What exactly is Left Communism?

[Philosophos]

What exactly is it because I had a discussion yesterday and I'm not sure if my opinion is the proper one or not...

[Soomie]

I found this on another post by the member RedLenin:

"Anarcho-Communism - Feels that the proletariat must liberate itself from capitalist oppression and smash the state. Further, anarcho-communists believe that a workers state should not be established, as anarchists define the state only as rule by a minority. Hence, according to anarchists, it would be impossible for a majority class to control a state. Anarcho-communists also feel that the abolition of money is very important and should take place as soon as possible. They don't believe in a seperate 'transition stage' but instead see the revolution as a long process that will result in communism.

Left Communists - Consider themselves Marxists but not Leninists, Trotskyists, or Stalinists. Like anarchists, they believe that the Proletariat itself must liberate itself from capitalist oppression and must smash the capitalist state. Left communists believe that the Proletariat must establish a workers state. However, as to ensure rule by the entirity of the class, left communists propose that the workers state must be a direct democracy based on workers councils. These councils would be composed of elected and recallable delegates. The difference with anarchism is mainly a difference in definition. Left Communists are Marxists and, as such, define the state as the oppression of one class by another. Hence, to them, a workers state is a direct democracy of the workers where a monopoly on force is put in the hands of the workers councils. Hence, a proletariat state is not a contradiction, as anarchists contend. Plus, left communists typically reject unions and participation in bourgeois elections.

Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism - Trotskyists follow Marxism as well as the contributions of Lenin and Trotsky to Marxist theory. They believe in the vangaurd party as the advanced element of the Proletariat that will lead the class in the revolution. Trotskyists also emphasize workers democracy and class rule. However, unlike left communists, Trotskyists do believe in participating in bourgeois elections, working in the unions, and the necessity of a vanguard party. The most important feature of Trotskyism is its emphasis on revolution being international. According to Trotskyists, like Left communists and anarchists, socialism is international or it is not socialism at all.

Stalinism - Claims to follow Marx and Lenin but virtually ignores everything written by them that emphasizes democracy and class rule. Follows the theory of Socialism in One Country, that claims that socialism can exist in one nation before it becomes international. Stalinists believe in an extremely long transition period of 'socialism' where the 'workers state', which is controled by buerocrats acting in the name of the workers, suppresses all 'counter revolution' and helps the nations economy. Stalinism also advocates the suppression of supposedly 'counter revolutionary' speech and ideas. Essentially, Stalinism supports totalitarian rule by a vanguard.

Maosim - Basically the same as Stalinism, but places more emphasis on the peasantry and guerrilla warfare.

Those are the main branches of Communism. Those definitions are based partly on my opinion, so some people may disagree with some of them. I am flirting between Left Communism and Trotskyism at the moment."

[Soomie]

There really is a broad spectrum to all of this. I haven't even begun to realize where I would fit in with my ideals.

[Zanthorus]

The definition proposed by Soomie/RedLenin is accurate to a limited extent but it doesn't really get to the root of the matter. 'Left-Communism' as it is usually used today is actually a broad term for a number of currents that emerged in the late 1910's in a number of countries (Chiefly the Netherlands/Germany, Italy, Britain and to some extent Russia itself) that supported the formation of the Communist International (Hence 'Communist') but had positions that were considered left deviations by the main current of thought within the Comintern (Hence 'Left'). The exact nature of the deviations differed from country to country, the 'Bordigists' in Italy were mostly focused on the question of abstention from parliament, whereas the German/Dutch Left were also opposed to participation in the established trade union apparatus.

Originally, these currents were actually hostile to one another - the Italian Left considered the Dutch/German Left 'Syndicalist' and the Dutch/German Left saw the Italian Left as extremist Leninists. Through the passage of time however groups emerged who attempted to synthesise the contributions of both currents into one all-encompassing 'Left Communism'. The two most prominent Left Communist organisations today are the International Communist Current and the Internationalist Communist Tendency. You can find their programmatic material and articles from their journals online if you're interested in finding out more about these groups.

As an addendum, it is important to note that groups who had what may have been superficially similar positions to 'Left Communist' groups but who have no connection to the specific historical current mentioned above are not usually counted as such. Personally I would say that in a modern context, the term only has meaning applied to the ICC/ICT and their members.

[newdayrising]

Zanthorus, so you don't really consider the Bordiguists left communists anymore? Why is that?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It's an infantile disorder.

[Geiseric]

Bordigaists are more Leninist, they were just sectarian when fascism was rising, and refused to work with social democrats during the factory occupations during the 30's. The Stalinists had the same policies in Germany.

A lot of left communists support Bukharin's attempts to invade Germany following the Russian Revolution. His bloc was for some reason the left communist bloc of the bolshevik party at that point.

Ultra Leftism is hardly unique to "Left Communists," though, it's basically whatever seems "More radical," than what the majority has decided on, when the majority is revolutionary, not opportunist. So you have to examine a case by case situations to really understand the gist of it. Stalinists were ultra left in Germany during the 1930s, however Stalinism is the most opportunist ideology that has sprouted out of Marxism.

In my personal experience, refusal to form a labor party in the US would be ultra left, because usually the conclusion people come to amounts to gypsy fortune telling, "It will become opportunist, look at labor in England." Direct Democracy, is fetishised among many left communists (they don't understand the idea of Delegation), but at the same time Bordigaists who consider themselves left, (because of the historical sectarianism, and Bordiga's splitting off from the International Left Opposition over the question of a united front) are on more or less the same page as regular Trotskyists about the question of democracy and soviets in general, as far as I know.

[helot]

It's an infantile disorder.

the irony is of course that such blanket dismissal without any sort of critique is itself infantile.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

the irony is of course that such blanket dismissal without any sort of critique is itself infantile.

It is not so much infantile as it is a joke.
It is a “reference” to Lenin's work about Left-Communism: an infantile disorder.

[SEKT]

I recommend you to read the response from the "Infantile" left communist to Lenin:

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

Basically their point is that what worked for the Bolsheviks is not necessary what applies for the whole world, but also a good critique in terms of the lack of knowledge of Lenin in terms of the concrete conditions of western europe working class and their revolutionary movement.

[helot]

It is not so much infantile as it is a joke.
It is a “reference” to Lenin's work about Left-Communism: an infantile disorder.


Yeah i know where it's from.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I recommend you to read the response from the "Infantile" left communist to Lenin:

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

Basically their point is that what worked for the Bolsheviks is not necessary what applies for the whole world, but also a good critique in terms of the lack of knowledge of Lenin in terms of the concrete conditions of western europe working class and their revolutionary movement.

It has been a while since I read it, but I'm pretty sure Lenin didn't argue that the revolution would go the same way everywhere.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Left Communists - Consider themselves Marxists but not Leninists, Trotskyists, or Stalinists.

Left Communists do not consider themselves Trotskyists or Stalinists, but some consider themselves Leninists.


However, as to ensure rule by the entirity of the class, left communists propose that the workers state must be a direct democracy based on workers councils. These councils would be composed of elected and recallable delegates.

Well, this is somewhat correct but somewhat wrong. Most Left Communists would rather say direct class rule or direct proletariat administration of the state apparatus rather than "direct democracy". Most Bordigists don't consider democracy to be a principle either, along with other Left Communists. Here is a quote by Bordiga.


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".

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


The difference with anarchism is mainly a difference in definition.

This is incorrect. Left Communists support the a transitional proletariat dictatorship and the creation of a party. While Left Communists and Anarchists generally consider each other allies, there are some very clear differences.


Plus, left communists typically reject unions and participation in bourgeois elections.

This is absolutely correct.

[The Douche]

It is not so much infantile as it is a joke.
It is a “reference” to Lenin's work about Left-Communism: an infantile disorder.

Have a verbal warning for one liners and flame baiting. This is learning, if you're not here to help, see yourself the fuck out.

[l'Enfermé]

I recommend you to read the response from the "Infantile" left communist to Lenin:

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

Basically their point is that what worked for the Bolsheviks is not necessary what applies for the whole world, but also a good critique in terms of the lack of knowledge of Lenin in terms of the concrete conditions of western europe working class and their revolutionary movement.
Stupid fucking Lenin, ignorant of the "concrete conditions" of the Western European proletariat and their revolutionary movement, even though he spent 1907 until 1917 in Western Europe, and most of the time between 1900 and 1905. Those ignorant Russian Marxists, so ignorant of Western affairs, even though all 4 of the RSDLP Party Congresses between 1899 and 1916 were held in Western Europe(Brussels in 1903, London in 1905, Stockholm in 1906, London again in 1907...).

Comrade Gorter was mistaken.

[SEKT]

By implying that because Lenin spent time on western europe it meant that knew the labor movement there you are saying nothing, it would be better that instead naming events you explain why "Comrade Gorter was mistaken", and specifically why his response to what Lenin claimed on the "Infantil disorder" is wrong.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Left Communism is a political tradition outside the mainstream of left politics. It was born from the "ultra left" factions within Comintern during it's first two congresses.
Left Communists are strict adherents to proleterian internationalism, and agree with Rosa Luxemburg that the principle of national self-determination is historically out-moded. Left-Communists support the Bolshevik Revolution historically, unlike Council Communists who dismiss it as bourgeois, but are also critical of Bolshevik rule. Contrary to popular belief, most left coms are not "anti-lenninists". Most are critical admirers of Leninism and the Italian tradition is strictly Leninist.
Left-Communists are anti-stalinist, but not Trotskyist. We see Stalinist USSR and it's puppet states as capitalist rather than "degenerated worker states". There are also important differences between Trotskyism and Left Communism other than historical positions. Left-Communists see some Trotskyists willingness to collaborate with Social-Democratic parties as class collaboration. Many left-communists see democracy as a mode of political organization that can be useful in certain contexts, but not a principle to base the revolutionary movement soley on.
Imporant influences to the movement are Luxemburg, the Workers Opposition and Worker's Group factions within the Communist party of the USSR, Gorter, and Bordiga.
If you want any suggestions on texts, I can send you some.

[hetz]

Stupid fucking Lenin, ignorant of the "concrete conditions" of the Western European proletariat and their revolutionary movement, even though he spent 1907 until 1917 in Western Europe, and most of the time between 1900 and 1905. Those ignorant Russian Marxists, so ignorant of Western affairs, even though all 4 of the RSDLP Party Congresses between 1899 and 1916 were held in Western Europe(Brussels in 1903, London in 1905, Stockholm in 1906, London again in 1907...).
But Gorter wrote that in 1920.
Anyway, does anyone know of any critique of that open letter?

[Pravda]

Why do left communists reject unions and participation in elections?

[Questionable]

Stalinism - Claims to follow Marx and Lenin but virtually ignores everything written by them that emphasizes democracy and class rule. Follows the theory of Socialism in One Country, that claims that socialism can exist in one nation before it becomes international. Stalinists believe in an extremely long transition period of 'socialism' where the 'workers state', which is controled by buerocrats acting in the name of the workers, suppresses all 'counter revolution' and helps the nations economy. Stalinism also advocates the suppression of supposedly 'counter revolutionary' speech and ideas. Essentially, Stalinism supports totalitarian rule by a vanguard.

Look, I'm going to get jumped on like I'm wearing a steak necklace in a room full of attack dogs, but for the purposes of a student learning leftism, this definition is biased and totally useless. Even the most ardent Anti-Stalinist should agree that this definition is no good.

If the OP wants to read more about Marxism-Leninism, for the sake of learning, he can look at "Foundations of Leninism" to get an ideal of Joseph Stalin's political thought. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but if the OP really wants to learn, he should take an objective look at Marxism-Leninism and draw his own conclusions, not buy into useless definitions that include words like, "totalitarian."

[Ostrinski]

Left communism is more of just a tradition rather than an actual strategical or ideological current like anarchism or Leninism.

[Blake's Baby]

Why do left communists reject unions and participation in elections?

Because we generally follow the analysis of the first and second congresses of the Third International. The 'epoch of wars and revolutions' has arrived (had arrived in the early 20th century) and the task of the proletariat isn't to struggle for reforms (better working conditions via trades' unionism, political influence in the bourgeois state via electoral politics), it's to work for the overthrow of capitalism.

Added to which, the unions integrated themselves in to national capitalism (hence the unions that became recruiting officers for capital in WWI) and betrayed the working class in the same way as the 'Socialist' parties did, and, as a form for grouping workers together, were replaced by the workers' council (soviet) as the form of workers' revolution.

Some of us don't have quite the same relationship to revolutionary syndicalism though. The IWW (for example) aren't in the same league as they never betrayed the working class by supporting bourgeois wars, and don't work to negotiate the sale of labour to capital.

[Pravda]

Then trough which channels do left communists want to work?

[The Douche]

Then trough which channels do left communists want to work?

Independent/organic expressions of the class, or through patties, depending on which flavor of left communism you subscribe to.

[l'Enfermé]

Because we generally follow the analysis of the first and second congresses of the Third International. The 'epoch of wars and revolutions' has arrived (had arrived in the early 20th century) and the task of the proletariat isn't to struggle for reforms (better working conditions via trades' unionism, political influence in the bourgeois state via electoral politics), it's to work for the overthrow of capitalism.

Added to which, the unions integrated themselves in to national capitalism (hence the unions that became recruiting officers for capital in WWI) and betrayed the working class in the same way as the 'Socialist' parties did, and, as a form for grouping workers together, were replaced by the workers' council (soviet) as the form of workers' revolution.

Some of us don't have quite the same relationship to revolutionary syndicalism though. The IWW (for example) aren't in the same league as they never betrayed the working class by supporting bourgeois wars, and don't work to negotiate the sale of labour to capital.
Yeah, it did arrive, but it passed now, don't you think so comrade? We have definitely not had a revolutionary period for the working class in the first world for a very, very, long time.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure how I can rationalise capitalism getting somehow less fucked up. That implies history is going backwards, and I don't think it can. The 'epoch of wars and revolutions' isn't like 'daylight' (now it is, but in 12 hours it won't be) it's more like 'the Age of Enlightenment' or something, a long period in which there are positives and negatives. To claim that 'the epoch of wars and revolutions' is over would be to claim that 1-capitalism has found a way to do without war; and 2-revolution is now impossible. Neither of things is true, so, no, we are still in the epoch of wars and revolutions.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm not sure how I can rationalise capitalism getting somehow less fucked up. That implies history is going backwards, and I don't think it can. The 'epoch of wars and revolutions' isn't like 'daylight' (now it is, but in 12 hours it won't be) it's more like 'the Age of Enlightenment' or something, a long period in which there are positives and negatives. To claim that 'the epoch of wars and revolutions' is over would be to claim that 1-capitalism has found a way to do without war; and 2-revolution is now impossible. Neither of things is true, so, no, we are still in the epoch of wars and revolutions.
There were plenty of wars and revolutions in the 19th century though, great proletarian uprising in 1830, 1848, 1871, etc, etc. By the "epoch of wars and revolutions" was meant that the first World War created a revolutionary period for the working class(which ended in the early 20s, after March 1921 or 1923 at the latest). The Bolsheviks in 1919 expected a French Soviet Republic by the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Paris Commune.

Only a madmen would expect a socialist Europe in 2 years time. The epoch of wars and revolutions of the 1910s and 1920s is definitely over; we haven't had a socialist revolution since the Spanish Civil War and we haven't had a war between advanced capitalist countries for 67 years.

[Blake's Baby]

There were plenty of wars and revolutions in the 19th century though, great proletarian uprising in 1830, 1848, 1871, etc, etc...

Hahahaha. You think?

Not really. The Paris Commune was the first proletarian revolution. Even 1848 was more or less the culmination of the bourgeois revolution.
If what you mean is 'before proletarian revolutions, there were bourgeois revolutions' then sure there were. But bourgeois revolutions are not like proletarian revolutions any more than the wars of the 20th century were like the wars of the 19th.




...

By the "epoch of wars and revolutions" was meant that the first World War created a revolutionary period for the working class(which ended in the early 20s, after March 1921 or 1923 at the latest). The Bolsheviks in 1919 expected a French Soviet Republic by the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Paris Commune...

No, the war didn't 'create' a revolutionary period, the war marked the descent of capitalism into the abyss, the final marker that it was no longer a progressive social system, it demonstrated the necessity of revolution but didn't create it.

Of course, you may believe that capitalism is a progressive social system, I don't know.


...Only a madmen would expect a socialist Europe in 2 years time. The epoch of wars and revolutions of the 1910s and 1920s is definitely over; we haven't had a socialist revolution since the Spanish Civil War and we haven't had a war between advanced capitalist countries for 67 years.

And why is that, do you think? Has capitalism solved its contradictions? Is the working class worldwide now so happy with its lot that it won't revolt?

Is it not on the other hand possible both that the proletariat has failed to make a revolution, while the bourgeoisie has simultaneously failed to engulf the world in another world war?

[l'Enfermé]

Hahahaha. You think?

Not really. The Paris Commune was the first proletarian revolution. Even 1848 was more or less the culmination of the bourgeois revolution.
If what you mean is 'before proletarian revolutions, there were bourgeois revolutions' then sure there were. But bourgeois revolutions are not like proletarian revolutions any more than the wars of the 20th century were like the wars of the 19th.
By 1830, I meant the 3 glorious days when proletarians of Paris fought on the barricades, July 27-29. By 1848 I meant the proletarian Parisian insurrection of June, the "the first great battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie"(Engels, preface to 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto).



No, the war didn't 'create' a revolutionary period, the war marked the descent of capitalism into the abyss, the final marker that it was no longer a progressive social system, it demonstrated the necessity of revolution but didn't create it.

Of course, you may believe that capitalism is a progressive social system, I don't know.

That may be your opinion but certainly that wasn't the opinion of the leaders of the third International in 1919 and 1920, their opinion I described to you.



And why is that, do you think? Has capitalism solved its contradictions? Is the working class worldwide now so happy with its lot that it won't revolt?

Is it not on the other hand possible both that the proletariat has failed to make a revolution, while the bourgeoisie has simultaneously failed to engulf the world in another world war?
There is no revolutionary movement in Europe capable of overthrowing bourgeois supremacy today. If one was to begin forming today, it would take at least half a decade before it can seriously pose the question of successful proletarian revolution. A premature move would lead to another Paris Commune, or even worse, another März Aktion/March Action.

[Blake's Baby]

By 1830, I meant the 3 glorious days when proletarians of Paris fought on the barricades, July 27-29. By 1848 I meant the proletarian Parisian insurrection of June, the "the first great battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie"(Engels, preface to 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto)...

1830 may have substantially been carried out by the proletariat - most insurrections are - but it wasn't a prolearian revolution.

1848 was the first stirring of the proletariat to put forward its own agenda, but again it wasn't really a revolutionary situation. C'mon, you can examine May '68 fairly clearly and see it as a beginning, not a failed revolution, why can't you do the same in 1848?



...
That may be your opinion but certainly that wasn't the opinion of the leaders of the third International in 1919 and 1920, their opinion I described to you...

You do know what 'epoch' means, I take it? It isn't a moment of revolutions. It isn't a temporary revolutionary situation, which I'll certainly agree was over before the end of the '20s. Lenin wrote that capitalism had entered a new phase with the establishment of imperialism as a sysytemic approach in decaying capitalism; it is a long-term period not a short-term thing.

If this is not the epoch of wars and revolutions, please, explain what you think it is, and when Lenin & Trotsky's 'epoch of wars and revolutions' was succeeded by the 'epoch of being crap', or why the 'epoch of wars and revolutions' was a mistake.


...
There is no revolutionary movement in Europe capable of overthrowing bourgeois supremacy today. If one was to begin forming today, it would take at least half a decade before it can seriously pose the question of successful proletarian revolution. A premature move would lead to another Paris Commune, or even worse, another März Aktion/March Action.

And? Revolutionary movements ebb and flow. We're at the beginning of something new, I'd argue, a revival of the notion of a revolutionary challenge to capitalism and the state. More or less, 1968-1990 was moving in the direction of a rivial of class struggle, 1990-2006 or thereabout was moving towards reaction, and class struggle over the last 8 years or so has been picking up again. I'm not calling for insurrection now, I'm saying the bourgeoisie hasn't been able to lead us into a world war, and the proletariat hasn't been able to stage a world revolution. That doesn't negate the fact that the only choices on the historical table are revolution (the proletariat's answer to the crisis of capitalism) and global war (the bourgeooisie's answer). We can, of course, just grind each other into nothing (we both lose in other words, society just comes to pieces around us).

[Geiseric]

Left communism split from the left opposition in the 1930s making it an insignificant organization. It amounts to sectarianism because left communists don't understand that proletarian parties can possibly not be socialist or radical, however certain goals that the reformist union leaderships have such as preventing fascism from rising, or obtaining public healthcare, or passing pro workin class legislation through a labor party, correspond with the socialists goals of proletarian revolution.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Left communism split from the left opposition in the 1930s making it an insignificant organization. It amounts to sectarianism because left communists don't understand that proletarian parties can possibly not be socialist or radical, however certain goals that the reformist union leaderships have such as preventing fascism from rising, or obtaining public healthcare, or passing pro workin class legislation through a labor party, correspond with the socialists goals of proletarian revolution.

Our problem is not cooperating with organizations whose programs don't correspond exactly with our own, it's cooperating with organizations who's class character is not proletarian. Mainstream unions and social democratic parties are not representative of or accountable to the proletariat.
That being said Left Communist organizations don't seem to be very good and actually going and doing, ya kno, anything. Left Communist organizations tend to be miserably awful at actually practicing democratic centralism, but the same criticism could be made of Trotskyism.

[Blake's Baby]

Left communism split from the left opposition in the 1930s making it an insignificant organization. It amounts to sectarianism because left communists don't understand that proletarian parties can possibly not be socialist or radical, however certain goals that the reformist union leaderships have such as preventing fascism from rising, or obtaining public healthcare, or passing pro workin class legislation through a labor party, correspond with the socialists goals of proletarian revolution.

Garbage. The Left Communists were expelled from the CI and the national parties during the 1920s - the majority of the KPD were expelled in 1920, they regrouped as the KAPD which formed the 4th International in 1922 with KAPN - founded 1921 - CWP/CWG in Britain - expelled from the CPGB in 1921 - and other similar groups in Russia (Miasnikov's Worker's Group of the RCP(B)), Bulgaria and Belgium.

As the Fourth International was founded in 1922 and had broken up by 1925, the notion that they came out of the Left Opposition is ridiculous. Even though the Italian Left Communists, in opposition after the Bolshevisation of the PCd'I and Gramsci's takeover in 1923, remained inside the party and were not expelled until 1930 - ironically, for supporting Trotsky - they were not part of the Left Opposition. It is after all possible to oppose Stalin and indeed to support Trotsky, on some questions, without being a Trotskyist.



...
That being said Left Communist organizations don't seem to be very good and actually going and doing, ya kno, anything. Left Communist organizations tend to be miserably awful at actually practicing democratic centralism, but the same criticism could be made of Trotskyism.

Is not 'practicing democratic centralism' really the issue? Given that most Left Comm groups throughout the world number less than 30 people, how important do you think democratic centralism is? Also, with tiny numbers, I think it's impressive that Left Comm groups manage to do anything at all. We're punching above our weight I'd argue.

[Geiseric]

It isn't that they don't practice DC, they don't see struggling for transitional demands as worthwile, and they call anybody who does reformist. That is why left communist groups won't work out a mass following, because when push comes to shove they scream reformist.

[Devrim]

It isn't that they don't practice DC, they don't see struggling for transitional demands as worthwile, and they call anybody who does reformist. That is why left communist groups won't work out a mass following, because when push comes to shove they scream reformist.

It really seems that you have very little idea at all of what you are talking about. No left communists catorgorise anybody as reformists. It is just not part of their analysis. Therefor they don't shout, let alone scream, reformist at anybody.

Devrim

[Ostrinski]

No, you just consider everyone other than yourselves "left of capital" like you all are the only communists.

[Devrim]

No, you just consider everyone other than yourselves "left of capital" like you all are the only communists.

Yes, it is expressed awfully at times, but essentially left communist believe that the social-democratic parties are not 'reformist', but bourgeois, and your comment does show that, unlike the previous poster, you do know what you are talking about.;)

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

No, you just consider everyone other than yourselves "left of capital" like you all are the only communists.

I'd disagree. 'We' (I exclude the Bordigists here) consider Council Communists to be communists, though we think they're wrong about the party; we consider a lot of Anarchists to be communists, unless (like in France) they're taking money from the state; we consider the SPGB and similar parties to be communist, even if we think they're wrong about parliament.

The 'class lines' - the tests, that GourmetPez alludes to, by which you determine if an organisation has a 'prolearian character', are actually pretty simple.

1-Do they support bourgeois wars? Yes/no. Yes=left of capital; no=internationalist/proletarian.
2-Do they advocate working inside capitalism and administering it 'for the good of the workers'? Yes/no. Yes=left of capital; no=proletarian.

If you get a 'no' for both questions, you're on the same side as the Left Comms (which, naturally, is the side of the working class). All other questions are subsidiary to these I think, but they'd include 'do you think the proletariat needs a party?' and we'd say yes, the Council Communists would say no, and the Anarchists would say no but we think mean yes, because we don't necessarily mean the same thing by 'party'.

Likewise we let the SPGB off with their (bizarre and outmoded) view that you can vote in socialism because they're still internationalists, and they don't believe that it's the job of the party or the proletariat to administer state capitalism. Obviously pretty much all Left Comms believe that the workers' council/soviet is the vehicle for the workers to excercise their power butI think we mostly expect that the SPGB will wake up and get real when a revolutionary situation develops.

And then there's the Anarchists, Anarcho-Sydicalists and Revolutionary Syndicalists, with whom Left Communism doesn't have a great relationship all the time but in general we think they're more right than wrong (just, obviously, not as right as us), except in specific instances where we criticise them heavily, such as when they support wars (though, they don't support 'the bourgeios state', we think that they've been suckered into supporting it by their own faulty reasoning).

So really, it's Trotskyist and Stalinist organisations we have a problem with - organisations that revolve around defence of the failures of the Russian revolution not its successes, that promote illusions in nationalism and democratism, that have betrayed the working class by recruiting them for wars, etc.

[Manic Impressive]

Likewise we let the SPGB off with their (bizarre and outmoded) view that you can vote in socialism because they're still internationalists, and they don't believe that it's the job of the party or the proletariat to administer state capitalism. Obviously pretty much all Left Comms believe that the workers' council/soviet is the vehicle for the workers to excercise their power butI think we mostly expect that the SPGB will wake up and get real when a revolutionary situation develops.

I think the fundamental difference is that Left communists are focused on the capture of economic power through the workplace while we are focused on political power through the capture of the state. I don't see these as opposed actually I think they compliment each other.

I've heard nothing from Left communists on how they think the capture of the state will occur?

I hope that they agree, as all communists should that the least violent, least chaotic method should be used. As the material conditions resulting from a revolution will determine how quickly capitalism and the state can be abolished. This at the moment is through using parliament to capture the state, only when that method is defeated should other more destructive methods be used.

Left communists obviously dismiss this out of hand due to the nature of all states in the world changing at one minute past midnight on the eve of the Russian revolution. That's when capitalism started it's terminal decline don't ya know!

[black magick hustla]

i really like the term "left wing of capital" but i do agree it is misused to an extent that it becomes a meaningless slur. i think the "left wing of capital" makes more sense for groups that manage capitalism in some way, like social democrats, politically influential maoists, and some variants of trotskyism, as opposed to tiny sects that are politically impotent.

[black magick hustla]

i don't think there is much common ground in "left communism" because its more of a historical category applied to certain groups that emerged from the left wing of the comintern as opposed to a unified, theoretical category. there where some bordigists that were down with natlib and unions, and damien was involved in elections etc. the "common ground" was invented by bilan and elaborated by 60s synthesist groups. i think synthesist left communism as it is expoused by the icc and ict is more of a creation of the 60s of people who scavenged for theoretical explanations that they found useful. nothing wrong with that of course, but i think that this has created a sort of monopoly for the "left communism" label. for example, debord and the situationists considered themselves as theoretical descendants of the dutch communist left but you will find iccers who would deny vehemently that the situationists have anything to do with left communism (that is because the icc and ict basically made up the meaning of that term when they created their synthesis).

[black magick hustla]

Personally i prefer the term "ultraleft", although it originated as a slur, it has become somewhat of a bag term for all those tendencies that stand against stalinism, trotskyism, and social democracy, and the state that didn't come from anarchism and came from marxism.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the fundamental difference is that Left communists are focused on the capture of economic power through the workplace while we are focused on political power through the capture of the state. I don't see these as opposed actually I think they compliment each other.

I've heard nothing from Left communists on how they think the capture of the state will occur? ...

We only really have the experience of the Russian revolution to go on as the successful seizur of power by the proletariat in an entire country. It's not a blueprint but it's at least got pointers. Dual power, followed by the proletariat declaring it's taking over; and being being prepared to fight should the capitalists resist (which they will).


...I hope that they agree, as all communists should that the least violent, least chaotic method should be used. As the material conditions resulting from a revolution will determine how quickly capitalism and the state can be abolished. This at the moment is through using parliament to capture the state, only when that method is defeated should other more destructive methods be used...

I'd certainly rather political power could be acheived easily, but, unfortunately, it can't. The revolution will entail a lot of disruption, and I think that's putting it mildly.


...Left communists obviously dismiss this out of hand due to the nature of all states in the world changing at one minute past midnight on the eve of the Russian revolution. That's when capitalism started it's terminal decline don't ya know!

C'mon, you know that's rubbish.

The SPGB was formed in 1904 on the basis that capitalism had outlived its historic task (of centralising capital, developing production and creating the working class). Henceforward, socialism rather than capitalism would be the progressive social system, capitalism had become retrogressive, and the proletariat must prepare for assuming state power.

Left Communists - certainly those of us close to the ICC, and I think with certain nuances of meaning, those who follow the ICT as well - in general agree with that analysis. Capitalism didn't 'start it's terminal decline' in 1914 (WWI, not Russian revolution), the First World War was the unequivocal sign that it had already, and more to the point irretrievably, become decadent - it had outlived its usefulness, as the SPGB correctly identified in the early 20th century. Or is the SPGB going back on that analysis? It would be a pity if the did, it's one of the clearest and best parts of the SPGB's political creed, and would what's more throw the last 100 years of it's history out the window.



Personally i prefer the term "ultraleft", although it originated as a slur, it has become somewhat of a bag term for all those tendencies that stand against stalinism, trotskyism, and social democracy, and the state that didn't come from anarchism and came from marxism.

I've heard Anarchists who describe themselves as 'ultra-left'. And I know that the ICC don't touch it with a bargepole. And it still is used an insult - l'Enferme is always going on about 'sectarian ultra-leftists', or maybe that's just threads I'm involved with. Even so, I like it too. Mostly because it sounds cool.

[l'Enfermé]

1830 may have substantially been carried out by the proletariat - most insurrections are - but it wasn't a prolearian revolution.

1848 was the first stirring of the proletariat to put forward its own agenda, but again it wasn't really a revolutionary situation. C'mon, you can examine May '68 fairly clearly and see it as a beginning, not a failed revolution, why can't you do the same in 1848?
You say that as if I stated that 1830 or 1848 in Paris were proletarian revolutions. Which I didn't. I said that they were "great proletarian uprisings".



You do know what 'epoch' means, I take it? It isn't a moment of revolutions. It isn't a temporary revolutionary situation, which I'll certainly agree was over before the end of the '20s. Lenin wrote that capitalism had entered a new phase with the establishment of imperialism as a sysytemic approach in decaying capitalism; it is a long-term period not a short-term thing.

If this is not the epoch of wars and revolutions, please, explain what you think it is, and when Lenin & Trotsky's 'epoch of wars and revolutions' was succeeded by the 'epoch of being crap', or why the 'epoch of wars and revolutions' was a mistake.
Epochs come and epochs go. The "epoch of wars and revolutions" of the 1910s and 1920s came, and went. There were new epochs after it. It's ridiculous that I even have to explain this to you.

As far as Lenin's theory of imperialism as the latest stage of capitalism goes, history has proven his theory wrong in the respect that Lenin considered the capitalism of his day a capitalism in its dying breaths, moribund capitalism, a capitalism destined to expire in a few years or decades. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that not has only capitalism not collapsed as predicted, but has gone on to survive, and recover, from crises 0more severe than those of Lenin's day.


And?
And what? It's quite clear that to expect a Socialist Europe in 2 years time from now is simply insane.



Revolutionary movements ebb and flow.
Sure they do. There are no revolutionary movements at the present time, however, so there is nothing that can ebb and flow. There are many increasingly smaller sects here and there, but sects do not make a movement. They don't even move, except for downwards.


We're at the beginning of something new, I'd argue, a revival of the notion of a revolutionary challenge to capitalism and the state
What? At no point during the history of the worker's movement since the late 19th century has the revolutionary challenge to capitalism been as weak as today. Today, in Europe, the biggest opposition to mainstream capitalism are parties like Germany's Die Linke and Greece's SYRIZA. You know, the same Die Linke which merely seeks a return to pre-neoliberal class-collaborationist Social-Democracy.


More or less, 1968-1990 was moving in the direction of a rivial of class struggle, 1990-2006 or thereabout was moving towards reaction, and class struggle over the last 8 years or so has been picking up again. I'm not calling for insurrection now, I'm saying the bourgeoisie hasn't been able to lead us into a world war, and the proletariat hasn't been able to stage a world revolution. That doesn't negate the fact that the only choices on the historical table are revolution (the proletariat's answer to the crisis of capitalism) and global war (the bourgeooisie's answer). We can, of course, just grind each other into nothing (we both lose in other words, society just comes to pieces around us).

The class struggle over the last 8 years has been picking up? What, do you mean Occupy Wall Street?

[l'Enfermé]

I've heard Anarchists who describe themselves as 'ultra-left'. And I know that the ICC don't touch it with a bargepole. And it still is used an insult - l'Enferme is always going on about 'sectarian ultra-leftists', or maybe that's just threads I'm involved with. Even so, I like it too. Mostly because it sounds cool.
By sectarian, I mean those socialists whose favorite form of organization is the political sect, most of the time.

[Manic Impressive]

We only really have the experience of the Russian revolution to go on as the successful seizur of power by the proletariat in an entire country. It's not a blueprint but it's at least got pointers. Dual power, followed by the proletariat declaring it's taking over; and being being prepared to fight should the capitalists resist (which they will).
So how are social democratic parties including some Trotskyists and Stalinists bourgeois political parties, yet the Russian revolution was proletarian. When both attempt to manage capitalism through reforms, something we know to be impossible as they are bound to the laws of capital. How can the bolsheviks possibly not be a bourgeois party and the Russian revolution not bourgeois when they do exactly the same things.


I'd certainly rather political power could be acheived easily, but, unfortunately, it can't. The revolution will entail a lot of disruption, and I think that's putting it mildly.
You say can't but you don't allude as to why it can't. I thought the reason was due to the fundamental change in the nature of the state?



C'mon, you know that's rubbish.

The SPGB was formed in 1904 on the basis that capitalism had outlived its historic task (of centralising capital, developing production and creating the working class). Henceforward, socialism rather than capitalism would be the progressive social system, capitalism had become retrogressive, and the proletariat must prepare for assuming state power.

Left Communists - certainly those of us close to the ICC, and I think with certain nuances of meaning, those who follow the ICT as well - in general agree with that analysis. Capitalism didn't 'start it's terminal decline' in 1914 (WWI, not Russian revolution), the First World War was the unequivocal sign that it had already, and more to the point irretrievably, become decadent - it had outlived its usefulness, as the SPGB correctly identified in the early 20th century. Or is the SPGB going back on that analysis? It would be a pity if the did, it's one of the clearest and best parts of the SPGB's political creed, and would what's more throw the last 100 years of it's history out the window.
Saying that capitalism has reached a level where it has grown to a point where socialism has become a real possibility is not the same as saying it is in decline. Outlived it's usefulness, sure. Become decadent where it begins to start declining, no. The productive forces of capitalism are still increasing.

[Blake's Baby]

You say that as if I stated that 1830 or 1848 in Paris were proletarian revolutions. Which I didn't. I said that they were "great proletarian uprisings"...

Good, we're in agreement about something.



...
Epochs come and epochs go. The "epoch of wars and revolutions" of the 1910s and 1920s came, and went. There were new epochs after it. It's ridiculous that I even have to explain this to you...

What you have to explain to me is what 'epoch' you think we have entered and when. And no, I don't think an 'spoch' is necessarily shorter than a century, I certainly wouldn't describe a period approximately 13 years long as an 'epoch'.


...
As far as Lenin's theory of imperialism as the latest stage of capitalism goes, history has proven his theory wrong in the respect that Lenin considered the capitalism of his day a capitalism in its dying breaths, moribund capitalism, a capitalism destined to expire in a few years or decades. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that not has only capitalism not collapsed as predicted, but has gone on to survive, and recover, from crises 0more severe than those of Lenin's day...

Well, I too regard capitalism as being 'moribund'. It has long outlived its usefulness. And yes, if Lenin expected capitalism to die soon, then he's proved wrong - as were Marx and Engels. But there are two factors that must conspire to end capitalism - it must be sick; and the proletariat must kill it. The first condition has been acheived - capitalism has been sick for a century or more. But the second hasn't. Without a revolution capitalism will grind on and on.


...And what? It's quite clear that to expect a Socialist Europe in 2 years time from now is simply insane...

Who does?


...
Sure they do. There are no revolutionary movements at the present time, however, so there is nothing that can ebb and flow. There are many increasingly smaller sects here and there, but sects do not make a movement. They don't even move, except for downwards...

If you like. I take it you tell all the organisations you favour that they're doomed too, we're all just sects.



... What? At no point during the history of the worker's movement since the late 19th century has the revolutionary challenge to capitalism been as weak as today. Today, in Europe, the biggest opposition to mainstream capitalism are parties like Germany's Die Linke and Greece's SYRIZA. You know, the same Die Linke which merely seeks a return to pre-neoliberal class-collaborationist Social-Democracy...

What have Die Linke and SYRIZA got to do with anything?

I said the beginning. Since the mid-'00s, class struggle and the search for revolutionary politics have been increasing. The 'revolutionary challenge to capitalism' now is stronger than it was 20 years ago. From about 1990-2005 there was practically no 'revolutionary challenge to capitalism' at all. Things are slightly better now than then, thus, they are starting to improve, from a very bad situation.


...
The class struggle over the last 8 years has been picking up? What, do you mean Occupy Wall Street?

You must forgive me I'm not teribly familiar with Occupy Wall Street, did they squat a park? I don't what sort of crazy world you live in but they're not even a proto-revolutionary movement, comrade.

I was referring to the massive strikes in China, India, Bagladesh and Egypt, in recent years, the return of wildcatting to Europe, the autonomous anti-'reform' movemetns around pensions and changes to employment law in France and Austria around 2005 or so, even in the US there are rumblings from the working class, around the events in Madison in 2011.


By sectarian, I mean those socialists whose favorite form of organization is the political sect, most of the time.

Oh, it's really not a favourite form, it really is forced on us by circumstance, we'd rather not be sects. But, you're being coy, because when you use the term 'sectarian' you know it implies not 'a member of a sect' but 'one who puts the sect above the whole'. If that were the case, Left Communists would be the shittest sectarians imaginable given that we can barely muster 50 members in total in almost any country in the world. We are quite literally the worst at 'party building' and all that nonsense. All Trotskyist groups are dozens to hundreds of times better at it than we are, for instance. Even the CPGB-PCC is many many times better at it than the ICT or ICC.

[Blake's Baby]

So how are social democratic parties including some Trotskyists and Stalinists bourgeois political parties, yet the Russian revolution was proletarian. When both attempt to manage capitalism through reforms, something we know to be impossible as they are bound to the laws of capital. How can the bolsheviks possibly not be a bourgeois party and the Russian revolution not bourgeois when they do exactly the same things...

I think all Trotskyist parties are bourgeois parties.

Support imperialist war? Yes/No. Yes=bourgeois (every Trotskyist party I know of, but not the SPGB)
Want to administer state capitalism? Yes/No. Yes=bourgeois (every Trotskyist party I know, but not the SPGB)

Is that really hard?

How could the Russian revolution be bourgeois?

The 'change in epoch' is predicated on the end of bourgeois political and social deveopment. If capitalism has completed its historic tasks, then there's no room for 'progressive' capitalism, and you can argue all you like, but you can't convince me Stalinism was progressive.

The 'Russian revolution' didn't 'attempt to manage state capitalism'. The revolution (that is, the revolutionary working class) attempted to destroy capitalism in Russia, but failed. The Bolsheviks (not the same as the working class, you can't convince me they are, no matter how hard you try) then began to manage state capitalism, when the revolution in Germany failed even more rapidly to rescue them. It's a little like criticising a passenger on a cruise-ship which sinks, and who's found themselves in a lifeboat, for not knowing how to navigate by the stars. There was no 'attempt' to take over Russia and run it as red barracks-state in 1917; that came later when the Bolsheviks realised that they'd have to hold out longer than a couple of months before Rosa and the German working class arrived to rescue them. Trotsky's insane drive to militarise everything, Lenin's mania about the German postal service, were a result of failure, not planning.

Nor did the Bolsheviks support the imperialist war. Do you remember what the SPGB praised 'Nikolai Lenin' and his Bolshevik Party for in 1918? It ill behoves the SPGB now to carp on about the Bolsheviks on this point. The Bolsheviks took Russia out of WWI. Did the SPGB take the British Empire out? If it did, I have to say I didn't notice. The party used to have a much more reasonable attitude on this point; every socialist alive should remember the Bolsheviks warmly for their intransigent internationalism (except Stalin of course, the nasty vacilating defencist, and kamenev, who as far as I can see was just weak) in the war. Obviously they were not the only internationalists. But they, and the Sparticists, were the ones who stopped WWI - not the SPGB or any of the fractions of the other socialist parties around the world.




...
You say can't but you don't allude as to why it can't. I thought the reason was due to the fundamental change in the nature of the state? ...

There are some major changes in the state yes, modern state capitalism means for instance that in most countries the state accounts for about 40% of economic activity, unlike any 19th century state; civic society has been almost completely absorbed into the state; Engels warned about parliament becoming more and more the 'personification of the national capitalist' and this is part of the statisation of the economy.

In the end, though, the reason it's not possible is that the bourgeoisie will not wait around to be expropriated, and will resist with force when we try it. that's why the revolution will be messy. I'd much rather it was not the case - honestly, if I thought it was possible that socialism could be voted in, I'd be on it quick as anthing, it's much more conducive to my temprament. I was an SPGB sympathiser for probably 3 years - but I couldn't kid myself in the end that I actually believed that the bourgeoisie would give up without a fight.

Perfectly happy with the other 85% of what the SPGB says. Just that 15% is... lunacy.



...
Saying that capitalism has reached a level where it has grown to a point where socialism has become a real possibility is not the same as saying it is in decline. Outlived it's usefulness, sure. Become decadent where it begins to start declining, no. The productive forces of capitalism are still increasing.

Cancer is still growth. But it isn't healthy growth, growth itself can be a sign of mortal sickness. But not all Left Comms are Luxemburgists - most are not, only the ICC (and then only the majority) and some sympathisers like myself - defend a Luxemburgist position that the division of the world by the competing imperialist powers meant the end of capitalist expansion; even then we agree that she was wrong about something, whether that was (as all other tendencies believe) that the exhaustion of extra-capitalist formations is not the cause of capitalism's crisis, or that Rosa underestimated the extent and resiliance of extra-capitalist formations (which is the view I'm tending towrds), or the bourgeoisie has developed 'coping strategies' - for example, state capitalism, credit - to offset (but never eliminate) the negative effects of the exhaustion of extra-capitalist formations.

So even in decadence capitalism can grow, it's just what sort of growth that's the problem. As I said above, capitalism will grind on in whatever state until the proletariat overthrows it. So therefore, whether it's growing or not is irrelevant, it's the 'fulfilling its historic mission' that determines whether it's decadent or not.

The decadence of capitalism means the same as the SPGB's understanding that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It leads different groups to different conclusions - the ICT and the ICC don't agree about decadence, but the basis is the same, capitalism is a social system whose time has gone, long gone. The bourgeoisie cannot take our society forward, only the proletariat can by overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist society. It is able to do that because capitalism has developed production and the proletariat itself, because at one time the bourgeoisie was an historically progressive class, when it overthrew feudalism and concentrated capital and created the proletariat, but now it isn't and the proletariat bears within itself a new social form. Now, it is hanging on to power long past the point where it was developing civilisation - in fact, for a hundred years, rather the reverse.

In short, I reject the notion you have of 'decadence', no one in or around the ICC believes in an 'inevitable collapse' or even a unilinear decline, and the ICT are not Luxemburgists at all (economically). It's a strawman, though perhaps not a conscious one, because the position you apply to Left Communists doesn't really exist, I don't think.

By the way, did any of your comrades at the Oct 20th demo pass on my regards? I bumped into a couple of SPGBers who said they'd say hi.

[Ostrinski]

I'd disagree. 'We' (I exclude the Bordigists here) consider Council Communists to be communists, though we think they're wrong about the party; we consider a lot of Anarchists to be communists, unless (like in France) they're taking money from the state; we consider the SPGB and similar parties to be communist, even if we think they're wrong about parliament.

The 'class lines' - the tests, that GourmetPez alludes to, by which you determine if an organisation has a 'prolearian character', are actually pretty simple.

1-Do they support bourgeois wars? Yes/no. Yes=left of capital; no=internationalist/proletarian.
2-Do they advocate working inside capitalism and administering it 'for the good of the workers'? Yes/no. Yes=left of capital; no=proletarian.

If you get a 'no' for both questions, you're on the same side as the Left Comms (which, naturally, is the side of the working class). All other questions are subsidiary to these I think, but they'd include 'do you think the proletariat needs a party?' and we'd say yes, the Council Communists would say no, and the Anarchists would say no but we think mean yes, because we don't necessarily mean the same thing by 'party'.

Likewise we let the SPGB off with their (bizarre and outmoded) view that you can vote in socialism because they're still internationalists, and they don't believe that it's the job of the party or the proletariat to administer state capitalism. Obviously pretty much all Left Comms believe that the workers' council/soviet is the vehicle for the workers to excercise their power butI think we mostly expect that the SPGB will wake up and get real when a revolutionary situation develops.

And then there's the Anarchists, Anarcho-Sydicalists and Revolutionary Syndicalists, with whom Left Communism doesn't have a great relationship all the time but in general we think they're more right than wrong (just, obviously, not as right as us), except in specific instances where we criticise them heavily, such as when they support wars (though, they don't support 'the bourgeios state', we think that they've been suckered into supporting it by their own faulty reasoning).

So really, it's Trotskyist and Stalinist organisations we have a problem with - organisations that revolve around defence of the failures of the Russian revolution not its successes, that promote illusions in nationalism and democratism, that have betrayed the working class by recruiting them for wars, etc.Ok, I understand better. But one thing I still don't understand.

I understand why you see Marxist-Leninists as bourgeois. They uphold certain regimes that you consider to capitalist, as socialist, and therefore worth defending. I disagree with the assessment, but I understand it and agree that it is consistent with your views.

I've never understand Trotskyists though. As you know the traditional Trotskyists view it as a degenerated workers state, that simply needed a political, not social, revolution to get it back into the hands of the workers. If I'm not mistaken, you view the Soviet Union as state capitalist, wherein the bureaucratic ruling class took upon the traditional functions of the capitalists. Trotsky and the traditional Trotskyists supported a revolution against what they considered to be a bureaucratic caste, and what you consider to be a capitalist state. So just because they don't share your social characterization of the Soviet Union but still prescribe the same treatment, they're "bourgeois."

Furthermore, some Trotskyists such as Tony Cliff and C.L.R. James even take your view, that it was state capitalist. Are they also "bourgeois?"

[Blake's Baby]

...

I understand why you see Marxist-Leninists as bourgeois. They uphold certain regimes that you consider to capitalist, as socialist, and therefore worth defending. I disagree with the assessment, but I understand it and agree that it is consistent with your views.

I've never understand Trotskyists though. As you know the traditional Trotskyists view it as a degenerated workers state, that simply needed a political, not social, revolution to get it back into the hands of the workers. If I'm not mistaken, you view the Soviet Union as state capitalist, wherein the bureaucratic ruling class took upon the traditional functions of the capitalists. Trotsky and the traditional Trotskyists supported a revolution against what they considered to be a bureaucratic caste, and what you consider to be a capitalist state. So just because they don't share your social characterization of the Soviet Union but still prescribe the same treatment, they're "bourgeois."

Furthermore, some Trotskyists such as Tony Cliff and C.L.R. James even take your view, that it was state capitalist. Are they also "bourgeois?"

I can quote myself if you like:


I think all Trotskyist parties are bourgeois parties.

Support imperialist war? Yes/No. Yes=bourgeois (every Trotskyist party I know of...)
Want to administer state capitalism? Yes/No. Yes=bourgeois (every Trotskyist party I know...)



If Russia is state capitalist, then defence of the USSR constitutes supporting a capitalist and imperialist state, and therefore imperialist war. So Trotskyists support the class enemy, ie their politics are the politics of the bourgeoisie.

If there is nothing progressive in state capitalism, then seeking to adminster it through nationalisation strengthens capitalist control. So Trotskyists again supprt the class enemy, ie their politics are the politics of the bourgeoisie.

[Grenzer]

To be fair, I don't think that's the most significant reason as to why the Left Communists oppose Trotskyism. It probably has far more to do with the fact that many Trotskyists fetishize social-democratic and other bourgeois parties as "workers' parties" that should be supported to some degree and worked with. Even with the Trotskyists that support the theory of state capitalism, many of them have used that as an excuse to side with the West in practice. On top of all of that, most Trotskyists are barely concealed reformists. It's not difficult to understand why they would consider the Trotskyist tendency to be "left of capital". Cliff was both a reformist and pro-West. Sounds pretty fucking bourgeois to me.

The problem with this is that I think it's very broad and sweeping, and tends to dismiss the fact that there are many Trotskyists who have revolutionary views, and that most of them are sympathetic to revolution(obviously) and simply embrace politics to run counter to that. To simply lump them in the same category as vanilla liberals and reactionaries seems a tad be reductionist and sectarian. There should at least be an attempt to engage politically with these people, which I'm not seeing at all. I just don't see how it's constructive to dismiss them with a shrill cry of "Left of capital!" and pretend that they don't exist.

I think to immediately throw everyone in the gutter because they don't accept the theory of state capitalism, which is still rather dubious and up to debate, as Blake is doing here, is incredibly infantile. It does not seem however that this is the primary reason for the rejection of Trotskyists for most though.

[Blake's Baby]

... To simply lump them in the same category as vanilla liberals and reactionaries seems a tad be reductionist and sectarian. There should at least be an attempt to engage politically with these people, which I'm not seeing at all. I just don't see how it's constructive to dismiss them with a shrill cry of "Left of capital!" and pretend that they don't exist.

We don't. I talk to Trotskyists. Last time I spoke to a Trotskyist face-to-face was 4 days ago.

I also recognise that, whatever their personal motivations, they can't move towards proletarian politics until they break from Trotskyism.

[newdayrising]

Bordigaists are more Leninist, they were just sectarian when fascism was rising, and refused to work with social democrats during the factory occupations during the 30's. The Stalinists had the same policies in Germany.

If this is a reply to my question to Zanthorus, left-communism is not about being "anti-Lenin", even though some groups might be critical of Lenin or even "anti-Leninist".

[Blake's Baby]

Depends what 'Leninist/anti-Leninist' means to anyone. We're not 'anti-Lenin'. I can't think of any Left Communists I know who attack Lenin for being Lenin, we don't believe in the the SPGB 'state-cap/Blanquist' critique of Lenin, nor the Council Communist 'original sin of 2nd Internationalism' critique of Lenin.

We may criticize things he did or said (agreeing with Stalin on the 'right of nations' rather than with Luxemburg is a case in point) but we regard ourselves as the continuers of the work of the Bolsheviks. But we don't think 'Leninists' ('Marxist-Leninists' or 'Bolsheviks-Leninists') are.

[Geiseric]

Depends what 'Leninist/anti-Leninist' means to anyone. We're not 'anti-Lenin'. I can't think of any Left Communists I know who attack Lenin for being Lenin, we don't believe in the the SPGB 'state-cap/Blanquist' critique of Lenin, nor the Council Communist 'original sin of 2nd Internationalism' critique of Lenin.

We may criticize things he did or said (agreeing with Stalin on the 'right of nations' rather than with Luxemburg is a case in point) but we regard ourselves as the continuers of the work of the Bolsheviks. But we don't think 'Leninists' ('Marxist-Leninists' or 'Bolsheviks-Leninists') are.

Well you are anti lenin because you refuse united fronts and the need for a social democratic party (which Lenin helped found).

[Blake's Baby]

Well you are anti lenin because you refuse united fronts and the need for a social democratic party (which Lenin helped found).

You think the sum total o Lenin's contribution to the workers movement was 1-the social democratic party and 2-united fronts?

Social democratic parties were fair enough 100+ years ago. They've outlived their usefulness now.

Not sure the 'united front' as a tactic hasn't been proven to be a dismal failure though.

[Geiseric]

Well it wasn't a "dismal failure," at the point of the Kornilov coup attempt, in which Lenin participated in a united front.

The social democrat argument is meaningless, since we haven't accomplished anything without a mass party at any point in history.

[Android]

i don't think there is much common ground in "left communism" because its more of a historical category applied to certain groups that emerged from the left wing of the comintern as opposed to a unified, theoretical category. there where some bordigists that were down with natlib and unions, and damien was involved in elections etc. the "common ground" was invented by bilan and elaborated by 60s synthesist groups. i think synthesist left communism as it is expoused by the icc and ict is more of a creation of the 60s of people who scavenged for theoretical explanations that they found useful. nothing wrong with that of course, but i think that this has created a sort of monopoly for the "left communism" label. for example, debord and the situationists considered themselves as theoretical descendants of the dutch communist left but you will find iccers who would deny vehemently that the situationists have anything to do with left communism (that is because the icc and ict basically made up the meaning of that term when they created their synthesis).

I pretty much agree with the general thrust here. Just on the synthesis approach to left-communist politics, I think that is largely limited to the ICC. Most people who are inspired by the German-Dutch left tend, in general, not to relate to the Italian left. Obviously, Bordigists feel the same way, opposite way round. And from people I have spoken to in the ICT (I'm a member) they see themselves in terms of the Italian left, and some would be very critical of the German-Dutch left.

Personally, I don't think the synthesis approach is a serious or defensible one, and basing yourself on one historical experience is self-limiting, in my opinion.

[Ostrinski]

I can quote myself if you like:



If Russia is state capitalist, then defence of the USSR constitutes supporting a capitalist and imperialist state, and therefore imperialist war. So Trotskyists support the class enemy, ie their politics are the politics of the bourgeoisie.

If there is nothing progressive in state capitalism, then seeking to adminster it through nationalisation strengthens capitalist control. So Trotskyists again supprt the class enemy, ie their politics are the politics of the bourgeoisie.Some Trotskyists consider the USSR state capitalist, as I pointed out in the previous post. Therefore they do not support a capitalist state or its wars.

So taking part in the electoral process inherently turns a party "bourgeois?" Doesn't the SPGB seek to win power electorally? And you consider them not bourgeois.

[Blake's Baby]

Some Trotskyists consider the USSR state capitalist, as I pointed out in the previous post. Therefore they do not support a capitalist state or its wars...

Of course they do. They openly support a capitalist state, having recognised it as a capitalist state. The 'International Socialists' supported the NVLA, the SWP subsequently supported every 'anti-imperialist' nation afterwards (to the point in the 1980s where they glorified the Iranian mullahs against the 'western puppet' Saddam Hussein, only to back-track three years later and call Saddam Hussein an anti-imperialist hero). The SWP pretty constantly takes the side of 'whoever America is against'.


...So taking part in the electoral process inherently turns a party "bourgeois?" Doesn't the SPGB seek to win power electorally? And you consider them not bourgeois.

You haven't been paying attention. I said that 'seeking to administer the capitalist state' makes you bourgeois, not 'taking part in the electoral process'. Nationalising industry isn't a revolutionary demand or a communist demand, it's a nationalist demand. The SPGB doesn't seek to administer state capitalism, in fact it was the first party to critique another group as 'state capitalist' in English, as far as I know - 1908, the SPGB published an attack on the paternalist, technocratic 'state-capitalist' programme of the Fabians (who later of course came to admire Stalin, but that's another story). The SPGB have the view that capturing state power through the ballot-box is a necessary step to abolishing the state. That view I described not as 'bourgeois' but as 'lunacy'.

[Ostrinski]

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Blake's Baby]

No worries.

Full disclosure here, I've since been told that the SWP opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. But in my last post, I'd said that they'd supported 'every' 'anti-imperialist' movement. So that was wrong. But I also said they 'pretty constantly' supported whoever America was against, that's accurate enough I think.

[GoddessCleoLover]

1979 was a long time ago, but I was politically active then and my recollection is that the SWP did not oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I am not saying they gave it a ringing endorsement, but IIRC their position was at least equivocal.

[Geiseric]

The SWP is a really weird group. Any connection with Cannon or the founders was lost a long time ago, and the people who still believe in a proletarian party were expelled or split into socialist action. Nationalizing industry btw is alo more than a "nationalist" demand, ask the people in russia who are now working for capitalists as oppoed to the SU state bureaucracy.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah... as the previous discussion had been about Tony Cliff and state-cap theory, and prominently featured the IS/International Socialists, I think you have to take references to the 'SWP' as being the British group not the American group.

You've never had much experience of nationalised industry, have you Broody? Really, the railways in Britain (for example) were not a shining example of progressive socialist planning. We used to have fucking hundreds of nationalised industries (strangely, we still lived in capitalism), all of them were shit. It's just that, as a Trot, you can't say 'that was shit, this is shit', you have to taste the flavours of shit in order to declare that one or other is better. I don't really care however, you can make shit wear funny little hats or do a little dance, but it's still shit.

[Geiseric]

So the nationalization of oil in Argentina is just "different flavored shit"? And the nationalization of oil in Algeria is also just "different colored shit"? Obviously the bourgeois state has ways of fucking people over, but you would have to be blind not to notice the difference between say Cuba and fucking Haiti, Cuba has nationalized medicine, so there is no AIDS or Tuberculosis in Cuba. Haiti has epidemics of both of those due to the US's trade agreements. What's the difference between creating a planned economy and nationalizing 100% of the economy, and putting it under the control of a workers state?

[Blake's Baby]

So the nationalization of oil in Argentina is just "different flavored shit"?...

Yes.


... And the nationalization of oil in Algeria is also just "different colored shit"?...

Yes.


...Obviously the bourgeois state has ways of fucking people over, but you would have to be blind not to notice the difference between say Cuba and fucking Haiti, Cuba has nationalized medicine, so there is no AIDS or Tuberculosis in Cuba...

Yeah? Britain has nationalised medicine too, we've got AIDS and tuberculosis.


... Haiti has epidemics of both of those due to the US's trade agreements...

And because it's piss-poor.


... What's the difference between creating a planned economy and nationalizing 100% of the economy, and putting it under the control of a workers state?

What does that even mean? I understand what the first bit means - state capitalist control of the economy, central planning, the kind of model that all economists thought was emerging in the 1960s, technocracy yadda yadda, Stalinism without the bayonets, or as we know it 'social democracy'.

Now... 'putting it (the economy that is) under the control of a workers' state'...

Do you mean 'the revolutionary working class seizing the means of production'?

Do you mean 'the Glorious Party-State establishing a system called 'a workers' state" and giving it control of the economy, or RobZemSov' (or some other awesome but opaque Russian acronym)?

Because there's no difference between the first and the third, but the difference with the second is... the revolutionary seizure of the economy by the working class. Which is kinda the point.

Really, honestly, why are Trotskyists so impressed with social democracy?

[Grenzer]

Really, honestly, why are Trotskyists so impressed with social democracy?

Because social-democratic parties are "workers' parties", remember?

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah you're right. Obvious really. Just, sometimes other people's blindness, though it's a fact of their life, is difficult for the rest of us to comprehend.

Hey Trotskyists - ever read this?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/progressive.htm

EDIT: sorry about the bad link, it should work now

[Geiseric]

That link didn't work

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah very weird, I can't get it to work now either. I seem to have bodged the copying of it somehow, sorry about that.

This should be the link - http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/progressive.htm

Alternatively, go to the Trotsky internet archive for 1939 - http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm#a1939 - and look for '"Progressive Paralysis": The Second International on the Eve of the New War'.