whose way of making a living is in direct opposition to the advent of modern large scale agriculture.



I mean a peasant is someone who works the land, and very few owners of those lands, work them. They observe and overlook the work done, but very few ever actually get down in the dirt and do the work themselves. Just like some small business owners who occasionally work the registers of their store themselves, or help out customers find something, they aren't considered working class. So why try and say it's different for the peasants, when it's not.



I don't know what that means.

From wikipedia


No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

In the first part of your quote you are in the face of being presented with my claim that the peasantry includes owners of small farms, which the common definition includes and what the historical use also includes, you go and change the definition of what a peasant is in order to fit your claim. Essentially this is what's happening:

You: the peasantry are the rural equivalent of the working class.
Me: no the peasantry also includes small landowners who are the rural equivalent of the petty bourgeoisie
You: The actual (read "true") peasantry are those who don't own the land.

This is a classic example of a no true scotsman fallacy.




I agree, those who own the land should be removed from their position of power, and their land expropriated by the peasants.

Depending on what you mean by expropriated I may agree or disagree. If you mean taken from them and turned into large scale farms for modern agriculture that would be organized similar to how we would handle other industries then yes. But if you mean have the land taken from the landowners and divided up among the landless peasantry then I very much disagree and see that as a step backwards.

EDIT: if you want another example of the no true scots man fallacy, here:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

Also sometimes this fallacy can be similar to just failing to meet the necessary criterion (this is note by the wikipedia article), but in this case the definition of peasantry and the historical use of the word includes those who own land. So this isn't a case of failing to meet the necessary criterion.

[Blake's Baby]

The reason why i thought that left communists could be considered libertarian was because of their opposition to state capitalist nations but i was wrong...

Why are you 'wrong'? Left Communists oppose China and North Korea as much as they opposed the Eastern Bloc and Cuba and all the other fake 'socialisms'.

Left Communists do not believe that that party should take power on behalf of the working class (except the Bordigists do, but really they hardly exist as a current outside of Italy).

Do these things not qualify Left Communists as 'libertarian' in your view?


...
does anyone have any good articles explaining the methods of it?...

The method of what?


...Also i dont understand why libertarian socialist is in quotations since we do advocate the workers controlling the means of production and the immediate abolition of private property and the state...

Yeah, that's socialism. We don't know what 'libertarian socialism' means, as that would imply there is such a thing as 'imprisonatarian socialism' or something, which there isn't. If socialism doesn't aim at the liberation of humanity, it's not socialism. The adjective 'libertarian' therefore has no meaning in this context. It's either socialism, or not socialism.


I created this thread in order to see what we can borrow from each tendency during a revolution,everyone would have to adapt to each method casting aside differences in order to establish a society that is in the control of the proletarian, would the posters of revleft go with this strategy or just let sectarianism prevent unity?

What would be the point of such a strategy? Revolutions are not made by little bands of leftists, they're made by the working class. All the Left Comms, Council Comms, Anarchist-Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists could get together tomorrow in a huge revolutionary love-in and it wouldn't bring about a revolution.

Yes, we should definitely be working together. I think it's ridiculous that different Left Communist groups don't work together, and aren't actively trying to bring about a merger (for instance) between the ICC and the ICT; the various splits in the ICP coming back together might be a positive start too. Merger with Anarchist-Communist or Anrcho-Syndicalist groups would be much more difficult, but we should definitely be trying to work together where there is common ground. But not to 'bring about a revolution'. Just, at present, to be able to more effectively communicate our politics and support strike movements, publicise discussions and such like. Regularly turning up at each others' meetings and agreeing to distribute each others' press would be a start. That's where we are at the moment.

EDIT: Oh, I see I've done that 'answering something on page 2 that is then not on topic by the time I get to page 3 that I previously hadn't noticed' thing.

OK - the 'peasantry' is generally regarded as being part of the petite-bourgeoisie, because peasants tend to both employ workers but also work themselves (so they're capitalists, who are also workers). The workers on farms who don't own or run the farms, are the agricultural proletariat or rural proletariat. So farm workersare workers; farm owners or sometimes those who rent farms but still employ workers are petite-bourgeoisie if they get their hands dirty and work on the farms, those who own agribusinesses are capitalists.

[Welshy]

Yes, we should definitely be working together. I think it's ridiculous that different Left Communist groups don't work together, and aren't actively trying to bring about a merger (for instance) between the ICC and the ICT; the various splits in the ICP coming back together might be a positive start too.

I don't think the ICC and the ICT could merge since it seems like they have different ways of organizing and it seems like their approaches to interventions are too different. However I think it is ridiculous that can work together or be closer fraternal groups as I think both offer quite a bit (ICC with its large amount of educational resources and the ICT with its organizing strategy). But it seems like at least the ICC is too sectarian to work with the ICT, which is a shame.

[Magón]

Because peasant is defined to include both those who don't land and those that own small farms. Peasants aren't necessarily a coherent class with members who are similar to the petty bourgeoisie and those who are similar to the working class. I'm not talking about feudal lords who own huge farms when I say landed peasants, I'm talking about small farm owners whose way of making a living is in direct opposition to the advent of modern large scale agriculture.

But you see, they are similar to the petite-bourgeois and the working class, you just don't have the experience of what it is to be a peasant, and a lot of Marxists and Anarchists don't, so don't think I'm singling you out. A lot of what Anarchism and Marxism talk about, is about the urban centers, and not so much about the rural ones. But as someone who's lived a peasant's life for more than just a week or few months (I'm talking years of my childhood,) I can tell you that the divisions that make up Ruling and Working classes in urban areas, are the same as the division between those in rural areas who own land, and the peasantry.

And just to point out, most small farm owners nowadays barely make anything from their farms alone. They have to look elsewhere for something to help sustain them, they can't just look to their small farm to keep their head above water. It's a big mistake to say they'd be in the way, when in reality, they're some of the weakest of the ruling class, and are hanging on to their positions by a thread which could snap at anytime.


In the first part of your quote you are in the face of being presented with my claim that the peasantry includes owners of small farms, which the common definition includes and what the historical use also includes, you go and change the definition of what a peasant is in order to fit your claim. Essentially this is what's happening:

You: the peasantry are the rural equivalent of the working class.
Me: no the peasantry also includes small landowners who are the rural equivalent of the petty bourgeoisie
You: The actual (read "true") peasantry are those who don't own the land.

This is a classic example of a no true scotsman fallacy.

Then a lot of Communist theorists, are guilty of a "no true scotsman fallacy". Plenty of theorists used words that were considered to be used this way, but instead used another that would be seen as a "fallacy", in their writings. It happens a lot in Philosophy too, like with Absurdism, Existentialism, etc.

I simply see a division like any other socio-economic sphere. There's the ones who own, and the ones who don't. Those who own land for farming/ranching, aren't peasants, and might as well be called Rural Petite-Bourgeois/Bourgeois, because that's basically what they are in simple terms. Just like urban owners, are Petite-Bourgeois or just Bourgeois, separate from the Urban Working Class.

I don't see how what I said was a fallacy, just because I don't agree with the norm of what a "Peasant" is defined as in a society like we all live. A point of being a Leftist, is showing how these groups are really divided and what can be done about it, and clearing up what the Ruling Class tries to blur out.

Like I said in the beginning, I have a real problem with how (some) Marxists define the Peasantry as a class to be oppressed, because a lot of them don't even understand outside of some poor definition in a book. Having come from a peasant background myself, I don't see the peasantry life, the same way as someone from a city who's had no experience dealing or talking to peasantry, does. Like anything, if you want to get a real view of it, personal to yourself and cut out all the opinions and ideas on something, you have to go out into the world and experience it yourself. Seeing what peasantry is, and the dynamics of it, will show you something different than what you're used to thinking and defining it as.


Depending on what you mean by expropriated I may agree or disagree. If you mean taken from them and turned into large scale farms for modern agriculture that would be organized similar to how we would handle other industries then yes. But if you mean have the land taken from the landowners and divided up among the landless peasantry then I very much disagree and see that as a step backwards.

Then I think we agree, organizing it all into large scale farming under modern ways is the way to go, although I don't see a problem with dividing it amongst the peasants, since they'd be the ones to work it and organize it to these new ways, and know how to do it the smoothest than those who had no history with agrarian tools and such.

[l'Enfermé]

Well presumably the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie have their own class interests, yes?

I guess I can understand how the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie align with the continuation of capitalism (although I imagine that to be signficantly tempered by circumstances - self-employed vs small business owner, for example), but I'm having trouble conceptualising how that is the case for the peasant class.
I think this whole "worker-peasant alliance!" stuff is pure delusion. An alliance between the poor peasants and the proletariat is of course a neccesity in the countries where the peasantry is still a significant force, but what happens when the proletariat wins power and overthrows bourgeoisie supremacy? As soon as the land is given to the peasants, the peasantry loses all interest in supporting proletarian supremacy - the "poor peasant" almost vanishes. This is exactly what happened during the October revolution. The class-conscious worker(at this point a majority of the working class in the empire), leading the peasant, carried out the revolution. The land was given to the peasants, and almost immediaitely the bulk peasantry turned on the proletariat. The cities began starving, and circumstances forced the Bolsheviks to send armed workers into the countryside to requisition grain at gunpoint. The peasants were so opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat that by 1920, the Bolsheviks had to put them down with fucking chemical weapons.


I'd like you to explain to me, as myself coming from a peasant background, and still having family who are, how exactly those working/living on a ranch, farm, etc. is a threat to the proletariate in a revolutionary situation? I've never been able to understand any of the so called "leftist" rhetoric, that said the peasantry was a threat, rather than a possible ally. Everyone I've read and heard talk down about the peasantry, just sounds so disconnected with what the peasantry actually thinks (or can with the proper agitation), that they just seem to get egg on their faces. And then it's no wonder why those who hear this "leftist" rhetoric, feel alienated and against Communism.

I mean, who's to say in a revolutionary situation, those peasants who work on the ranch, farm, etc. don't just expropriate the land from the ranch/farm owner(s)? Urban workers can't be everywhere, so why not use the rural agrarian workers as a revolutionary force themselves? It just seems illogical to me.
Those who work on a ranch/farm/etc are agricultural laborers. They're proletarians. I assume that you're from a Western country, and here in the West, the peasantry no longer exists. There's a difference between proletarians that work in agriculture and peasants, the two are completely different.

[Welshy]

But you see, they are similar to the petite-bourgeois and the working class, you just don't have the experience of what it is to be a peasant, and a lot of Marxists and Anarchists don't, so don't think I'm singling you out. A lot of what Anarchism and Marxism talk about, is about the urban centers, and not so much about the rural ones. But as someone who's lived a peasant's life for more than just a week or few months (I'm talking years of my childhood,) I can tell you that the divisions that make up Ruling and Working classes in urban areas, are the same as the division between those in rural areas who own land, and the peasantry.

Let's not go done this path (referring to what I bolded) or else then no one here would be able to talk about stuff out side of what their experiences are. I'm not denying those divisions, if fact I agree with you they existed from the beginning. At this point we are just arguing semantics of the term peasantry, which I feel is pointless since we both agree that the landless peasantry in countries where the peasantry exists a sizeable force can play a role in attacking capitalism and the remnants of pre-capitalist class societies in the countryside, where as the landed peasantry cannot as they are effectively the petty bourgeoisie of the country side.




And just to point out, most small farm owners nowadays barely make anything from their farms alone. They have to look elsewhere for something to help sustain them, they can't just look to their small farm to keep their head above water. It's a big mistake to say they'd be in the way, when in reality, they're some of the weakest of the ruling class, and are hanging on to their positions by a thread which could snap at anytime.

The urban petty bourgeoisie run into this problem too, but they have shown themselves to be reactionary quite frequently and by the time the revolution comes around it is possible that they may still have hopes connected to their ability to own land and will be unwilling to give that up.




Then a lot of Communist theorists, are guilty of a "no true scotsman fallacy". Plenty of theorists used words that were considered to be used this way, but instead used another that would be seen as a "fallacy", in their writings. It happens a lot in Philosophy too, like with Absurdism, Existentialism, etc.

I think it is important though when discussing with people who don't share your same economic/political philosophy to try to establish the definitions of the important terms you are going to use. I think our disagreement over the use of peasantry is clear example of why this is useful. But when you say "actual/ true X are Y" you run into the issue of no true scotsman if no agreed upon definition has been reached between the two people and one is using the most common. But I think it should be clear now that me and you are both talking about the landless peasantry and not the landed peasantry, so I don't think we are in disagreement really anymore.



I simply see a division like any other socio-economic sphere. There's the ones who own, and the ones who don't. Those who own land for farming/ranching, aren't peasants, and might as well be called Rural Petite-Bourgeois/Bourgeois, because that's basically what they are in simple terms. Just like urban owners, are Petite-Bourgeois or just Bourgeois, separate from the Urban Working Class.

I don't see how what I said was a fallacy, just because I don't agree with the norm of what a "Peasant" is defined as in a society like we all live. A point of being a Leftist, is showing how these groups are really divided and what can be done about it, and clearing up what the Ruling Class tries to blur out.

addressed this above. Hopefully we have reached a consensus on this issue



Like I said in the beginning, I have a real problem with how (some) Marxists define the Peasantry as a class to be oppressed, because a lot of them don't even understand outside of some poor definition in a book. Having come from a peasant background myself, I don't see the peasantry life, the same way as someone from a city who's had no experience dealing or talking to peasantry, does. Like anything, if you want to get a real view of it, personal to yourself and cut out all the opinions and ideas on something, you have to go out into the world and experience it yourself. Seeing what peasantry is, and the dynamics of it, will show you something different than what you're used to thinking and defining it as.

To avoid further semantic argument I will use your definition of peasantry and in which case I don't disagree with you.




Then I think we agree, organizing it all into large scale farming under modern ways is the way to go, although I don't see a problem with dividing it amongst the peasants, since they'd be the ones to work it and organize it to these new ways, and know how to do it the smoothest than those who had no history with agrarian tools and such.

I think it would cause issues because eventually we will probably have to turn those farms into large scale farms (unless there ends up being no need for this) in which case you would have to once again expropriate the land. This would the now landed peasants at odds with modern agriculture most likely causing a social rift to form and create unnecessary instability for a post revolutionary society that will already have a lot of work cut out for it.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think the ICC and the ICT could merge since it seems like they have different ways of organizing...

This may be true. But there's something of a longstanding joke that the ICC sections should have all applied to join the IBRP.

I don't have a complete fusion in mind; but one organisation with, if you like, a 'Battaglia' faction and an 'International Review' faction would be more useful than two organisations.

Let's face it, when the World Party is founded, it will be by the working class, but the bricks it uses to build the world party will come from the existing organisations to a great extent. Individual militants will come from everywhere but the organisations they coalesce around will be, or be derived from, the already-existing organisations of militants.


... and it seems like their approaches to interventions are too different...

I don't think this is true. I think that the priorities they have given the resources of each organisation are different, but I think that each organisation, were it able, would be both publishing and intervening as much as possible.


... However I think it is ridiculous that [they] can['t] work together or be closer fraternal groups as I think both offer quite a bit (ICC with its large amount of educational resources and the ICT with its organizing strategy).

I agree that closer co-operation is essential, but it's difficult to see where that process is going to start.


... But it seems like at least the ICC is too sectarian to work with the ICT, which is a shame.

I really don't think this is the case. I first came accross the then IBRP because of the ICC, it was ICC militants and sympathisers who (pretty constantly) told me to read the IBRP press, take positions on the IBRP's material, contact them etc. Over the last 12 years, the ICC has been adamant that I and my comrades (who are not in the ICC) should maintain a relationship with the ICT (which we have). In fact, one ICC militant I know pretty well flat out asked my why I haven't applied to join the CWO. I'm aware of many attempts that the ICC has made to issue joint statements or do joint work, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss them as 'too sectarian'.

Yes, there is a lot of bad blood on both sides going back to the 1970s (maybe in Paris and Rome, there's bad blood going back to 1943, I'm not really sure) - a couple of years ago I was in a meeting with 5 ICTers, 5 ICCers, 1 IPer and 4 ex-CBGers and there was a lot of discussion on who said and did what in 1976; having said that I think a great deal of progress was also made - but the fundamental problem seems to be that each organisation thinks the other has written the other off. Until the notion is revived that 'the communist left' and indeed proletarian politics is more important than either organisation, I'm not confident that any progress will be made.

[Welshy]

This may be true. But there's something of a longstanding joke that the ICC sections should have all applied to join the IBRP.

I don't have a complete fusion in mind; but one organisation with, if you like, a 'Battaglia' faction and an 'International Review' faction would be more useful than two organisations.

I agree it would be nice if they were to function like this, but I'm kinda hesitant to say it would work.



Let's face it, when the World Party is founded, it will be by the working class, but the bricks it uses to build the world party will come from the existing organisations to a great extent. Individual militants will come from everywhere but the organisations they coalesce around will be, or be derived from, the already-existing organisations of militants.

Completely agree




I don't think this is true. I think that the priorities they have given the resources of each organisation are different, but I think that each organisation, were it able, would be both publishing and intervening as much as possible.

I meant the actual methods they employ when intervening.




I agree that closer co-operation is essential, but it's difficult to see where that process is going to start.

I think it might be the job of leftcoms and leftcom sympathizers who are supportive of both groups but won't join either to work to bring them together. Unfortunately both groups on pretty much non-existant in the US, so it doesn't really matter for me I guess :/ .





I really don't think this is the case. I first came accross the then IBRP because of the ICC, it was ICC militants and sympathisers who (pretty constantly) told me to read the IBRP press, take positions on the IBRP's material, contact them etc. Over the last 12 years, the ICC has been adamant that I and my comrades (who are not in the ICC) should maintain a relationship with the ICT (which we have). In fact, one ICC militant I know pretty well flat out asked my why I haven't applied to join the CWO. I'm aware of many attempts that the ICC has made to issue joint statements or do joint work, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss them as 'too sectarian'.

Yes, there is a lot of bad blood on both sides going back to the 1970s (maybe in Paris and Rome, there's bad blood going back to 1943, I'm not really sure) - a couple of years ago I was in a meeting with 5 ICTers, 5 ICCers, 1 IPer and 4 ex-CBGers and there was a lot of discussion on who said and did what in 1976; having said that I think a great deal of progress was also made - but the fundamental problem seems to be that each organisation thinks the other has written the other off. Until the notion is revived that 'the communist left' and indeed proletarian politics is more important than either organisation, I'm not confident that any progress will be made.

Thanks for this info, but I have seen cases where the ICC did behave in a sectarian way and kinda opportunistic way in respect to the ICT. However both sides will need to get over these sectarian issues if any progress in loosely uniting them will be made.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What are the organisational differences between the ICC and ICT?

I called myself - very mistakenly - a left communist for a while, probably because I did that whole thing where I read Luxemburg, liked Luxemburg, saw her as the left-opposition and presumed myself a 'left communist'. I still like council communism I must say, but it seems to me as though Bordigism dominates the left-communist current, and it certainly transcends libertarianism, though of course I still see left-communists as allies, purely because their theory is acceptable and they are comradely to other Socialists on the 'left'-wing of communism.

[Art Vandelay]

I understand the concept of the State being an instrument of class oppression, and of there being no State when our revolutionary goals are met. Perhaps I'm using the wrong language to describe my thoughts then :lol: - what I am thinking of is the administrative body (devoid of all class rule) that is present after the dictatorship of the proletariat that manages planning, production, etc.

Well I guess that would depend on what your positions is one the whole socialism/communism distinction, but there will be no state in communism. The state (since it is an organ of class rule and the proletariat has succeeded in its role of abolishing all other class, including itself) the state will whither away. You can't have an institution, which is a by product of class society (the state), in a classless and stateless society.


That was a very thought-provoking quote, yes, and it does make a compelling case. I suppose what I'm thinking of when I talk about "anti-authoritarianism" is the society that we will have after the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat should not have any remnants of the harsh measures that we took to dispose of the bourgeoisie. I'm concerned that the police-like powers that we may use (yes, which I agree may be necessary in the short-term if the material conditions dictate that they would save the revolution) would become inadvertently institutionalized and become the norm, rather than have them disappear with the bourgeoisie.

But you would need a state to enforce those measures which perhaps you deem un-desirable; as I have shown above, it would be impossible, since the state will have withered away.


I suppose that I am referring to this - that we, as revolutionaries, are dedicated to liberating the proletariat, and creating an environment wherein certain people (the bourgeois, bourgeois-sympathizing, anti-revolutionaries, and so on) are prosecuted with police-state-like powers sounds inherently "anti-liberty". Does that make sense? I realize that that might sound idealistic and romanticized though :rolleyes:

Well as a communist, I strive for liberty only for the working class and its allies.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is no unity of the "libertarian left". Only real numpties like Chomsky believe that.

I remember reading in "Government In the Future" that people Rosa Luxemburg and the anarchists had differences, but these were "comradely" differences. That's the same Rosa Luxemburg who once refered to anarchism as the "ideological signboard of the counter-revolutionary lumpenproletariat". Other writers were even less kind. :rolleyes:

Differences are actually a good thing, though. Sometimes when differences are expressed by someone who thinks they're a polemical mastermind and the next Lenin, though, it's obnoxious, but generally an atmosphere of debate and criticism allows for the positive development of ideas and theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In fact even in the real libertarian left (anarchism) there are serious ideological differences, with the Anarkismo/Common Struggle/WSM types on one side, and the insurrectionaries/anarcho-vandals/make-total-destroy crowd on the other.

[Welshy]

What are the organisational differences between the ICC and ICT?

Well the ICC disallows members to join unions unless their job requires it, where as the ICT has no such rule. The ICT advocates the formation of Work place and Regional groups/circles (if you are curious about this I can see if I can find more info on what these entail and how its different from the ICC).

Also I can send you a post an italian ICT member made at r3dmarx if you are interested.



I called myself - very mistakenly - a left communist for a while, probably because I did that whole thing where I read Luxemburg, liked Luxemburg, saw her as the left-opposition and presumed myself a 'left communist'. I still like council communism I must say, but it seems to me as though Bordigism dominates the left-communist current, and it certainly transcends libertarianism, though of course I still see left-communists as allies, purely because their theory is acceptable and they are comradely to other Socialists on the 'left'-wing of communism.

It's really just on revleft where bordigism is popular. Out side of italy it doesn't really have a presence. The ICC and ICT are like a mid way point between the italian communist left and the German/dutch communist left. With in these groups you can get people who identify more with one tradition over another though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

but it seems to me as though Bordigism dominates the left-communist current

Really? I would disagree with you there, actually. Most Left Comms agree with the party, oppose participating in bourgeois trade unions and parliaments, and are for centralization but that doesn't mean it is Bordigist. If anything, I think Bordigism is a minority of left-com.

[JPSartre12]

The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't just about getting rid of the bourgeois class, but also about getting rid of other classes (including the proletariat). When this happens, the state, necessarily an organ of class rule, will disappear along with classes. This isn't, by the way, a utopian idea, but a prediction based off the study off historical events of the state.

Again, you are viewing this outside of material conditions. If these conditions make it necessary of police-state measures to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, then they should most certainly be used. Of course, we would take every step to try to avoid wasting men and material on a Cheka-like institution (which most certainly would take men and material that could have been used for something more productive) but if it is necessary then, again, why not?


I agree with you for the most part, but perhaps you can help me with this...

Let's say we have a revolution, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. We successfully abolish all classes and, by extension, the State. Throughout this entire process, we did use police-like Cheka institution (a very illustrative term to use, I think, to describe what we're discussing!) to stamp out all bourgeois-sympathizing, reactionary, and anti-revolutionary forces.

What is to stop the administrative, proletarian-run body that replaced that State from retaining such a police-like institution so as to perpetually "be on the look-out", so to speak, for bourgeois or pro-capitalist elements? I feel as if one could use the phrase "material conditions" at nearly any point in time so as to justify the retention of such a Cheka. Do we have a guarantee that it would dissolve with classes and the State other than the abstract notion, or is there a distinct possibility that it would remain?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I agree with you for the most part, but perhaps you can help me with this...

Let's say we have a revolution, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. We successfully abolish all classes and, by extension, the State. Throughout this entire process, we did use police-like Cheka institution (a very illustrative term to use, I think, to describe what we're discussing!) to stamp out all bourgeois-sympathizing, reactionary, and anti-revolutionary forces.

What is to stop the administrative, proletarian-run body that replaced that State from retaining such a police-like institution so as to perpetually "be on the look-out", so to speak, for bourgeois or pro-capitalist elements? I feel as if one could use the phrase "material conditions" at nearly any point in time so as to justify the retention of such a Cheka. Do we have a guarantee that it would dissolve with classes and the State other than the abstract notion, or is there a distinct possibility that it would remain?

Well, first off, the analysis that the state will wither away with classes is not an abstract notion, but an idea based on the study of how the state operates and it's history.

Second, we cannot guarantee anything because we cannot predict the future, but if a "Cheka-like" force still exists in society, then the state will almost certainly exist as well. If the state exists, then communism doesn't exist, thus somewhat making your concern a non-issue.

[Zanthorus]

revleft where bordigism is popular

I'll believe it when I see any of our so-called Bordigists take up the same positions as Bordiga on issues like activism or democracy.


Most Left Comms agree with the party, oppose participating in bourgeois trade unions and parliaments, and are for centralization but that doesn't mean it is Bordigist.

Not least because Bordiga supported intervention in trade-unions and had an understanding of the party at odds with most of the modern Communist Left. Seriously people, Bordiga's ideas were a little more than just 'Leninism plus opposition to parliament'.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'll believe it when I see any of our so-called Bordigists take up the same positions as Bordiga on issues like activism or democracy.

I agree with Bordiga on democracy, in fact I have constantly taken his position.




Not least because Bordiga supported intervention in trade-unions and had an understanding of the party at odds with most of the modern Communist Left.

Yeah, no shit. I agree with Bordiga on the party, not on trade unions (and don't try to say he was for participating in bourgeois parliaments because he was apart of the abstentionist faction of the Italian socialist party.)


Seriously people, Bordiga's ideas were a little more than just 'Leninism plus opposition to parliament and the unions'.

And me and Welshy know this. We know Bordiga believed the party finds the class. We know Bordiga thought that democratic decision-making wasn't applicable in all material conditions and that, if we mean democracy to mean "the rule of all people" and consequently the rule of all classes then communists are anti-democracy, seeking the rule of the proletariat over that of the bourgeoisie and if democracy is to mean "the rule of the majority" then the democrats should stand on our class side. Yes, we know what Bordigism is, who Bordiga was, etc. I don't know why the fuck you think that we have to somehow justify ourselves to you, but whatever. It's good to know that someone who hasn't been active in a long time can make assumptions about people based on 1 or 2 posts.

If you want, I maintain the Bordigist and Bordiga Literati groups. You should join.

[JPSartre12]

Well, first off, the analysis that the state will wither away with classes is not an abstract notion, but an idea based on the study of how the state operates and it's history.

Second, we cannot guarantee anything because we cannot predict the future, but if a "Cheka-like" force still exists in society, then the state will almost certainly exist as well. If the state exists, then communism doesn't exist, thus somewhat making your concern a non-issue.

Hmm, I suppose that does makes sense! Thank you.

Do you think that there would be any sort of "police" (for lack of a better term) or enforcing justice system after the State and classes have dissolved, or would the presence of such imply that the State is really still present in some form?

[Welshy]

Zanthorus who let you out of your cage! Here take some anime and hegel and sit in the corner and think about you have done. :p
I'll believe it when I see any of our so-called Bordigists take up the same positions as Bordiga on issues like activism or democracy.

We'll see. Though it's not like the issue of activism has come up lately and they are still learning. I mean I might not be the best left communist sometimes, but thats largely because I'm still learning and sometimes I prefer being an asshole and complaining than learn. Also this reminds me I already have Iskra and Android on skype, I need to get you and some others now so I can squeeze some knowledge out of your nerdy brain lol.




Not least because Bordiga supported intervention in trade-unions and had an understanding of the party at odds with most of the modern Communist Left. Seriously people, Bordiga's ideas were a little more than just 'Leninism plus opposition to parliament'.

yeah, I think this issue with how Bordiga is being represented is probably because we are all still learning. You know what would help though is if you would take part in the bordiga groups rather than deride people who are learning.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Hmm, I suppose that does makes sense! Thank you.

Do you think that there would be any sort of "police" (for lack of a better term) or enforcing justice system after the State and classes have dissolved, or would the presence of such imply that the State is really still present in some form?

I am in no way smart enough to make some prediction about the future like this. ;)

[Zanthorus]

and don't try to say he was for participating in bourgeois parliaments because he was apart of the abstentionist faction of the Italian socialist party.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was going to say anything like that, although if you want to go there, Bordiga was the de facto leader of the PCd'I when they gave in to the demands of the Comintern to send delegates to the Italian parliament and he consistently tried to make out early on that the dispute on the question of parliament wasn't a dispute over fundamentals.


We know Bordiga believed the party finds the class. We know Bordiga thought that democratic decision-making wasn't applicable in all material conditions and that, if we mean democracy to mean "the rule of all people" and consequently the rule of all classes then communists are anti-democracy, seeking the rule of the proletariat over that of the bourgeoisie and if democracy is to mean "the rule of the majority" then the democrats should stand on our class side.Bordiga is actually famous for summarising his view as being that the party is the class ("This evident truth would have been better emphasised if it had been pointed out that one cannot even speak of a class unless a minority of this class tending to organise itself into a political party has come into existence." - Partito e Classe). As for the rest, Bordiga's critique of democracy was based on the idea that it was grounded philosophically in the idea of an abstract pre-social man, in the same way that Adam Smith's economic theory appeals first to Robinson Crusoe on his island, a man (Supposedly, although Marx points out that even with Crusoe, the social productive forces of contemporary English society were crucial to shaping his existence) existing prior to society, and then hypothesises their connection, whereas Marxism begins it's analysis with social forms of life. I suppose this understanding is latently evident in the statement that the application of democracy depends on 'material conditions', although the latter part of your statement, that an understanding of democracy as the 'rule of the majority' should lead democrats to support 'our' class side, is blatantly false unless you are perhaps willing to consider that Kautsky was correct in his evaluation of the Russian revolution.


Yes, we know what Bordigism is, who Bordiga was, etc. I don't know why the fuck you think that we have to somehow justify ourselves to you, but whatever. It's good to know that someone who hasn't been active in a long time can make assumptions about people based on 1 or 2 posts.I think you need to calm down.


Zanthorus who let you out of your cage!

Would you believe me if I told you that it was thanks to Die Neue Zeit?


You know what would help though is if you would take part in the bordiga groups rather than deride people who are learning.

Perhaps. I am currently engaged in writing an article on Bordiga's understanding of democracy, so I guess that could count as my being constructive rather than purely negative. I mean, I know I've been saying I'd do something like that for at least half a year now, but this time I'm definitely doing it because I've already got the introduction typed out and I can't live with the guilty conscious of an introduction without a proper elaboration on my head!

[Welshy]

Would you believe me if I told you that it was thanks to Die Neue Zeit?

haha, well now that you are out you need to play nice with the other kids or you will have to go to bed with no hegel tonight (I know I said you get hegel in your corner, but I'm mean like that).




Perhaps. I am currently engaged in writing an article on Bordiga's understanding of democracy, so I guess that could count as my being constructive rather than purely negative. I mean, I know I've been saying I'd do something like that for at least half a year now, but this time I'm definitely doing it because I've already got the introduction typed out and I can't live with the guilty conscious of an introduction without a proper elaboration on my head!

That is definitely useful. If you need someone to proof read let me know (I've had to do that a bit for my internship so doing it again wouldn't be an issue) and if not I still want to see it when you are done.

But still you should open some threads in the Bordigist group to discuss the parts of Bordiga's ideas you think are misunderstood or at least not fully understood here.

[JPSartre12]

I am in no way smart enough to make some prediction about the future like this. ;)

Haha well thanks for the input anyway, comrade :)

I'd like to think that such in a historical phase people would have such a different mindset (no concept of greed, of the profit motive, of hoarding and cruelty, of war, etc) that there wouldn't even be a need to have such institutions. Although that probably does sound a tad idealistic :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think this whole "worker-peasant alliance!" stuff is pure delusion. An alliance between the poor peasants and the proletariat is of course a neccesity in the countries where the peasantry is still a significant force, but what happens when the proletariat wins power and overthrows bourgeoisie supremacy? As soon as the land is given to the peasants, the peasantry loses all interest in supporting proletarian supremacy - the "poor peasant" almost vanishes. This is exactly what happened during the October revolution. The class-conscious worker(at this point a majority of the working class in the empire), leading the peasant, carried out the revolution. The land was given to the peasants, and almost immediaitely the bulk peasantry turned on the proletariat. The cities began starving, and circumstances forced the Bolsheviks to send armed workers into the countryside to requisition grain at gunpoint. The peasants were so opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat that by 1920, the Bolsheviks had to put them down with fucking chemical weapons.

Right, but that doesn't tell me why shit like that happened. Are peasants just naturally uppity about those city-slickin' proletarians, or are there structural reasons for the peasant class feeling the need to antagonise the proletariat following the removal of the bourgeoisie as an immediate concern?

Because unless the source of the anatagonism is some intractably intrinsic trait, it seems to me that the negative reaction of the peasant classes to the political ascendancy of the proletariat can be mitigated to a degree by purposeful shaping of the sociopolitical environment. With the increasing urbanisation (and to varying degrees concomitant proletarianisation) of the world's population, it would be easier for a global proletariat developing a revolutionary consciousness to achieve such shaping attempts.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, that's socialism. We don't know what 'libertarian socialism' means, as that would imply there is such a thing as 'imprisonatarian socialism' or something, which there isn't. If socialism doesn't aim at the liberation of humanity, it's not socialism. The adjective 'libertarian' therefore has no meaning in this context. It's either socialism, or not socialism.

I'm inclined to agree. If the Socialist movement, to the extent any such thing can be said to exist, ever hopes to achieve said liberation, it will necessitate a decisive break with the motley collection of despots, and their admirers (There's quite a few of them floating about.) who have usurped the mantle of Socialism, the same individuals who have often been, and continue to be the most effective impediments to the liberation of the working class. However; this is not likely to occur today, or tomorrow, etc. Thus; for the time being, I think there is value in planting my flag squarely in the former camp, if for no other reason than to dissociate myself from the Stalinoids.

[l'Enfermé]

Right, but that doesn't tell me why shit like that happened. Are peasants just naturally uppity about those city-slickin' proletarians, or are there structural reasons for the peasant class feeling the need to antagonise the proletariat following the removal of the bourgeoisie as an immediate concern?

Because unless the source of the anatagonism is some intractably intrinsic trait, it seems to me that the negative reaction of the peasant classes to the political ascendancy of the proletariat can be mitigated to a degree by purposeful shaping of the sociopolitical environment. With the increasing urbanisation (and to varying degrees concomitant proletarianisation) of the world's population, it would be easier for a global proletariat developing a revolutionary consciousness to achieve such shaping attempts.
I remember a pretty decent lecture by I think Mike Macnair where he talks in detail about why these antagonisms between the peasantry and the victories proletariat develop. If I find it I'll post a link on your profile later, it actually changed my views on the question of a long-lasting worker-peasant alliance.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

although the latter part of your statement, that an understanding of democracy as the 'rule of the majority' should lead democrats to support 'our' class side, is blatantly false unless you are perhaps willing to consider that Kautsky was correct in his evaluation of the Russian revolution.

Interesting...


If the word democracy means power of the majority, the democrats should stand on our class side. But this word both in its literal sense ("power of the people") as well as in the dirty use that is more and more being made of it, means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this historical reason, just as we reject "bourgeois democracy" and "democracy in general" (as Lenin also did), we must politically and theoretically exclude, as a contradiction in terms, "class democracy" and "workers' democracy".

From Proletariat Dictatorship and Class Party by Amadeo Bordiga (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm)



Perhaps. I am currently engaged in writing an article on Bordiga's understanding of democracy

Cool. Send me a copy for sure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I remember a pretty decent lecture by I think Mike Macnair where he talks in detail about why these antagonisms between the peasantry and the victories proletariat develop. If I find it I'll post a link on your profile later, it actually changed my views on the question of a long-lasting worker-peasant alliance.

I'd be interested to see it.

[Magón]

Those who work on a ranch/farm/etc are agricultural laborers. They're proletarians. I assume that you're from a Western country, and here in the West, the peasantry no longer exists. There's a difference between proletarians that work in agriculture and peasants, the two are completely different.

I'm pretty sure I know the dividing line between peasant and migrant workers, having like I said, come from the peasant class myself. In the US, all there is anymore is migrant workers, there is no peasant class, and hasn't been for a long time.

But in places like Mexico (where I'm from originally,) and other Latin American countries, there is very much still a group of people that can be (and are) defined as peasantry. Those laborers you see in California, working the fields, they're just migrant workers. Those laborers you see in Mexico, most likely to be peasants, except for the more northern parts, where it's less likely.

Mexico, for all that it's been through, has never lost it's peasant class in the southern and central parts of the country. They've shrunk in size, no doubt, but aren't gone completely.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I remember a pretty decent lecture by I think Mike Macnair where he talks in detail about why these antagonisms between the peasantry and the victories proletariat develop. If I find it I'll post a link on your profile later, it actually changed my views on the question of a long-lasting worker-peasant alliance.

It is from Mike Macnair's critique of Permanent Revolution.

http://vimeo.com/14808875

[l'Enfermé]

It is from Mike Macnair's critique of Permanent Revolution.

http://vimeo.com/14808875
I watched this one too and he touches the subject briefly but this is not the one I'm talking about, I think.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I watched this one too and he touches the subject briefly but this is not the one I'm talking about, I think.

Is it from CU videos or is it an article?

[Blake's Baby]

What are the organisational differences between the ICC and ICT?...

The ICC is a centralised international organisation; the ICT is more like federation of local groups.


...I called myself - very mistakenly - a left communist for a while, probably because I did that whole thing where I read Luxemburg, liked Luxemburg, saw her as the left-opposition and presumed myself a 'left communist'. I still like council communism I must say, but it seems to me as though Bordigism dominates the left-communist current...

I think this is radically false. In the UK there are 5 organisations that may lay claim to the heritage of the Communist Left, Dutch, German, and Italian; the remains of the CBG (exact status currently undetermined), the ICC, the CWO, Internationalist Perspectives, and the International Communist Party (I think, the faction around 'Programma' but I'm not sure) and only one of these is Bordigist. There are about thirty times more non-Bordigists as Bordigists in groups in the UK. Even taking all of the Bordigist groups together, there aren't very many and they almost all are in Italy. Bordiga's ideas may (or may not) be relevant and useful to today's revolutionaries and the working class as a whole, but 'Bordigism' as a current is pretty much dead. I'd argue that Luxemburg is a much greater influence than Bordiga on contemporary Left Communism (it's not so long since I stopped calling myself a Luxemburgist, and I haven't changed my politics at all since I did; just, as Luxemburgist, 'Left Communist' is a better description of my politics).


...and it certainly transcends libertarianism, though of course I still see left-communists as allies, purely because their theory is acceptable and they are comradely to other Socialists on the 'left'-wing of communism.

De Leonists, Impossibilists, Council Communists, and some Anarchist Communists, is that?

For most Left Communists I'd think, internationalism is the most important principle. Organisations that don't call on workers to defend bourgeois states or any 'actually existing socialism' tend to get a slightly better reception than cheerleaders for the murder of workers. Coz we're Luxemburgists, see?

[citizen of industry]

Right, but that doesn't tell me why shit like that happened. Are peasants just naturally uppity about those city-slickin' proletarians, or are there structural reasons for the peasant class feeling the need to antagonise the proletariat following the removal of the bourgeoisie as an immediate concern?

Because unless the source of the anatagonism is some intractably intrinsic trait, it seems to me that the negative reaction of the peasant classes to the political ascendancy of the proletariat can be mitigated to a degree by purposeful shaping of the sociopolitical environment. With the increasing urbanisation (and to varying degrees concomitant proletarianisation) of the world's population, it would be easier for a global proletariat developing a revolutionary consciousness to achieve such shaping attempts.

How much of an issue is this in developed countries? At least where I'm at, agriculture has been almost wholly subsumed by capitalism, and is conducted on a mass scale. What few "peasants" remain produce strictly for themselves, giving any surplus firstly to their families and then to co-ops to sell on the market. And their land is sold when they pass away, because their children aren't farmers.At least where I'm at, peasantry doesn't constitute a class numerous enough to have a political voice. History has passed them by and agriculture is big capital.