Left-communist silence on class independence

[Die Neue Zeit]

One thing notably missing in multiple works of left-communist political literature is the concept of class independence. Sure, there are defensive polemics against the charge of "sectarianism" by those whom the left-coms deem to be the "left wing of capital," and these stress the independence of communist politics from class collaboration (see the History thread on Trotskyists and left-coms (http://www.revleft.com/vb/historic-interactions-between-t177169/index.html)), but none of these works refer at all to the broader concept of class independence.

Since the left-com strategy basically states that mass class consciousness can be achieved only during revolutionary periods, class independence is thrown to the wayside, because logically it describes a condition before a revolutionary period. Is that not actually class collaborationist?

[Devrim]

Please don't feed the troll.

Devrim

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Could you flesh out what you mean by class independence?
What is it, and what is the role, in your opinion, of communist organization(s?) vis-a-vis class independence?

[l'Enfermé]

Please don't feed the troll.

Devrim
True dat.

Don't participate in a serious discussion on a forum designed for serious discussion. That makes sense, right?

[ed miliband]

True dat.

Don't participate in a serious discussion on a forum designed for serious discussion. That makes sense, right?

nah, quite clear what's happening here: dnz has been taken down a peg by a bunch of people over the past few weeks and this his comeback... calling left communists "class collaborationists", employing his typically impeccable logic.

[Yuppie Grinder]

by class independence he means a mass marxist labor party because he wants to be kautsky

[Yuppie Grinder]

This is the first time I've been accused of having class collaborationist politics. Nice to mix it up, getting called an anarchist and a stalinist in the same threads was getting old.

[Die Neue Zeit]

dnz has been taken down a peg by a bunch of people over the past few weeks

Nothing of that sort happened, only politically baseless suggestions like those floating in bourgeois media to take down bourgeois politicians.


Could you flesh out what you mean by class independence?
What is it, and what is the role, in your opinion, of communist organization(s?) vis-a-vis class independence?


by class independence he means a mass marxist labor party

What else? I really shouldn't have to quote Marx again, do I? :glare:

Disclaimer: Scratch the word "labour" and replace it with "worker-class."

VMC, class independence is that point or series of points between there existing no class movement and there being a mass party-movement with majority political support from the working class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

VMC, class independence is that point or series of points between there existing no class movement and there being a mass party-movement with majority political support from the working class.

What does that look like? Autonomous trade unions? Reform movements? Proliferation of Marxist sects? Seriously, before this conversation can happen, it would be sweet if I knew more specifically what was going on. All google points me to is some articles by Trotskyists who are against entryism. Not all that helpful.

[l'Enfermé]

nah, quite clear what's happening here: dnz has been taken down a peg by a bunch of people over the past few weeks and this his comeback... calling left communists "class collaborationists", employing his typically impeccable logic.
http://i.imgur.com/vPNmp.jpg
I'm sure DNZ is very upset because that clown who can't go a day without howling about the terrible "nerd brigade" that ruins the precious "intellectual atmosphere" of RevLeft said some mean things about him. Truly, your pettiness knows no bounds. Anyway, do you not see the irony in complaining about somebody else's mental faculties("impeccable logic", was it?) while demonstrating that your reading skills are lacking(you see, comrade, no one called Left-Coms "class collaborationists", instead, this question was asked: can disregarding class independence, outside of a revolutionary period, be considered class collaborationist?)

But this isn't Chit-Chat, so can we, you know, stick to the topic?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What does that look like? Autonomous trade unions? Reform movements? Proliferation of Marxist sects? Seriously, before this conversation can happen, it would be sweet if I knew more specifically what was going on. All google points me to is some articles by Trotskyists who are against entryism. Not all that helpful.

Perhaps the best contemporary example of what I'm posting about is SYRIZA:

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes [...]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm

(That's it! I just had to quote First International resolutions!)

[blake 3:17]

: can disregarding class independence, outside of a revolutionary period, be considered class collaborationist?)


Good question. I don't "get" Left Com politics other than an abstentionist Luxemburgist-Trotskyism.

It seems fairly easy to avoid class collaboration when one doesn't even engage with the politics of one's class...

VMC has made a few fair points about the current upsurge in First Nations struggles in Canada, and they are ones I'm largely sympathetic to, but then the question is where one prioritizes these issues.

ALL ALL ALL of the instruments of struggle we have are imperfect -- does that justify Left cynicism? mean we need to reform them? just accept them as they are are? do something else entirely?

[Yuppie Grinder]

kautskyites listen to lee perry
damnit

[Manic Impressive]

Just so everyone is clear this is SYRIZA's "revolutionary" 40 point program

1. Audit of the public debt and renegotiation of interest due and suspension of payments until the economy has revived and growth and employment return.
2. Demand the European Union to change the role of the European Central Bank so that it finances states and programs of public investment.
3. Raise income tax to 75% for all incomes over 500,000 euros.
4. Change the election laws to a proportional system.
5. Increase taxes on big companies to that of the European average.
6. Adoption of a tax on financial transactions and a special tax on luxury goods.
7. Prohibition of speculative financial derivatives.
8. Abolition of financial privileges for the Church and shipbuilding industry.
9. Combat the banks' secret [measures] and the flight of capital abroad.
10. Cut drastically military expenditures.
11. Raise minimum salary to the pre-cut level, 750 euros per month.
12. Use buildings of the government, banks and the Church for the homeless.
13. Open dining rooms in public schools to offer free breakfast and lunch to children.
14. Free health benefits to the unemployed, homeless and those with low salaries.
15. Subvention up to 30% of mortgage payments for poor families who cannot meet payments.
16. Increase of subsidies for the unemployed. Increase social protection for one-parent families, the aged, disabled, and families with no income.
17. Fiscal reductions for goods of primary necessity.
18. Nationalisation of banks.
19. Nationalisation of ex-public (service & utilities) companies in strategic sectors for the growth of the country (railroads, airports, mail, water).
20. Preference for renewable energy and defence of the environment.
21. Equal salaries for men and women.
22. Limitation of precarious hiring and support for contracts for indeterminate time.
23. Extension of the protection of labour and salaries of part-time workers.
24. Recovery of collective (labour) contracts.
25. Increase inspections of labour and requirements for companies making bids for public contracts.
26. Constitutional reforms to guarantee separation of church and state and protection of the right to education, health care and the environment.
27. Referendums on treaties and other accords with Europe.
28. Abolition of privileges for parliamentary deputies. Removal of special juridical protection for ministers and permission for the courts to proceed against members of the government.
29. Demilitarisation of the Coast Guard and anti-insurrectional special troops. Prohibition for police to wear masks or use fire arms during demonstrations. Change training courses for police so as to underline social themes such as immigration, drugs and social factors.
30. Guarantee human rights in immigrant detention centres.
31. Facilitate the reunion of immigrant families.
32. Depenalisation of consumption of drugs in favor of battle against drug traffic. Increase funding for drug rehab centres.
33. Regulate the right of conscientious objection in draft laws.
34. Increase funding for public health up to the average European level.(The European average is 6% of GDP; in Greece 3%.)
35. Elimination of payments by citizens for national health services.
36. Nationalisation of private hospitals. Elimination of private participation in the national health system.
37. Withdrawal of Greek troops from Afghanistan and the Balkans. No Greek soldiers beyond our own borders.
38. Abolition of military cooperation with Israel. Support for creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
39. Negotiation of a stable accord with Turkey.
40. Closure of all foreign bases in Greece and withdrawal from NATO.

and Left coms are class collaborationist?

[Ravachol]

Perhaps the best contemporary example of what I'm posting about is SYRIZA

Are you on acid? You must be fucking kidding me, tell me how SYRIZA is fostering class independence... And not by butchering Marx quotes but by actual evidence and, you know, not making up new words in order to cover up a lack of content.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good question. I don't "get" Left Com politics other than an abstentionist Luxemburgist-Trotskyism.

It seems fairly easy to avoid class collaboration when one doesn't even engage with the politics of one's class...

Actually, what I'm saying is that this abstention could be seen as a form of class collaboration. Either there's "voluntarist," active education ("propagandism"), agitation ("activism"), and organization towards this class independence outside a revolutionary period, or there isn't; for or against.


8. Abolition of financial privileges for the Church and shipbuilding industry.
9. Combat the banks' secret [measures] and the flight of capital abroad.
10. Cut drastically military expenditures.

[...]

12. Use buildings of the government, banks and the Church for the homeless.

[...]

18. Nationalisation of banks.
19. Nationalisation of ex-public (service & utilities) companies in strategic sectors for the growth of the country (railroads, airports, mail, water).

[...]

22. Limitation of precarious hiring and support for contracts for indeterminate time.
23. Extension of the protection of labour and salaries of part-time workers.
24. Recovery of collective (labour) contracts.

[...]

28. Abolition of privileges for parliamentary deputies. Removal of special juridical protection for ministers and permission for the courts to proceed against members of the government.
29. Demilitarisation of the Coast Guard and anti-insurrectional special troops. Prohibition for police to wear masks or use fire arms during demonstrations. Change training courses for police so as to underline social themes such as immigration, drugs and social factors.

[...]

36. Nationalisation of private hospitals. Elimination of private participation in the national health system.
37. Withdrawal of Greek troops from Afghanistan and the Balkans. No Greek soldiers beyond our own borders.

[...]

40. Closure of all foreign bases in Greece and withdrawal from NATO.

I quoted the ones that are good.

For both you and Ravachol: The more important part, however, is the party's organizing of party-affiliated mutual aid and solidarity networks.

[l'Enfermé]

What does that look like? Autonomous trade unions? Reform movements? Proliferation of Marxist sects? Seriously, before this conversation can happen, it would be sweet if I knew more specifically what was going on. All google points me to is some articles by Trotskyists who are against entryism. Not all that helpful.
I believe that by "class independence", DNZ means the Marxist conception that the proletariat can only take political action, as a class-for-itself, only if it constitutes itself into a political party that is opposed to and distinct from all the parties of the propertied classes.

This conception is based on Marx's statement in 1872 that:


Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.

This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes.

The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists.

The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes.This is very apparent in Bordiga(who was by no means what today we call a "left-communist"). For him, the proletariat is a class in the "historical sense" only when it has "started to struggle politically as a party", and this notion comes from the Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto speaks of the "organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party".

Bordiga even goes as far as to say to the anti-party crowd that they "declass" the proletariat and leave it "deprived of the ability to overthrow the ruling class, or even to mitigate its effects in restricted fields of activity" by refusing to recognize the party as the "main revolutionary organ" of our class.

[black magick hustla]

wow u guys fed the troll

[black magick hustla]

bakuninist right wing hooliganism reformist viza the merger of social proletocracy and the 20 point program for the future dnztopia

[Manic Impressive]

wow u guys fed the troll
Trolling would indicate that DNZ is being disingenuous, I don't think he is.

[l'Enfermé]

wow u guys fed the troll

bakuninist right wing hooliganism reformist viza the merger of social proletocracy and the 20 point program for the future dnztopia

Thank you for your valuable contribution, black magic hustla. What would we do without you?

[black magick hustla]

Thank you for your valuable contribution, black magic hustla. What would we do without you?

people would die of boredom by having to read ur grandpa rants and dnz's algorithmic musings

[blake 3:17]

The SYRIZA program is very good.

[l'Enfermé]

people would die of boredom by having to read ur grandpa rants and dnz's algorithmic musings
Please tell us more about emotionally-stunted schizophrenics and the nerd brigades that ruin the intellectual atmosphere of this board, comrade.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/039/080/5008_9c00_420.gif?1318992465

[Die Neue Zeit]

The SYRIZA program is very good.

Comrade, let's reflect on our common history: originally, the formation of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, despite its "organic links" to questionable trade unions, was seen as a class-independentist move away from the Libs and Tories.

[l'Enfermé]

Actually, what I'm saying is that this abstention could be seen as a form of class collaboration. Either there's active education ("propagandism"), agitation ("activism"), and organization towards this class independence outside a revolutionary period, or there isn't; for or against.

I don't think it can be said that these left-coms are class collaborationists though. They supporting "declassing"(as Bordiga said) the proletariat, but not on purpose. Anarchists throw class independence "to the wayside" too. As do most people on "the left". It wouldn't make much sense to howl about how we're the only ones that don't collaborate with the bourgeoisie to crush proletarian class independence. That would be nearly as ridiculous as the ultra-left constant invocation of this "left-wing of capital" and their narrative where everyone who isn't an ultra-left is a servant of capital(which, if extended to the 19th century, means that Marx and Engels were servants of capital also, since they weren't ultra-lefts).

If it is collaboration, it's very, very indirect, and doesn't discredit the characters of left-com comrades like direct collaboration would.

[Ravachol]

That would be nearly as ridiculous as the ultra-left constant invocation of this "left-wing of capital" and their narrative where everyone who isn't an ultra-left is a servant of capital(which, if extended to the 19th century, means that Marx and Engels were servants of capital also, since they weren't ultra-lefts).

I explained to you in another thread what the phrase "capital's left-wing" means, its good to see you didn't bother to pick that up at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think it can be said that these left-coms are class collaborationists though.

Of course, comrade, but given my foul political mood in recent weeks I wanted to draw provocative but credible links just like what was done between Boris Krichevskii's broad economism and Trotsky's "transitional" program. To do this, I used Error By Commission Or Omission.


They supporting "declassing"(as Bordiga said) the proletariat, but not on purpose. Anarchists throw class independence "to the wayside" too. As do most people on "the left". It wouldn't make much sense to howl about how we're the only ones that don't collaborate with the bourgeoisie to crush proletarian class independence. That would be nearly as ridiculous as the ultra-left constant invocation of this "left-wing of capital" and their narrative where everyone who isn't an ultra-left is a servant of capital(which, if extended to the 19th century, means that Marx and Engels were servants of capital also, since they weren't ultra-lefts).

If it is collaboration, it's very, very indirect, and doesn't discredit the characters of left-com comrades like direct collaboration would.

Of course. Such howling would be a sectarian mistake.

[Ravachol]

Of course. That would be a sectarian mistake.

Sectarianism implies an unnecessary break within an otherwise common movement. What on earth do your politics have in common with those of leftcoms/ultralefts...

[Luís Henrique]

Please don't feed the troll.

There is a legitimate question in there, however.

It has been best formulated by my comrade Chico Machado:


The role of revolutionaries in a revolutionary situation is clear: to make a revolution. The question, as we are in a non-revolutionary situation, is: what is the role of revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary situation?

This is a question, I think, some leftist tendencies have a lot of trouble answering. And I don't think it is possible to be a revolutionary in a non-revolutionary situation without answering it. Nor that it is possible to be a revolutionary in a revolutionary situation without being one in a non-revolutionary situation.

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

"The old project of a They are the ones that are called upon whenever our exploiters are in need of a a Stalinist organization. That Stalinist episode was followed by never elected by the people they claim to opportunism is a reformist trademark, it’s not surprising to see that that it was useless to discuss with people suspectso our heroic prime minister has the ringing endorsement of 20% ed of having perpetrated that so a veil of silence was drawn over them. Europe and of the party's constitution which calls for the common ownership of the means of production is the basis of the of the party's constitution which calls for the common nd their anger will be harmlessly defused. ownership of the means of production is the basis of the "

Somebody, The Total Beytrayal of the Wrkiiong Classs, 2013

[Leftsolidarity]

I still don't understand just exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.

Is it about if we like leftcoms? If so, no. I find them the most annoying tendency but whatever I don't care much for what tendency people call themselves.

Is it about the practicality of their views? If so, I think they're the most detached from any real struggle because its mostly hyper-intellectualism that looks down on any real work.

Is it about if they're class collabortionists? Umm, not from anything I've been able to tell. First of all, if you don't actually do anything you aren't anything. Secondly, their theory doesn't resemble any class collabortion I've ever heard of. Seems like an odd question to ask and there's much better ones you could be asking about them.

In all, this thread is weird. Try making coherent statements for once too.

[Red Enemy]

I prefer ANTARSYA's political program myself. Key word being prefer.

DNZ, you view SYRIZA as a working class party?

[Ravachol]

Is it about the practicality of their views? If so, I think they're the most detached from any real struggle because its mostly hyper-intellectualism that looks down on any real work.


All leftcoms (those from the 'historical communist left') i've met in my life were older than 45 and had participated in more struggles than all of this forum combined. So don't be an internet tough guy about 'being detached from the real struggle' because some people don't see much merit in running after every activist carousel handing out copies of some rag.

Besides, in my experience those on the ultraleft have come to such positions as the result of their participation in various political campaigns, activist work and workers struggles as opposed to those who go on about the 'mass party movement' and fusion of the 'worker party counterhegemonic blabla' who come across as if they've never seen a strike, housing campaign or riot outside of the newspapers...



First of all, if you don't actually do anything you aren't anything.


What is doing something?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Thanks, DNZ, for clarifying.
I think the problem with this is that it's posed as either (a workers' party, like SYRIZA) / or (de facto collaboration), when, in reality, there are neither/nor answers on the communist left, like that presented by Duave in Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement. I think the underlying assumption of the original post is that a communist party must replicate the form of bourgeois democratic parties - that a party must be centralized, must have a formal programme, etc. Also, maybe, since you're using SYRIZA as an example that the party must also contest elections?
To say the least, I disagree strongly.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I am a Maoist and even I know that you can't criticize them for being class collaborationist.

It's fine to disagree with people. But these wild accusations aren't good for anything.

[Sea]

Thank you for your valuable contribution, black magic hustla. What would we do without you?We'd all give up our usernames and be assigned names from Rafiq-0001 to DNZ-9999 based on when we joined. Marx-esque beards would be mandatory. Those who cannot grow a beard will be given a clip-on (yes it clips on to your face) Dzerzhinsky 'stache and goatee. Everyone, including females, must wear the 'stache and goatee even while eating and smoking their mandatory bubble pipes. Using the restroom in any posture other than that of The Thinker (https://lh3.ggpht.com/-f9bTBxQWdFw/UAchCkeG5CI/AAAAAAAAPo4/AVgPiPXXv78/s1600/the-thinker.jpeg) will be forbidden. Nobody is allowed to work unless they have a friend who is writing. Everyone is required to have a poster of Lilith Sternin and/or Frasier Crane on their walls.

It will be an intellectual paradise.

[Leftsolidarity]

All leftcoms (those from the 'historical communist left') i've met in my life were older than 45 and had participated in more struggles than all of this forum combined. So don't be an internet tough guy about 'being detached from the real struggle' because some people don't see much merit in running after every activist carousel handing out copies of some rag.

Besides, in my experience those on the ultraleft have come to such positions as the result of their participation in various political campaigns, activist work and workers struggles as opposed to those who go on about the 'mass party movement' and fusion of the 'worker party counterhegemonic blabla' who come across as if they've never seen a strike, housing campaign or riot outside of the newspapers...




How was I being an internet tough guy at all? First, I was stating my personal opinion on the tendency in general which I still stand by. Even if we're only talking about theory, I still think it is most detached from the working class struggle.

I've never actually met any (as far as I know) while doing anything even remotely political. Most likely because of exactly the attitude you give off of looking down at actually doing something (even if it's small). I've met many people from many different tendencies that have been involved in the struggle for over 50 years (and still participate), in my experience the majority that have stuck around have been Leninists of some variety. Saying that all leftcoms are just too old to get out and try to build anything is kind of a strange argument.

I don't think all left communists are detached or are hyper-intellectuals but from what I've experienced, that particular tendency has the biggest problem with that. There are people on here that identify as leftcoms that I don't mind their politics all that much but on the general, the tendency just annoys me and comes off as extremely snobby.



What is doing something?


Almost anything but this.

[black magick hustla]

I've never actually met any (as far as I know) while doing anything even remotely political. Most likely because of exactly the attitude you give off of looking down at actually doing something (even if it's small). I've met many people from many different tendencies that have been involved in the struggle for over 50 years (and still participate), i

dude ur like 18 u only been an activist prolly for a year jesus fucking christ. your also in the midwest or some shit

left communists are numerically tiny and that's why you don't meet them. but if you where in somewhere like paris there is more chance you'd bump into one.

anyway the reason why you meet a lot of "leninists" too is that leninists believe in building fronts or trotbags believe in gaining the "leadership" etc so they are really engaged in recruiting and putting themselves out there etc. the mayority of leftcoms/ultralefts don't exist as formal groups.

u wanna know what seems "detached"? when groups like ur sect (wwp) split into two identical groups with identical programs lol





I don't think all left communists are detached or are hyper-intellectuals but from what I've experienced, that particular tendency has the biggest problem with that. There are people on here that identify as leftcoms that I don't mind their politics all that much but on the general, the tendency just annoys me and comes off as extremely snobby.


generally when someone goes off about ultralefts/leftcoms being snobs is cuz' they have a critcism of the "do something" activist burnout culture cuz' someone might not find very useful to throw rocks at a tiny, irrelevant group of mentally ill neonazis

[Art Vandelay]

Could a member of the BA step in here and oh I don't know, do their fucking job? In all honesty the BA (whom I've never had much respect for since they run this forum in a pathetic manner: hiding past rape jokes by members of the BA, banning great users for exposing the truth, ie: Welshy) is just getting more and more pathetic by the day. This is just proven, by this new fucking witch hunt going on, with even members of the BA (the douche, which is a sexist fucking user name by the way, and don't even try to deny it) participating in it. On top of all this, we have BMH, running around doing nothing but blatant trolling (when was the last time he posted anything of worth) and yet the BA does nothing. The fact that I got a verbal warning for flaming (and I even admitted I was flaming and deleted the post) while this fucking nonsense goes on, is laughable.

Ed Miliband's, BMH's, GourmetPez and Devrim's posts in this thread (aside from BMH they are all normally great members of the forum) are nothing but trolling.

[black magick hustla]

Could a member of the BA step in here and oh I don't know, do their fucking job? In all honesty the BA (whom I've never had much respect for since they run this forum in a pathetic manner: hiding past rape jokes by members of the BA, banning great users for exposing the truth, ie: Welshy) is just getting more and more pathetic by the day. This is just proven, by this new fucking witch hunt going on, with even members of the BA (the douche, which is a sexist fucking user name by the way, and don't even try to deny it) participating in it. On top of all this, we have BMH, running around doing nothing but blatant trolling (when was the last time he posted anything of worth) and yet the BA does nothing. The fact that I got a verbal warning for flaming (and I even admitted I was flaming and deleted the post) while this fucking nonsense goes on, is laughable.

Ed Miliband's, BMH's, GourmetPez and Devrim's posts in this thread (aside from BMH they are all normally great members of the forum) are nothing but trolling.

dude the OP's post is a fuckin troll and an open provocation. stop crying tears for ur master

[Art Vandelay]

generally when someone goes off about ultralefts/leftcoms being snobs is cuz' they have a critcism of the "do something" activist burnout culture cuz' someone might not find very useful to throw rocks at a tiny, irrelevant group of mentally ill neonazis

Go fuck yourself you self richeous prick. As someone who actually suffers from mental illness, I find your continual jabs about mental health disgusting. The manner in which you conduct yourself on this forum, strikes me of the behavior of someone with a huge inferiority complex who temporarily decreases their own self loathing, by picking on others, like the fucking biggest kid in the playground. But I'm not even going to waste anymore time on you.

When is this troll going to be banned? Would I get the same leniency if I was walking around using sexist language? Apparently I would, since a member of the BA already has a sexist username. I'd expect better, given the fact that many members of this forum suffer from a array of mental health issues. I guess when you get to so many posts you get to go around being a snarky prick and the rules don't apply.

[black magick hustla]

actually. I am sorry. you know what i shouldn't use the term "mentally ill" like that. that doesn't change the fact that dnz's politics are fucked up (the same way nazis are), etc.

[Raúl Duke]

Actually, what I'm saying is that this abstention could be seen as a form of class collaboration. Either there's "voluntarist," active education ("propagandism"), agitation ("activism"), and organization towards this class independence outside a revolutionary period, or there isn't; for or against.

I find that a faulty premise: a false dichotomy.

Plus it doesn't take into account how the left-coms, et.al view this "organization towards class 'independence:'" The fact that you mentioned Syriza while accusing them of being class collaborationists is amusing since they would consider you to be a class collaborationist as well for the support of a party like Syriza.

Although I agree with you that perhaps there's a need for a working-class orientated group that develops I guess a kind of "culture" (I believe you mentioned this a long time ago and used the example of the SDP of the past) and also have extensive "mutual aid and solidarity networks" but why sully that with cheap parliamentarianism? Also, some groups engage in that kind of stuff without being in parliament/electoral politics; in another thread someone mentioned Abahlali baseMjondolo which I see as a possible example of this to some extent.

Recently I've been getting this suspicion that your ideas, while under a new/unique moniker (social proletrocracy?; everyone keeps saying shit like this), aren't really new but just a rehash of old ideas that frankly have historically failed one way or another in the end. Sure they might have their "time in the sun" but all have utterly failed, usually from "within." At first I thought your ideas might have been a framework for a new Leninist praxis (and while I'm not a Leninist, it would be nice to see Leninists do something different then the same failed things).


The question, as we are in a non-revolutionary situation, is: what is the role of revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary situation?

I think this is a serious question, one which the left needs to find a viable answer to.

---

I would like to add that, from a certain standpoint, I find myself agreeing with the left-com, et.al's criticism of the predominate "do-something" activist culture. A lot of actions the left engage in are ineffective, some are simple navel-gazing, and a stupid/risky waste of time. We need to re-evaluate what we're doing, what we want in terms of praxis, and figure out the answer to that question: "what is the role of [revolutionary leftists] in a non-revolutionary situation"

[Zealot]

Left-coms are only happy to join the anti-Stalinist brigade at every opportunity but for one time someone critiques them and they call everyone a troll. Nice.

[Geiseric]

He has a point, left communists think its possible for consciousness to raise with only maximum demands, which doesn't work because the working class doesn't give a shit about ending capitalism. Consciousness can only raise by propagating socialist solutions to struggles that the reformists and opportunists will provide ones that make said movements die down. They also don't support nationalism with oppressed nationalities, expecting them to jump straight to saying "overthrow caitalism," without solving the issues that make that necessary consciousness possible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although I agree with you that perhaps there's a need for a working-class orientated group that develops I guess a kind of "culture" (I believe you mentioned this a long time ago and used the example of the SDP of the past) and also have extensive "mutual aid and solidarity networks" but why sully that with cheap parliamentarianism?

I didn't. I also mentioned mass spoilage campaigns.


Recently I've been getting this suspicion that your ideas, while under a new/unique moniker (social proletrocracy?; everyone keeps saying shit like this), aren't really new but just a rehash of old ideas that frankly have historically failed one way or another in the end. Sure they might have their "time in the sun" but all have utterly failed, usually from "within." At first I thought your ideas might have been a framework for a new Leninist praxis (and while I'm not a Leninist, it would be nice to see Leninists do something different then the same failed things).

Councilism, direct action-ism, and spontaneism have failed way more than what is alleged of my position. Why keep bumping one's head against a wall in one direction when the door is in the other direction?


I would like to add that, from a certain standpoint, I find myself agreeing with the left-com, et.al's criticism of the predominate "do-something" activist culture. A lot of actions the left engage in are ineffective, some are simple navel-gazing, and a stupid/risky waste of time. We need to re-evaluate what we're doing, what we want in terms of praxis, and figure out the answer to that question: "what is the role of [revolutionary leftists] in a non-revolutionary situation"

Don't get me wrong: I have my reservations about today's "activism" culture. What I am saying is that the level of organizing isn't pervasive enough.


Consciousness can only raise by propagating socialist solutions to struggles that the reformists and opportunists will provide ones that make said movements die down. They also don't support nationalism with oppressed nationalities, expecting them to jump straight to saying "overthrow capitalism," without solving the issues that make that necessary consciousness possible.

That's the wrong answer, actually. That underlies mere electoralism and also municipalism and regionalism.

[Ottoraptor]

He has a point, left communists think its possible for consciousness to raise with only maximum demands, which doesn't work because the working class doesn't give a shit about ending capitalism. Consciousness can only raise by propagating socialist solutions to struggles that the reformists and opportunists will provide ones that make said movements die down. They also don't support nationalism with oppressed nationalities, expecting them to jump straight to saying "overthrow caitalism" without solving the issues that make that necessary consciousness possible.

Left communists don't believe that the actions of communists can raise consciousness, whether they are using a maximum, minimal, or transitional program. To think you can do such is pure voluntarism.

For LeftSolidarity: The reason why you don't run into many left communists, as BMH said, is that in the US they are numerically small and give the population of the US it makes it unlike you will run into one with out actively seeking them out. Also because left communists don't have a mentality of doing something for the sake of doing something, they won't latch onto every protest that pops up unless it is directly related to class struggle. Outside of the US where left communists and ultra-leftists are more numerous you are more likely to see them and they are quite active. Here is a picture of Battaglia Communista (the ICT's Italian branch) at a protest and a video of a protest they were involved in 2 years ago. Sorry I didn't imbed them, my browser is being a pain in the ass.

www . leftcom . org/files/2010-10-16-roma-2_0.jpg

www . leftcom . org/it/media/2010-12-14/roma-14-12-2010 (Can a mod fix my links)

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry I didn't imbed them, my browser is being a pain in the ass. www . leftcom . org/files/2010-10-16-roma-2_0.jpg www . leftcom . org/it/media/2010-12-14/roma-14-12-2010 (Can a mod fix my links)
It's not your browser you need 25 posts to be able to post links
http://www.leftcom.org/files/2010-10-16-roma-2_0.jpg
http://www.leftcom.org/en/org/it/media/2010-12-14/roma-14-12-2010

[Drosophila]

He has a point, left communists think its possible for consciousness to raise with only maximum demands, which doesn't work because the working class doesn't give a shit about ending capitalism. Consciousness can only raise by propagating socialist solutions to struggles that the reformists and opportunists will provide ones that make said movements die down. They also don't support nationalism with oppressed nationalities, expecting them to jump straight to saying "overthrow caitalism," without solving the issues that make that necessary consciousness possible.

This is a joke. So just because the proletariat currently isn't revolutionary means we great communists need to step in and hold its hand? That's a horribly elitist view. The working class isn't organized at all as of now. Thus, it currently has no potential of overthrowing capitalism. Elitist assholes from the countless "left" parties out there aren't going to be able to guide the proletariat into revolution, as communism is a movement of the working class itself. Marxist intellectuals and edgy activists have nothing to do with it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm with 9mm when it comes to this thread.

I still don't even understand what this thread is supposed to be about and I don't want to derail it (if that's even possible) so if someone wants to make a thread dedicated to why the left communist tendency pisses me off more than probably any other, I'd love to go rant in it sometimes. So if someone does that, send me a message and I'll talk to you in that. Goodbye thread.

[Ostrinski]

It was certainly a non-starter.

[Jimmie Higgins]

dude ur like 18 u only been an activist prolly for a year jesus fucking christ. your also in the midwest or some shit

Black Magic Hustla please refrain from further flamming such as the example (one of several in this thread) above. This is a warning. Keep it political.


Go fuck yourself you self richeous prick.Calm down please.


Could a member of the BA step in here and oh I don't know, do their fucking job? In all honesty the BA (whom I've never had much respect for since they run this forum in a pathetic manner: hiding past rape jokes by members of the BA, banning great users for exposing the truth, ie: Welshy) is just getting more and more pathetic by the day. This is just proven, by this new fucking witch hunt going on, with even members of the BA (the douche, which is a sexist fucking user name by the way, and don't even try to deny it) participating in it. On top of all this, we have BMH, running around doing nothing but blatant trolling (when was the last time he posted anything of worth) and yet the BA does nothing. The fact that I got a verbal warning for flaming (and I even admitted I was flaming and deleted the post) while this fucking nonsense goes on, is laughable.

Ed Miliband's, BMH's, GourmetPez and Devrim's posts in this thread (aside from BMH they are all normally great members of the forum) are nothing but trolling.Take this up elsewhere: figure out a constructive and appropriate way to present your complaints if you think there is a problem with the board in general.

As for me and not stepping in earlier, I apologize for that, but I'm also just like any other poster and can only check-in every so often per a day at best. Another comrade did the right thing by PM'ing me because this is the first thing I checked-out after logging in (unfortunately because I'm sure there is some discussion about how consumerist Christmas is for me to be in:lol:). But escalating the discussion with BMH after not getting a quick enough responce is not helpful for the situation. And bring your larger complaints to the BA and CU, but not to these kinds of threads.

Please, everyone - keep it political.

[Luís Henrique]

hiding past rape jokes by members of the BA

They are hiding it now?

Well, I guess from cynicism to hypocrisy there is some progress.

Worse is the part of the membership that believes ogling is rape but doesn't confront such kind of behaviour.


On top of all this, we have BMH, running around doing nothing but blatant trolling (when was the last time he posted anything of worth)

He makes good contributions; sometimes indeed very good ones. But only when he doesn't get passive-aggressive because someone criticises something he thinks he is a part of (empyricism, positivism, left-communism).


Ed Miliband's, BMH's, GourmetPez and Devrim's posts in this thread (aside from BMH they are all normally great members of the forum) are nothing but trolling.

I haven't checked the other people's contributions, but I don't think devrim is trolling. He has a difficult question to answer, and he is rather not answering it. Disqualifying the questioner is easier, and in an environment such as revleft, probably more effective.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

dude the OP's post is a fuckin troll and an open provocation. stop crying tears for ur master

There are lots of threads that are equally if not more provocative against Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, etc, etc, etc. So why would be the communist left an exception?

Luís Henrique

[BeingAndGrime]

what do left coms conceive of as praxis?

[Devrim]

I haven't checked the other people's contributions, but I don't think devrim is trolling. He has a difficult question to answer, and he is rather not answering it. Disqualifying the questioner is easier, and in an environment such as revleft, probably more effective.

I didn't make a contribution, Luís. I think that the question that you raised about what revolutionaries should do outside of a revolutionary period is a valid one, and if you start a new thread, I will do my best to try to answer it. I think that this is an absurd thread as obviously the whole thing behind left communist politics is about trying to play a role in developing the working class as a class for itself, i.e. class independence. I don't think discussing an absurd statement with an absurd creator of silly words, and even sillier ideas, a fair proportion of which are blatantly anti-working class and would have got anybody else here banned is worth wasting much time on.


There are lots of threads that are equally if not more provocative against Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, etc, etc, etc. So why would be the communist left an exception?

It is not that I think is is provocative. I am quite happy to discuss provocative statements made about left communism with the overwhelming majority of people on this board. I am just not interested in giving worthless empty statements any more notice than they deserve.

Devrim

[Devrim]

All leftcoms (those from the 'historical communist left') i've met in my life were older than 45 and had participated in more struggles than all of this forum combined.

I think that this is somewhat of a generalisation. It is mostly true about the ICC in most of its older sections, but if you look at other groups the demographic is very different, and it would be rare to meet people over 45.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that this is an absurd thread as obviously the whole thing behind left communist politics is about trying to play a role in developing the working class as a class for itself, i.e. class independence. I don't think discussing an absurd statement with an absurd creator of silly words, and even sillier ideas, a fair proportion of which are blatantly anti-working class and would have got anybody else here banned is worth wasting much time on.

Many months ago, you had your chance to prove your point. Are Mike Macnair, Lars Lih, and others who exposed the non-starter left-com positions (of actually not playing such a role) "absurd creators" of "sillier ideas"?


I am quite happy to discuss provocative statements made about left communism with the overwhelming majority of people on this board. I am just not interested in giving worthless empty statements any more notice than they deserve.

Your evasive attitude towards those authors demonstrates otherwise.

[Ravachol]

Saying that all leftcoms are just too old to get out and try to build anything is kind of a strange argument.


That's not what I said. I said most of them aren't detached from 'the struggle at all', its just that they don't confuse leftist activism with meaningful intervention or proletarian struggle itself.



Almost anything but this.

And that's exactly the problem. "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING" is a mindless impulse that has gotten nobody anything except a burnout or a 'prominent' role within the self-appointed fiefdom of 'activist' specialists.



someone might not find very useful to throw rocks at a tiny, irrelevant group of mentally ill neonazis


Fully agree with your post but i do wanna say that this can be fun though.



I think that this is somewhat of a generalisation. It is mostly true about the ICC in most of its older sections, but if you look at other groups the demographic is very different, and it would be rare to meet people over 45.

Yeah I guess so but I've only met ICC folks from the Dutch/Belgian and like one from the French section.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Go fuck yourself you self richeous prick.

When is this troll going to be banned? Would I get the same leniency if I was walking around using sexist language?

Oh. Fucking. Dear.

Here's a pot. And lookie here, here's a fucking kettle too, and it's being accused of being black by the aforementioned pot.

Meanwhile, DNZs latest thread is, whilst not a troll thread because he probably isn't totally dis-ingenuous, a cloaked flamebait. Anybody knows that by saying, 'x tendency has y position, could this, if abc condition applied, lead to z negative implication', he';s basically just, in a posh and convoluted way, accusing x tendency (in this case left communists) of z negative implication (in this case, being class collaborationist).

I'm not sure that it's possible to have an emotionless response to this. In this sense, it's meaningless to blame those of us who are clearly more favourable to a 'left-wing' approach to communism, since if we were to say 'could it be possible that, by supporting SYRIZA, Die Linke et al., DNZ and his disciples are a bunch of reformist, dictatorial, strange, quasi-Stalinoid lackeys?' then I can imagine the response would be equally emotion-fuelled.

In short, the user 9mm has totally undermined his (already incredible, anyway) accusations of sexism by using a sexist term himself. And this thread is somewhat pointless. A mature, serious discussion was never going to come out of this really, was it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

then I can imagine the response would be equally emotion-fuelled.

Problem: It has already been said, not least by you personally, but we persisted in engaging with the argument and not against the advocates.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Problem: It has already been said, not least by you personally, but we persisted in engaging with the argument and not against the advocates.

I feel as though 'engaging' is the wrong word, though. Or rather: engaging with who? Clearly, there are some issues where it is quite useless to attempt to engage in productive, cross-sectional discussion (such as this). If you persist in 'trying to engage', then you essentially narrow down your discussion to an introverted exercise in academic masturbation, something I feel is equally un-productive.

So, as I said before, whilst this probably isn't a 'troll' thread, i'm not sure it is particularly useful.

[Ravachol]

I'll just repost this 'cause apparently DNZ glossed over this and for someone who bangs on about 'left unity' this seems pretty central.




Of course. That would be a sectarian mistake.Sectarianism implies an unnecessary break within an otherwise common movement. What on earth do your politics have in common with those of leftcoms/ultralefts...

[Yuppie Grinder]

He has a point, left communists think its possible for consciousness to raise with only maximum demands, which doesn't work because the working class doesn't give a shit about ending capitalism.

I do. There is a high correlation between people who exclusively talk about the working class in third person and people who have shit politics.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am no theoretician, but I have worshipped Goddess Cleo, the Muse of History, and She tells me that Left Communism is not class collaborationist. One of the poverties of philosophy is that words can be twisted, but Goddess Cleo always tells the truth.

[Grenzer]

Oh, this is rich. Brother Number One and his social-democratic goons have quite literally walked out of the reformist closet on this one with their appraisal of a program of taxation and nationalization, of capitalism, as "good", and they presume to talk about class independence. It seems to have eluded our "great theoretician" that advocating capitalism may possibly result in.. working in the interests of capitalism.

"Oh, well maybe if we restrict membership to workers.." yadda yadda yadda, bullshit bullshit bullshit? It never ceases to amuse how far he goes to justify what is in practice reformism through his weird hybrid of social-democracy, fascism, Maoism, and who knows what else. So many neologisms and so much convoluted, paradoxical logic just to clumsily conceal the fact that he's an eclectic social-democrat. The only sources, it seems, that he is not willing to turn to are actual Marxism and communism.

For those who have been unable to puzzle out Broody's own strange pseudo-Trotskyist, social-democratic politics(although one might say they are really two different forms of the same thing, that goes beyond the scope of this topic), I've recently pieced it together: while fully acknowledging the train wreck that was social-democracy, he advocates it none the less since he believes that a revolutionary organization can only emerge from the growth of a social-democratic movement, and its subsequent betrayal of the working class just as the Communist Parties emerged from the wreckage of the Second International. It seems to have eluded him that this might be skipped all together and that we should advocate the revolutionary organization from the start. Again, just as with with our "Orthodox Marxists"(really just social-democrats who are too cowardly to honestly and openly acknowledge the true nature and origin of their politics all the while openly aping Kautsky, the foremost promulgator of social-democracy), it's an abstraction that is divorced from the actual movement to abolish the present state of things that serves to oppose it in practice.

The OP is simply trolling in this thread and it should be closed.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

He has a point, left communists think its possible for consciousness to raise with only maximum demands, which doesn't work because the working class doesn't give a shit about ending capitalism. Consciousness can only raise by propagating socialist solutions to struggles that the reformists and opportunists will provide ones that make said movements die down. They also don't support nationalism with oppressed nationalities, expecting them to jump straight to saying "overthrow caitalism," without solving the issues that make that necessary consciousness possible.

This makes you my favorite trot <3

[Yuppie Grinder]

"We'll trick the unthinking proles into revolution with our minimal program! Labour party is proletarian!" - all the trotbags

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've recently pieced it together: while fully acknowledging the train wreck that was social-democracy, he advocates it none the less since he believes that a revolutionary organization can only emerge from the growth of a social-democratic movement, and its subsequent betrayal of the working class just as the Communist Parties emerged from the wreckage of the Second International.

By your weird logic, I could say this of supposedly more "informed" left-coms: while fully acknowledging the situational failure to pose the question of power by spontaneous movements in Italy, France, and Portugal during the late 60s to the 70s, left-coms still advocate this bumping one's head against the wall, that only workers councils are capable of exercising working-class rule.

[Ravachol]

By your weird logic, I could say this of supposedly more "informed" left-coms: while fully acknowledging the situational failure to pose the question of power by spontaneous movements in Italy, France, and Portugal during the late 60s to the 70s, left-coms still advocate this bumping one's head against the wall.

As opposed to your highly effective 'revolutionary strategizing' which is already getting us real world results? :laugh: On a different note, why are you ignoring my request for clarification: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554514&postcount=64

[Geiseric]

That's not what I said. I said most of them aren't detached from 'the struggle at all', its just that they don't confuse leftist activism with meaningful intervention or proletarian struggle itself.



And that's exactly the problem. "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING" is a mindless impulse that has gotten nobody anything except a burnout or a 'prominent' role within the self-appointed fiefdom of 'activist' specialists.



Fully agree with your post but i do wanna say that this can be fun though.




Yeah I guess so but I've only met ICC folks from the Dutch/Belgian and like one from the French section.

So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing. This all boils down to sectarianism, every aspect of left communism.

[Drosophila]

So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing. This all boils down to sectarianism, every aspect of left communism.

A Trotskyist talking about sectarianism? That's a laugh.

Left-Communists simply realize that the countless Marxist activist sects are worthless in the class struggle and push the need for the proletariat to act on its own.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As opposed to your highly effective 'revolutionary strategizing' which is already getting us real world results? :laugh: On a different note, why are you ignoring my request for clarification: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554514&postcount=64


I'll just repost this 'cause apparently DNZ glossed over this and for someone who bangs on about 'left unity' this seems pretty central.

Well, even left-coms can't get their act together (hello, united ultra-lefts?), but you are right in implying that left-communist (non-)strategy is fundamentally different from small-r revolutionary Marxist strategy.


So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing. This all boils down to sectarianism, every aspect of left communism.


Left-Communists simply realize that the countless Marxist activist sects are worthless in the class struggle and push the need for the proletariat to act on its own.

The former, yes, but not the latter, the point of my thread.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

A Trotskyist talking about sectarianism? That's a laugh.

Left-Communists simply realize that the countless Marxist activist sects are worthless in the class struggle and push the need for the proletariat to act on its own.

Whoa, what an idea. I guess let's not try to build a mass party to try to resist bourgeois hegemony, but let us "push the need" for workers to..

In the end it seems to me that the left-communists are afraid of the fact that we have to make all workers follow us, the class conscious workers. There is no path to liberation through spontaneous revolution just as Fascism was no "mass insanity". Revolution is to win over the minds of workers for Socialism, their independence as a class; there are many more fronts today on which capitalist anti-worker hegemony exists than ever existed, which makes a mass party crucial to fight for class consciousness.

Look at Spain. There is 56% Youth unemployment, countless people going hungry, thrown out of their homes by the capital-police, suffering historical attacks from capital.
And what do our "Proletarians" do? Italians watch 18% more television today than 5 years ago. Germans, who are getting paid 20% less than four years ago, are using electronic gadgets like an explosion.
To escape the harsh realities of crisis, workers are delving into the magical happy propaganda world of the Monopoly Capitalists; instead of joining a union to fight for their rights they watch corporate television which blames unions for the crisis, instead of reading a marxist book they picked up on the walk back from work they never saw the bookstore as they were too busy looking at their latest text messages from their also-isolated pals.

What is needed is a mass movement to break through the discernible capitalist hegemony which is tying the brains of workers to Monopoly Capital instead of the communist movement, which would be the logical conclusion given material reality.

[bcbm]

So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing.

is it?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing. This all boils down to sectarianism, every aspect of left communism.

Funny that, I thought the purpose of a Marxist organisation was to do everything to further revolution.

Obviously, your post belies that you've decided, unilaterally, that the way to do this is to 'do activism' and 'organise', not any of the other things that might help further the interests of the working class, namely social revolution.

And you have the gall to throw the 'sectarian!' jibe around? :thumbdown:

[Ravachol]

Well, even left-coms can't get their act together (hello, united ultra-lefts?), but you are right in implying that left-communist (non-)strategy is fundamentally different from small-r revolutionary Marxist strategy.

Good. So no more bollocks about sectarianism and left unity from you then. There's nothing me, 'ultralefts' or leftcoms have in common with the likes of you, you acknowledge this and that's that.


So you don't think that activism contributes to class struggle? That's funny, seeing as the purpose of a marxist organization is to do "activism" and organizing.

Good luck with the sisyphus labor and the inevitable dead-end union position this kind of 'logic' usually ends in. Be honest with yourself man, for how long have activist groupuscules seen themselves as somehow the spark to the powderkeg who have to 'awaken' and 'organize' the masses and what has that done so far?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good. So no more bollocks about sectarianism and left unity from you then. There's nothing me, 'ultralefts' or leftcoms have in common with the likes of you, you acknowledge this and that's that.

It is sectarianism on your part because you're adhering to failed dogmas by bumping your head against the wall repeatedly and asking others to do so. In this case, political ignorance and sectarianism are not mutually exclusive.

[Ravachol]

It is sectarianism on your part because you're adhering to failed dogmas by bumping your head against the wall repeatedly and asking others to do so. In this case, political ignorance and sectarianism are not mutually exclusive.

yup, gotta bump that wall bro. im sorry for not wanting to play with you since were really the same and all :(

[blake 3:17]

yup, gotta bump that wall bro. im sorry for not wanting to play with you since were really the same and all :(

Huh?

While I disagree with DNZ on a number of issues, I am very sympathetic to the issue he's been trying to address -- how do we break the isolation of revolutionary Left politics?

I am not opposed to all form of class collaboration. The question is when should one do this, on what basis, and to which ends will be achieved.

The mainstream of the socialist movement has been way overly statist, far too reliant on certain forms of bourgeois democracy and far too willing to compromise.

I find many of the problems in their inverse within Left Com, Trotskyist and Luxemburgist formations.

Oddly enough, quite a number of anarchists I know have been better at making tactical compromises while maintaining their principles.

[bcbm]

how do we break the isolation of revolutionary Left politics

i'm not sure that 'we' can or that this is even a necessarily worthwhile goal.

[l'Enfermé]

^If we can't there's no point in being communists then, is there? Unless it's some ethical thing for you like vegetarianism. Might as well reconcile yourself with this capitalism thing and get on with it.

[Ravachol]

^If we can't there's no point in being communists then, is there? Unless it's some ethical thing for you like vegetarianism. Might as well reconcile yourself with this capitalism thing and get on with it.

I think you're confusing the extension of a milieu of specialists/activists/whatever with the communist movement.

[newdayrising]

This is very apparent in Bordiga(who was by no means what today we call a "left-communist"). For him, the proletariat is a class in the "historical sense" only when it has "started to struggle politically as a party", and this notion comes from the Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto speaks of the "organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party".

Bordiga even goes as far as to say to the anti-party crowd that they "declass" the proletariat and leave it "deprived of the ability to overthrow the ruling class, or even to mitigate its effects in restricted fields of activity" by refusing to recognize the party as the "main revolutionary organ" of our class.

Are you implying that left-coms today are somehow anti-party?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you're confusing the extension of a milieu of specialists/activists/whatever with the communist movement.

I'm pretty sure that blake 3:17 and subsequent posters were referring to the revolutionary left as a whole, not a particular subset of it.

Otherwise, what is the difference between "the extension of a milieu of specialists/activists/whatever" and "the communist movement", and can you give examples of each?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are you implying that left-coms today are somehow anti-party?

Despite their rhetoric, when it comes to strategy or (non-)strategy, they are.

[Hit The North]

Funny that, I thought the purpose of a Marxist organisation was to do everything to further revolution.

Obviously, your post belies that you've decided, unilaterally, that the way to do this is to 'do activism' and 'organise', not any of the other things that might help further the interests of the working class, namely social revolution.


I think in a more considered post, broody would argue that the tasks of the revolutionary party is to agitate, educate and organise. Apart from DNZ's pedantic concern with the ordering of these functions, this is pretty much unarguable for Marxists isn't it? And this is how the revolutionary party does everything in its power to further revolution, so I really don't know what you're objecting to in Broody's post.

If we concede that one can be a revolutionary worker in non-revolutionary times, then it makes sense, doesn't it, for these revolutionaries to organise their efforts in their interventions in the class struggle? To agitate, educate and organise within the class?

If you don't believe that revolutionary workers can exist in non-revolutionary times and that they should organise themselves, then what is the point of being any kind of communist, never mind a Left Communist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think in a more considered post, broody would argue that the tasks of the revolutionary party is to agitate, educate and organise. Apart from DNZ's pedantic concern with the ordering of these functions, this is pretty much unarguable for Marxists isn't it? And this is how the revolutionary party does everything in its power to further revolution, so I really don't know what you're objecting to in Broody's post.

I think that's certainly a fairer way of describing the activities of a revolutionary party in a either a pre-revolutionary period or in the midst of a revolutionary period, but it doesn't really address the function of the party once the state has been defeated or weakened to the extent that bourgeois power is in terminal - nay, definite - decline. My main worry, as DNZ actually did allude to, is the problem of parallel institutions. After all, if a revolutionary party spends decades if not more as an institution whose function is to agitate, educate and organise outside of state institutions or any other institution for that matter, then what purpose can the party possibly be suited to post-revolution? Surely, if its job is done then it should disband at this point?


If we concede that one can be a revolutionary worker in non-revolutionary times, then it makes sense, doesn't it, for these revolutionaries to organise their efforts in their interventions in the class struggle? To agitate, educate and organise within the class?

I'm not sure that we can concede that. It is possible for one to be both a worker and a communist in non-revolutionary times, but if the period itself is non-revolutionary and there is no definite understanding that the next immediate future period will be revolutionary, then what revolutionary result is achieved by a worker holding communist ideas? I'm not belittling our own philosophical beliefs here, by the way, but I don't see myself as revolutionary right now, since nothing I do politically has any hope of effecting a change that could come close to being termed revolutionary.


If you don't believe that revolutionary workers can exist in non-revolutionary times and that they should organise themselves, then what is the point of being any kind of communist, never mind a Left Communist?

Well, this is a problem i've entertained and, whilst I don't say it's pointless in the slightest, I do have a problem (and, studying Economics, I come across their counterparts in the neo-classical world) with people who change the equation to fit their result. That is, people hypothesise that on some level, be it moral, ethical or philosophical, that there is some 'goodness' or benefit to them being communists, active communists. But how to be a communist in the most effective way? I get the feeling that people don't want to (understandably, I might add) accept anything like the conclusion that they can't effect any sort of revolutionary change by holding communist ideas in a non-revolutionary period. I do understand the problems of what i'm saying in terms of it leading towards 'spontaneity', which is also unsatisfactory, but it seems to me as though there is limited (rather than no) benefit, to the wider working class including myself, of me being an active communist in non-revolutionary times.

^^I should add that the above (limited benefit of certain activity) is predicated on advancing towards the goal of revolution. In terms of defensive, more economistic struggles, there are always gains to be had for workers from solidarity and good organisation. Perhaps this is the purpose of revolutionary communism in non-revolutionary periods, and perhaps this is the role of the party? To organise, then to agitate and educate.

[the last donut of the night]

Whoa, what an idea. I guess let's not try to build a mass party to try to resist bourgeois hegemony, but let us "push the need" for workers to..

that isn't the left-com praxis for revolution, and you know it. if you also looked at the past century, you'd also know that the reformist wet-dream of the mass party has never even come close to challenging bourgeois hegemony. in fact, they usually become part of it.


In the end it seems to me that the left-communists are afraid of the fact that we have to make all workers follow us, the class conscious workers.

yes, the mindless mob should follow us, the educated revolutionaries, on the way to the other wet-dream of the left: a hyper-organized, technocratic socialist society.


There is no path to liberation through spontaneous revolution just as Fascism was no "mass insanity". Revolution is to win over the minds of workers for Socialism, their independence as a class; there are many more fronts today on which capitalist anti-worker hegemony exists than ever existed, which makes a mass party crucial to fight for class consciousness.

and i suppose the preaching of the communist creed will supposely lead to liberation? btw, nice contradiction. for someone who supposedly loves class independence, you seem to have a need for evangelizing and "winning minds". now, tell me, how does one win another person's independence for them?


Look at Spain. There is 56% Youth unemployment, countless people going hungry, thrown out of their homes by the capital-police, suffering historical attacks from capital.
And what do our "Proletarians" do? Italians watch 18% more television today than 5 years ago. Germans, who are getting paid 20% less than four years ago, are using electronic gadgets like an explosion.
To escape the harsh realities of crisis, workers are delving into the magicalhappy propaganda world of the Monopoly Capitalists; instead of joining a union to fight for their rights they watch corporate television which blames unions for the crisis, instead of reading a marxist book they picked up on the walk back from work they never saw the bookstore as they were too busy looking at their latest text messages from their also-isolated pals.

thanks for the facts, and thank you for being the "in-guy" with the proletarian mass's suffering. i'm really glad someone like yourself cares about the poor mob. if no one did, who would?

watching television, sending text-messages, using cellphones, what will the poor proletarians do next? have fun?! noooo, they can't, because in your delusional view of the working class, they only exist as fodder for the revolutionary's illusions of grandeur. either they're lazy, alienated and dumb or the leninist party's ideal of the industrious laborer: a pickaxe on one hand and the communist manifesto on the other. i don't know where you're from, but these alienated workers are the ones struggling and fighting -- outside the party and the unions -- for a better world, one potentially free of arrogant jackasses. do i have to give examples or do you also not follow the news when you're behind the veil of elitism? i'm actually glad "our proletarians" are not joining your unions or your fictional mass party and fighting out their fight without you. in the end, i think this all boils down to some leftists' inability to accept the fact that the world doesn't care about them anymore, especially the workers. and in face of their inability of acceptance, they turn to their age-old friend: bullshit.



What is needed is a mass movement to break through the discernible capitalist hegemony which is tying the brains of workers to Monopoly Capital instead of the communist movement, which would be the logical conclusion given material reality.

cool

[l'Enfermé]

^^Mhm? Stopped reading after this stupidity:

you'd also know that the reformist wet-dream of the mass party has never even come close to challenging bourgeois hegemonyIt happened in 1917 when the Bolshevik mass-party not only challenged bourgeois supremacy but overthrew it. I'll grant you that Bolshevist Russia degenerated into Stalinism and counter-revolution, but the First Republic eventually lead to the First Empire and the Second Republic lead to the Second Empire, yet we don't see people opposing Republicanism on the account that it might lead to Bonapartism.

[blake 3:17]

^If we can't there's no point in being communists then, is there? Unless it's some ethical thing for you like vegetarianism. Might as well reconcile yourself with this capitalism thing and get on with it.


I heard Hakim Bey talk years ago and that's what he said about Jean Baudrillard -- if it's all done & nothing is real then just enjoy yourself and stop fretting.

And in some ways it'd probably do the world better to be vegetarian than to ramble on in weird sectarian debates.

I do think revolutionary socialism and anarchism can play very key roles in furthering social struggles that matter. I don't see left economism having too too much to offer. In North America, the only successful economist struggle I can think of is the 1997 UPS strike. The only ones I can imagine taking on a serious life are struggles against personal and family debt.

[Ottoraptor]

Despite their rhetoric, when it comes to strategy or (non-)strategy, they are.

I see an issue with everything you've been saying in various threads. You always assume that your idea of the party, class struggle and revolutionary activity is the only real idea there is. So because of this anything that disagrees with this in a way that can't be reconciled with your view is not a party, is not class struggle, and is not revolutionary activity. This is incredibly intellectually dishonest and makes any real productive discussion impossible. Left communists and the ultra-left do have a conception of a party but it rejects the kautskyist paradigm of a mass party. We don't oppose mass organization of the working class but we don't confuse this with an organization of communists. This organization of the working class is a product of class struggle and a revolutionary organization of the working class cannot exist outside of a revolutionary period. Communists will help with its formation and growth in strength, but ultimately we can't force its existence. In the mean time left communists and ultra-left do fight for the class independence of the working class. In fact that is the basis for our opposition to bourgeois politics (we are not anti-political, and even if we were being anti-political, being anti-political is not an anarchist thing as Wilhelm Liebknecht argued that "all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist."), opposition to the united front, unions and social democratic parties. Left Communists and ultra-lefts today are too small to have any real impact on whether the working class stays independent or not that is all.

@l'Enfermé:
The Bolsheviks only became a "mass" party as a product of the growing revolutionary period during 1905 and in the time leading up to the October revolution. It was not because of the kautskyist methods that you all champion here. And either way shortly after the October Revolution they took a substitutionist turn as a result of the conditions in Russia of course, but it could hardly be consider successful given how quickly things turned the bolsheviks started behaving counterrevolutionary. Of course that doesn't in and of itself mean that the kautskyist tactic of mass parties is wrong. I quite frankly find the application of a failed tactic created for late 19th and early 20th century Germany to be quite anachronistic. I should also noted that I find applying bolshevik tactics and every tactic (though I find more of them applicable today than the others) of the communist left from that period. Applying these types of tactics today in their entirety or with just some mild changes produces rigid sects that would only stunt class struggle if they gain and real power over the working class movement, some more so that others.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I see an issue with everything you've been saying in various threads.

I guess that includes the fact that I'm saying this as a worker?


You always assume that your idea of the party, class struggle and revolutionary activity is the only real idea there is.

Not necessarily. I acknowledged more explicitly politically forms of syndicalism as well. The point is this worker (regardless of whom you wish to consider a "troll" or not) became very critical of agitation-based "activism," "spontaneous" action, direct action-ism, ad hoc councils, and so on, but there needed to be a positive.

Au contraire, it is the likes of you who always assume that your idea of councils or similar organs are the only "real" workers organizations, despite all the multitude of failures. It's similar with the anti-party syndicalists and their unions. The worst part? ASS-U-ME and more, as in this stubbornness and continuous bumping of one's head against the wall makes an ass out of you, of me too, of other left-oriented workers, and of the class in general.


So because of this anything that disagrees with this in a way that can't be reconciled with your view is not a party, is not class struggle, and is not revolutionary activity.

I have stated both above and in previous posts what else qualifies as class independence and genuine class struggle. Also, outside an actual revolutionary period for the working class, even genuine class struggle /= r-r-r-revolutionary activity.


This is incredibly intellectually dishonest and makes any real productive discussion impossible.

I have made the criticisms, and your types are the ones always walking away from another worker's initial productive discussion.


Left communists and the ultra-left do have a conception of a party but it rejects the kautskyist paradigm of a mass party. We don't oppose mass organization of the working class but we don't confuse this with an organization of communists. This organization of the working class is a product of class struggle and a revolutionary organization of the working class cannot exist outside of a revolutionary period.

That's where my criticisms, not just the one raised in the OP, come in. I don't confuse the two things either. However, independent mass political organization (of the working class, of course) outside a revolutionary period isn't necessarily the same as a revolutionary workers organization during a revolutionary period, but what you (collective "you" as in left-coms, not just personally) have rejected by your repeated statements is the former.


In fact that is the basis for our opposition to bourgeois politics (we are not anti-political, and even if we were being anti-political, being anti-political is not an anarchist thing as Wilhelm Liebknecht argued that "all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist.")

There you go. You have just argued (wrongly, I might add) that politics can only be "bourgeois" (or "petit-bourgeois"). In the interest of fairness, I would like you to cite your source for that Liebknecht quote, because his comradely, "voluntarist" organizing thankfully went contrary to that statement, his or someone else's.

[the last donut of the night]

^^Mhm? Stopped reading after this stupidity:
It happened in 1917 when the Bolshevik mass-party not only challenged bourgeois supremacy but overthrew it. I'll grant you that Bolshevist Russia degenerated into Stalinism and counter-revolution, but the First Republic eventually lead to the First Empire and the Second Republic lead to the Second Empire, yet we don't see people opposing Republicanism on the account that it might lead to Bonapartism.

i'd say the most powerful force in the russian revolution was outside of the party and not led by it. the strength of the revolution -- that is, the independent soviets, something leninists tend to overlook -- was, after all, repressed by your "mass party". it's interesting you use this example, because it just goes back to the fact that the whole idea of the mass party is based on europe circa 1910. i mean, dnz bases everything he says on the german SPD, am i right? god, and supposedly the left-coms are dogmatic.

and since do we care about republicanism? (here forgetting about the absurdities of the nationalist lefts) yes, part of the reason i'm not a republican is because the republican-national model does degenerate quite quickly and quite into the hands of its bourgeois puppet masters. or are you a republican too?

[Ottoraptor]

I guess that includes the fact that I'm saying this as a worker? Whether you are a worker or not doesn't make you any more correct. I'm a worker as well (I work minimum wage scrubbing toilets and cleaning floors). This worker doesn't care for this prolier than thou bullshit. I will be ignoring for the rest of this post.




Not necessarily. I acknowledged more explicitly politically forms of syndicalism as well. The point is this worker (regardless of whom you wish to consider a "troll" or not) became very critical of agitation-based "activism", "spontaneous" action, direct action-ism, ad hoc councils, and so on, but there needed to be a positive.
I never called you a troll, and you will have to explain what you mean by more explicitly political syndicalism. Depending on what it is you may have just proven my point. From my experiences in both activist work and through working minimum wage I have become incredibly critical of activism and voluntarism. I'm not an anarchist so I don't support direct actionism and I have have never advocated ad hoc councils.

Au contraire, it is the likes of you who always assume that your idea of councils or similar organs are the only "real" workers organizations, despite all the multitude of failures. It's similar with the anti-party syndicalists and their unions. The worst part? ASS-U-ME and more, as in this stubbornness and continuous bumping of one's head against the wall makes an ass out of you, of me too, of other left-oriented workers, and of the class in general.
Now see I don't assume councils or similar organs are the only real workers organizations. In fact I'm against the idea of assuming that the working class will take a certain form of organization whether it be councils or parties or what have you. I am pro-partyist as I see that form of organization to be best, but I have a different conception of the party than you as I don't see it as something we can create and I definitely don't see it as something that is compatible at all with bourgeois politics for it to get involved with it in any way like your mass parties or good current/historical examples will or have. So the only one who is an ass here is you and you can keep bumping your head again anachronistic organizational forms. You are the one making an ass of yourself and the people who support you. Also you can't lecture anyone on failed tactics as your tactics produce the most traitorous organization in the history of the workers movement and the USPD was a failed attempt at continuing the non-revolutionary politics of the marxist center. The ultra-left is the only group here that actually is critical of past tactics and try to rethink everything with out going to another set of anachronistic and tired out set of tactics.
I have stated both above and in previous posts what else qualifies as class independence and genuine class struggle. Also, outside an actual revolutionary period for the working class, even genuine class struggle /= r-r-r-revolutionary activity. And here you proved my point. You assume the only class struggle is political and with that you reject any real struggles that the working class goes through that aren't political and because of this you have very rigid politics and make absurd ideas such as Fiscally Responsible Socialism. Plus leftcoms and ultra-lefts don't see revolutionary class struggle as the only class struggle. That is purely a strawman.




I have made the criticisms, and your types are the ones always walking away from another worker's initial productive discussion. No we don't we have plenty of discussions with anarchists, other leftcoms, SPGBers (who are hyper political like you), autonomist marxists, operaist marxists, left trotskyists (the ICT's german branch are ex-trotskyists) and in my case some maoists. I also have conversations with my coworkers that are productive and they aren't communists, at least not yet. Also left communists and ultra-leftists intervene in class struggle and are able to have conversations with workers who don't hold their positions. You mustn't confuse internet discussion in a left ghetto with real activity or discussion.




That's where my criticisms, not just the one raised in the OP, come in. I don't confuse the two things either. However, independent mass political organization (of the working class, of course) outside a revolutionary period isn't necessarily the same as a revolutionary workers organization during a revolutionary period, but what you (collective &quot;you&quot; as in left-coms, not just personally) have rejected by your repeated statements is the former.
Actually we don't reject the former,unless such things that you think are the former are groups like SYRIZA in which case I find your support for them laughable, and in fact you seem to confuse the former with the latter. In the end we don't care about creating mass organizations, the working class will do that themselves, what we care about is advancing struggle in what ways we can (every left group is too small to create mass working class organizations even if they wanted to, so I find it funny when you all accuse the ultra-left of having no viable tactics when your tactics are just pipe dreams). The post in the OP was just pure tendency flaming, IMO, and it shows ignorance of how ultra-left and left communist groups act in the real world out side of the internet.



There you go. You have just argued (wrongly, I might add) that politics can only be "bourgeois" (or "petit-bourgeois"). In the interest of fairness, I would like you to cite your source for that Liebknecht quote, because his comradely, "voluntarist" organizing thankfully went contrary to that statement, his or someone else's.

LOL. I said we are in opposition to bourgeois politics, you are the one who made the jump to saying all politics is bourgeois. I also said that we are not anti-political (or at least not all of us since the communizationists are pretty apolitical) and we see the political struggle as the struggle of the working class for state power. We reject the notion that this can be achieved through bourgeois democracy or in some sort of coup that puts the part in charge of the bourgeois state, but through breaking up the state and the working class creating its own temporary mechanisms to suppress its class enemies. As for the Liebknecht quote it is from "No Compromise – No Political Trading" and here is the rest of it for context:
The German, or more accurately the Prussian, state socialism whose ideal is a military, landlord and police state, hates democracy above everything else. The Kanitzes and their followers claim to be out and out radical socialists, but will have nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is their enemy. It is to them something inherently political. But all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist. So by this trick logic we arrive at the conclusion which has gained footing here and there, even in social democratic circles, that democracy as savoring of politics has nothing in common with socialism, but on the contrary is opposed to it. Certain errors, for example the opposition to the militia system, can be traced to this piece of sophistry, as also at one time the false teachings of von Schweitzer. But the truth is that democracy is not a thing that is specifically political, and we must never forget that we are not merely a socialist party, but a social democratic party because we have perceived that socialism and democracy are inseparable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

i'd say the most powerful force in the russian revolution was outside of the party and not led by it. the strength of the revolution -- that is, the independent soviets, something leninists tend to overlook -- was, after all, repressed by your "mass party".

You're confusing forces that occurred during vs. forces that occurred after. The 1905 soviets didn't organize enough things systematically (i.e., social work). It took considerable time for the 1917 soviets to break free from pro-war forces, and they found themselves in competition with factory committees for a time.

After they still couldn't get their social work act and other acts together, leaving a "bourgeois cabinet" form a government (Sovnarkom) to pick up the pieces, a number of them didn't have enough organizational clout to fend off the Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918, and all of them didn't have enough organizational clout to resist being further tied to the Bolsheviks.


it's interesting you use this example, because it just goes back to the fact that the whole idea of the mass party is based on europe circa 1910. i mean, dnz bases everything he says on the german SPD, am i right? god, and supposedly the left-coms are dogmatic.

It's not dogmatic to adapt long-forgotten approaches to strategy. The key word is "adapt."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whether you are a worker or not doesn't make you any more correct. I'm a worker as well (I work minimum wage scrubbing toilets and cleaning floors). This worker doesn't care for this prolier than thou bullshit. I will be ignoring for the rest of this post.

Alright.


I never called you a troll

It's easy to get confused between newer left-coms.


you will have to explain what you mean by more explicitly political syndicalism

The CNT was one such example. Another example was DeLeon's Socialist Industrial Unionism. Both examples expanded into politicized social work and also got their hands dirty into politics.

Contrast them with the IWW, which abandoned independent politics altogether.


From my experiences in both activist work and through working minimum wage I have become incredibly critical of activism and voluntarism. I'm not an anarchist so I don't support direct actionism and I have have never advocated ad hoc councils.

Ad hoc councils are the logical conclusion of the left-com line on strategy, though (unless one's a Bordigist). Suddenly, during the r-r-r-revolutionary period, the masses of workers form these perceived "organs of class rule," when these can't even organize very basic things like social work.


Now see I don't assume councils or similar organs are the only real workers organizations. In fact I'm against the idea of assuming that the working class will take a certain form of organization whether it be councils or parties or what have you. I am pro-partyist as I see that form of organization to be best, but I have a different conception of the party than you as I don't see it as something we can create and I definitely don't see it as something that is compatible at all with bourgeois politics for it to get involved with it in any way like your mass parties or good current/historical examples will or have.

Your conception of "parties" is, I'm afraid, more "movementist." These things have proven to go nowhere, because politics (no adjectives) isn't tackled head-on in the first place.


so you can't lecture anyone on failed tactics as your tactics produce the most traitorous organization in the history of the workers movement and the USPD was a failed attempt at continuing the non-revolutionary politics of the marxist center. The ultra-left is the only group here that actually is critical of past tactics and try to rethink everything with out going to another set of anachronistic and tired out set of tactics.

"My" tactics at least produced revolutionary periods in Europe, including in Russia.

What workers organizations are appropriate for you before revolutionary periods, then? What during revolutionary periods? Left-coms refuse to answer the first question, and are "invariant" on the second.


You assume the only class struggle is political

This was affirmed time and again by Marx and Engels, by other leading figures of the International Workingmen's Association, and by the leading Marxist figures of the original Socialist International.


and with that you reject any real struggles that the working class goes through that aren't political and because of this you have very rigid politics

I don't have a problem with solidarity for mere labour disputes (and similar economic struggles) and doing logistical work to help them out. In fact, I think the logistical work support tends to be underplayed on the left. I just want to caution the non-political nature of these mere labour disputes and similar economic struggles.

"Rigid politics"? It's called basic class politics.


and make absurd ideas such as Fiscally Responsible Socialism

You and your colleagues don't have an immediate policy alternative to the accusation of "running out of other people's money." However, you and I have digressed.


SPGBers (who are hyper political like you)

Where did you get that notion that they are "hyper-political"? Sorry, but merely standing in bourgeois elections doesn't excuse their refusal to organize mass spoilage campaigns, to organize within referenda, and of course to organize things like politicized social work.


Actually we don't reject the former,unless such things that you think are the former are groups like SYRIZA in which case I find your support for them laughable, and in fact you seem to confuse the former with the latter.

How have I confused the former with the latter? Sorry, but even I don't think Greece is in a revolutionary period.


In the end we don't care about creating mass organizations, the working class will do that themselves

Again, you have no positive answer for workers organizations before revolutionary periods.


what we care about is advancing struggle in what ways we can (every left group is too small to create mass working class organizations even if they wanted to, so I find it funny when you all accuse the ultra-left of having no viable tactics when your tactics are just pipe dreams)

So how did the Coalition of the Radical Left swell its ranks and support? You ignore synergy (where the sum is greater than its parts), which includes potential left activists (not "activists") that would work within unity organizations but not its parent components. Many left groups and then-"independent" activists formed the "pipe dreams" of synergy and, well, my positive, concrete example shows.


LOL. I said we are in opposition to bourgeois politics, you are the one who made the jump to saying all politics is bourgeois.

Given all the left-com literature that I've read, given all the left-com posts I've read, and given other factors, it isn't a big jump to say the left-com position is that all politics before revolutionary periods can only be "bourgeois."


(or at least not all of us since the communizationists are pretty apolitical)

Actually, they're quite anti-political.


As for the Liebknecht quote it is from "No Compromise – No Political Trading" and here is the rest of it for context:


The German, or more accurately the Prussian, state socialism whose ideal is a military, landlord and police state, hates democracy above everything else. The Kanitzes and their followers claim to be out and out radical socialists, but will have nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is their enemy. It is to them something inherently political. But all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist. So by this trick logic we arrive at the conclusion which has gained footing here and there, even in social democratic circles, that democracy as savoring of politics has nothing in common with socialism, but on the contrary is opposed to it. Certain errors, for example the opposition to the militia system, can be traced to this piece of sophistry, as also at one time the false teachings of von Schweitzer. But the truth is that democracy is not a thing that is specifically political, and we must never forget that we are not merely a socialist party, but a social democratic party because we have perceived that socialism and democracy are inseparable.

Well, it is interesting that he thought democracy of any class type wasn't necessarily "political." I appreciate your citation.

[l'Enfermé]

The Last Donut of the Night:

I don't think that's true though, comrade.

What "independent Soviets"? There was nothing "independent" about them, to be honest. At the first Congress of the Soviets, there were 785 delegates with a full vote(only 68 were delegates from military organizations, so the rest were pretty much pure workers' delegates). Of these, 353 were Social-Democrats(105 Bolsheviks and 248 Mensheviks) and 285 were SRs. 638 of the 758 delegates with a full vote, then, belonged to the 3 main parties. And let's not forget that this was the Congress where the majority(543) voted for full support(полная поддержка) for the bourgeois government(only 126 voted against it, mostly Bolsheviks I believe) and continuation of the war.

The only conclusion is that before the Bolsheviks took over the Soviets, the Soviets were not "independent" but class-collaborationist organs.

The Soviets, for their entire existence, were a party affair, not an independent one.

As for the most powerful force in the October Revolution being outside of the party and not led by it, that's just silly. At the Second Congress of the Soviets, the October 1917 one, 390 of the 649 delegates were Bolsheviks. 14 were Menshevik-Internationalists, that is, the only Mensheviks that weren't explicitly counter-revolutionary. 100 were left-SRs, and after the Mensheviks and the right-SRs and the Bundists and so on walked out(these same rights-SRs and Mensheviks were the ones that actually convoked the Congress, so you have to see how delicious the irony of them refusing to recognize the authority of this Congress is), and new delegates were called, 179 were left-SRs.

The Russian Revolution was almost exclusively Bolshevik. The Third Congress(January 1818) had 1647 delegates, around 860 were Bolsheviks. This Congress began as only a Workers' and Soldiers Soviets Congress, but on the third day(it lasted 8) the Congress of Peasants' Soviets merged into it, so the Bolsheviks' proletarian base was diluted by the SR-leaning peasants.

The 4th Congress in March(The Brest-Litovsk one, the one that "temporarily" transferred the capital to Moscow) had 1204 delegates, 795 of them Bolsheviks.

The 5th Congress in July 1918 had 1164 deputies. There were no more than 350 left-SRs, but I haven't been able to find out how many were Bolsheviks. At the last Congress, there were only 93 non-Bolshevik, non-SR delegates, so I'll assume there were no less than 750 Bolshevik delegates. This was the Congress where the 1918 RSFSR Constitution was adopted, by the way. It remained until 1925.

After that, Bolshevik dominated increased even more.

The 6th Congress in November 1918 had 1296 delegates, 963 Bolsheviks.

I wasn't able to find out much about the 7th Congress.

The 8th Congress in December 1920, had 2537 delegates. 2284 Bolsheviks.

The 9th Congress in December 1921 had 1630 delegates. 1522 Bolsheviks.

Only a small minority of the revolutionary forces before and after October were non-Bolshevik, and this minority pretty much disappeared after 1918 - some elements defected to the camp of the counter-revolution, others joined the Bolsheviks(even many Anarchists).

[Noa Rodman]

The quote from Liebknecht is being misinterpreted. He is giving the reasoning of the state socialists; "Democracy is their enemy. It is to them something inherently political. But all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist [according to them]. So by this trick logic we..." etc.

To get back to the topic, I think though that if class independence is defined as "merely" having a socialist party, then coalition policy wouldn't necessarily impinge class independence. I don't know if there were many purely socialist governments. They do seem to not be able to get absolute majorities in elections for almost a century now. It would seem "logically consistent" to see a socialist party as hopeless on its own terms and just reject elections completely.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The quote from Liebknecht is being misinterpreted. He is giving the reasoning of the state socialists; "Democracy is their enemy. It is to them something inherently political. But all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist [according to them]. So by this trick logic we..." etc.

Thanks for that emphasis there. I wavered on that.


To get back to the topic, I think though that if class independence is defined as "merely" having a socialist party, then coalition policy wouldn't necessarily impinge class independence. I don't know if there were many purely socialist governments. They do seem to not be able to get absolute majorities in elections for almost a century now. It would seem "logically consistent" to see a socialist party as hopeless on its own terms and just reject elections completely.

Noa, class independence is something related to pre-revolutionary periods. Of course even the SPD didn't get "absolute majorities in elections" because of large numbers of non-workers in Germany. Class independence in a pre-revolutionary period has little if anything to do with "purely socialist governments," something for revolutionary periods and beyond. :confused:

Anyway, it depends on the depth and breadth of said party's political organizing (mass spoilage campaigns, politicized social support, etc.) and its size. Furthermore, it doesn't have to have majority political support from the working class, but it does have to have sufficient support to qualify as a "mass party."

[Ottoraptor]

The quote from Liebknecht is being misinterpreted. He is giving the reasoning of the state socialists; "Democracy is their enemy. It is to them something inherently political. But all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist [according to them]. So by this trick logic we..." etc.
I don't think that is correct. He later then talks of Bernstein giving up the class characteristic of the SPD as a part of his program of politicization. This part makes me think that he was saying above that all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist. I personally don't think Wilhelm Liebknecht was anti-political, especially not in the sense of communizationists or some anarchists, but I think he did have a realization that socialism was more than the rigid politics over all view that people like DNZ has and was had quite a few interesting things to say that are relevant to discussions we are having today (especially on the issue of popular/untied fronts and the development of germany).

[Ottoraptor]

The CNT was one such example. Another example was DeLeon's Socialist Industrial Unionism. Both examples expanded into politicized social work and also got their hands dirty into politics.
Ok, well the CNT gave into popular frontism and betrayed the revoluntionary movement that exist in Spain, though the conditions were right for it to ultimately succeed sadly even if they hadnt done what they did. And Deleonism was a failed tactic.

Contrast them with the IWW, which abandoned independent politics altogether. Can't argue with you on the apoliticism of the IWW and the modern IWW is a roleplaying group that thinks its the old IWW.




Ad hoc councils are the logical conclusion of the left-com line on strategy, though (unless one's a Bordigist). Suddenly, during the r-r-r-revolutionary period, the masses of workers form these perceived "organs of class rule," when these can't even organize very basic things like social work. From the historical experiences of the Russian and German revolutions, yes they do form these organs on their own. Also revolution isn't about social work and the councils were organs of class rule. Also just a side note just this whole "r-r-r-revolutionary" thing is obnoxious and if anyone here is 'r-r-r-revolutionary" it is you and your prescribed formula for revolution.




Your conception of "parties" is, I'm afraid, more "movementist." These things have proven to go nowhere, because politics (no adjectives) isn't tackled head-on in the first place. The only politics I recognize is that of the working class breaking up the bourgeois state and creating its own as it becomes ruling class to suppress the borugeoisie and abolish capitalism. Your conception of the party does not answer the issue of working class rule and the destruction of the bourgeois state. The "movementist" conception of the party (whatever you mean by that) is far more materialist in so far as it doesn't prescribe a transhistorical (by transhistorical I mean something is suppose to apply to all periods of capitalism from late 1800's Germany to now) form of working class organization ignoring completely that material conditions have changed and ignoring the fact that your historical examples grew only because of an increase in class consciousness and the growth of the workers movements in Russia and Germany and not the other way around.




"My" tactics at least produced revolutionary periods in Europe, including in Russia. Your tactics created nothing, in fact the party in Germany helped kill the revolutionary period there and the party in Russia only got to were it was because of the revolutionary period that developed not because of model of the SPD the Bolsheviks tried to follow.


What workers organizations are appropriate for you before revolutionary periods, then? What during revolutionary periods? Left-coms refuse to answer the first question, and are &quot;invariant&quot; on the second. This is where you just don't understand left communism and the ultra-left. We aren't in the business of telling workers what is appropriate or not in terms of organization. You just can't prescribe the forms the workers take because as we have seen from the last revolutionary period sometimes they forms we just don't expect. What matters is how the struggle develops and advances, and the way that this happens will be different based on the conditions. It is not that we refuse to answer the first one, it is that we reject the premise on which these questions are based. Though if you want a clear example of us not opposing "mass" (I've never seen a decent definition for mass in these contexts), I don't think leftcoms oppose the independent unions in Egypt that formed over the pass 2 years or the independent miners union in South Africa right now. We would argue that if the struggles are to advance and a revolutionary situation were to develop, the workers would need to move beyond the union form of organization because of unions being unable to transcend capitalism.




This was affirmed time and again by Marx and Engels, by other leading figures of the International Workingmen's Association, and by the leading Marxist figures of the original Socialist International. I disagree that Marx and Engels saw class struggle as only political, especially since they saw the communist revolution as more than just a mere political revolution. Even if they did, that doesn't mean such a line is correct. Your argument here is an appeal to authority and I won't accept it.




I don't have a problem with solidarity for mere labour disputes (and similar economic struggles) and doing logistical work to help them out. In fact, I think the logistical work support tends to be underplayed on the left. I just want to caution the non-political nature of these mere labour disputes and similar economic struggles. These mere labor disputes are the primary form of class struggle today. The fact that you say "mere labor disputes" is quite telling. I guess what is going on in South Africa is a mere labor dispute.


"Rigid politics"? It's called basic class politics. I didn't know that class based politics involves rigid prescribe one form of organization that doesn't exist today in fact ceased to exist during the last revolutionary period and produce some of the worst traitors in the history of the working class movement. Your politics are rigid, amaterialistic, and mechanical.




You and your colleagues don't have an immediate policy alternative to the accusation of &quot;running out of other people's money.&quot; However, you and I have digressed. Me and my colleagues don't advocate managing capitalism and don't go around repeating the same lines that American Conservatives and Libertarians spout out.




Where did you get that notion that they are "hyper-political"? Sorry, but merely standing in bourgeois elections doesn't excuse their refusal to organize mass spoilage campaigns, to organize within referenda, and of course to organize things like politicized social work. They are hyper-political in the sense they reject anything that is politics according to them. Of course this isn't the same type of hyper political as you, but then again you don't have a monopoly on politics despite what you think.




How have I confused the former with the latter? Sorry, but even I don't think Greece is in a revolutionary period. Sorry I should have been more clear. Your support of the SPD model (pre-revolutionary period form of organization for the working class) as a model for revolutionary organizations for the working class. However its behavior shows that it was not a revolutionary organization (it may have contained future revolutionaries but it wasn't itself). So you confused a pre-revolutionary organization with a revolutionary organization. I brought up the SYRIZA bit because I don't consider than an independent workers organization. Also I agree with you that Greece isn't in a revolutionary period.




Again, you have no positive answer for workers organizations before revolutionary periods. Once again we reject the notion of communists forming such organizations. And to be honest your answers have no chance of being enacted by an actual workers organization and no real answers for how this connects to a revolutionary period.




So how did the Coalition of the Radical Left swell its ranks and support? You ignore synergy (where the sum is greater than its parts), which includes potential left activists (not "activists") that would work within unity organizations but not its parent components. Many left groups and then-"independent" activists formed the "pipe dreams" of synergy and, well, my positive, concrete example shows. Your positive example just wishes to manage capitalism and quite frankly the synergy you talk of has only led to empowering its right wing and sidelining the left wing (with the possible exception of the opportunistic KOE).




Given all the left-com literature that I've read, given all the left-com posts I've read, and given other factors, it isn't a big jump to say the left-com position is that all politics before revolutionary periods can only be "bourgeois." You will need to back yourself up on this one, because actually having experience with people from such groups who are active in various struggles, I can tell you that this is not the case.




Actually, they're quite anti-political. A lot of them probably wouldn't disagree with you on this.




Well, it is interesting that he thought democracy of any class type wasn't necessarily "political." I appreciate your citation.
It is an interesting read.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that is correct. He later then talks of Bernstein giving up the class characteristic of the SPD as a part of his program of politicization. This part makes me think that he was saying above that all politics is diametrically opposed to what is socialist. I personally don't think Wilhelm Liebknecht was anti-political, especially not in the sense of communizationists or some anarchists, but I think he did have a realization that socialism was more than the rigid politics over all view that people like DNZ has and was had quite a few interesting things to say that are relevant to discussions we are having today (especially on the issue of popular/untied fronts and the development of germany).

It's not rigid politics at all.

Funny you now compare and contrast, because you just reminded me of what Wilhelm Liebknecht said vs. what Lenin argued about the transitional period reducing politics. The left-coms wanted to preserve the political character of the Bolshevik party and the broader working class (still-political skepticism of the state).


Ok, well the CNT gave into popular frontism and betrayed the revoluntionary movement that exist in Spain, though the conditions were right for it to ultimately succeed sadly even if they hadnt done what they did. And Deleonism was a failed tactic.

Perhaps, but the politics preceded the popular front mistake. Anyway, a third possibility (but subject to more criticism), based on the Paris Commune's National Guard but also on controversial structures: "All power to the workers militia"? On workers paramilitary orgs / paramilitias (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-workers-t173926/index.html)


Can't argue with you on the apoliticism of the IWW and the modern IWW is a roleplaying group that thinks its the old IWW.

As I've argued against their supporters last year, the least they could have done and could do is engage in politicized social work, register as a "political action committee" (PAC), and organize as its own political party.

Anyway, please do check out what I've written on paramilitias.


I disagree that Marx and Engels saw class struggle as only political, especially since they saw the communist revolution as more than just a mere political revolution. Even if they did, that doesn't mean such a line is correct. Your argument here is an appeal to authority and I won't accept it.

Of course it's more, but the basis is political. Otherwise we'd see way more emphasis on technological "revolution" and moralism. If anything else, the constant statements of genuine class struggle being political and not economic were primordial until the time of the original Socialist International.



I don't have a problem with solidarity for mere labour disputes (and similar economic struggles) and doing logistical work to help them out. In fact, I think the logistical work support tends to be underplayed on the left. I just want to caution the non-political nature of these mere labour disputes and similar economic struggles.These mere labor disputes are the primary form of class struggle today. The fact that you say "mere labor disputes" is quite telling.

Such reasoning, which I disagree with, is the basis for mistakenly growing political struggles out of lesser ones, which Lenin argued against in between the lines of WITBD.


Your politics are rigid, amaterialistic, and mechanical.

On the contrary, the stage is set (it's quite materialistic). Strings just need to be pulled. The question is: how? And no, it's not "mechanical," but process-based. The left needs to think more in terms of processes.

[Noa Rodman]

The German "Bürgerliches" instead of "political" should perhaps be better translated as "bourgeois".


Der deutsche – oder genauer: preußische Staatssozialismus, dessen Ideal der Kasernen-, Junker- und Polizeistaat ist, haßt vor allem die Demokratie. Die Kanitze und Konsorten beteuern, aufrichtige und radikale Sozialisten zu sein – nur von der Demokratie wollen sie nichts wissen. Die Demokratie ist der Feind. Und sie ist ihnen etwas spezifisch Bürgerliches. Alles, was bürgerlich, ist aber dem Sozialistischen diametral entgegengesetzt. So gelangen wir zu dem Trugschluß, der auch in sozialdemokratischen Kreisen sich hier und da eingenistet hat, daß die Demokratie als etwas Bürgerliches mit dem Sozialismus nichts gemein habe, im Gegenteil ihm feindlich sei. Gewisse Verirrungen, zum Beispiel die Polemik gegen das Milizheer, lassen sich, wie früher die Schweitzerschen Irrleitungen [14] (http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/liebknechtw/1899/keinkomp/anm.htm#n14), auf diesen Trugschluß zurückführen. Die Demokratie ist eben nichts spezifisch Bürgerliches, und wir dürfen niemals vergessen, daß wir nicht bloß eine sozialistisch Partei sind, sondern eine sozialdemokratische, weil wir begriffen haben, daß Sozialismus und Demokratie untrennbar sind.

[l'Enfermé]

^Isn't "Bürgerliche Revolution" the German phrase used by Marx that's translated into Englihs as "bourgeois revolution"? Why would someone translate "Bürgerliches" as "political"?

[Ottoraptor]

The German &quot;Bürgerliches&quot; instead of "political" should perhaps be better translated as &quot;bourgeois&quot;.

In his section on Bourgeois and Bourgeoisie he talked about the words Bürger and bürgerlich:
To prevent misunderstandings and wrong impressions, we must become fully conscious of the difference between “political” and “capitalistic.” These two ideas, which because of the ambiguity of the German word “Buerger” are very easily confused by us, must be clearly separated from each other. In France the word “bourgeois,” which in the middle ages had the same meaning as our “Buerger,” in the course of time and of economic development gradually assumed the meaning of “great-capitalist;” whereas we Germans for this latter idea borrow the French word “bourgeois,” but also use concurrently the German words “Buerger,” and “buergerlich” without noticing the difference. So there arises a confusion of language which is anything but conducive to clearness of conception. We speak of “buergerlich” society, and mean modern capitalistic bourgeois society. We speak of “buergerlich” spirit, “buergerlich” freedom, and mean a democratic spirit of freedom such as the citizenry had in former times when it was fighting the priests and feudal landlords, which spirit, however, is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the capitalistic, and hence reactionary, landlord and priest coddling citizenry, or bourgeoisie of to-day. (Note in the german the first line does say Bürgerlich.)

Given that when he says bürgerlich Society he means modern capitalist society, but doesn't mean capitalistic when talking about bürgerlich freedom or spirit, I would be interested if what he means by bürgerlich when it is translated as politics. Either way he does show he had an opposition to be involved in bourgeois politics that wasn't seen in the later members of the SPD (except for maybe those who eventually became the KAPD, though that was a later change after the experiences of the German revolution).

[Noa Rodman]

^Isn't "Bürgerliche Revolution" the German phrase used by Marx that's translated into English as "bourgeois revolution"? Why would someone translate "Bürgerliches" as "political"?
It's crazy. One of the translators was AM Simons (translator of Road to power).

@culla

I defend Liebknecht from Engels @
http://libcom.org/library/correction-friederich-engels-karl-kautsky

[Ottoraptor]

It's not rigid politics at all.

I should have been a bit more clear. I meant rigid "politics over all", all meaning all other aspects of the workers movement, especially the most important aspect which I will mention further down in the post.
Funny you now compare and contrast, because you just reminded me of what Wilhelm Liebknecht said vs. what Lenin argued about the transitional period reducing politics. The left-coms wanted to preserve the political character of the Bolshevik party and the broader working class (still-political skepticism of the state). I don't know what you mean here.




Perhaps, but the politics preceded the popular front mistake. Anyway, a third possibility (but subject to more criticism), based on the Paris Commune's National Guard but also on controversial structures: &quot;All power to the workers militia&quot;? On workers paramilitary orgs / paramilitias Cool I'll take a look, but this still suffers from the issue of you advocating a specific form of organization outside of the experiences of current struggle and outside of a revolutionary situation. Trying to prescribe revolutionary organization outside of the realm of revolutionary struggle, suffers from some of the same issues of utopianism. This is issue is that by formulating how a revolutionary organization should function and be structured, this runs the risk of trying to shoehorn reality into a shape that you want it take. There is no real connection to movement of the working class in doing this and also when the revolutionary situation hits and things don't work the way you planned you have an organization style that is so rigid it falls apart leaving the working class organizationless, or it could end up fighting those elements that don't fit in, or it could stall the situation by trying to bring it down the path that is acceptable to it and kills the revolutionary situation. Also we have already experienced how your model (the kautskyist model) behaves. What makes you think that it won't behave the same way again and betray the future revolutionary movement of the working class? I've also never seen any kautskyist, either through lurking through past posts here or on the CPGB website, discuss why the SPD and the rest of the second international turned out the way it did and how that relates to their organizational practices.




As I've argued against their supporters last year, the least they could have done and could do is engage in politicized social work, register as a "political action committee" (PAC), and organize as its own political party.
In the US this would be such a dead end tactic, that it would fail before it got off the ground. In order to have any hope of success in being political party with in the american electoral system they would need a lot of money as they would be competing against well funded party machines. Furthermore what would be the purpose of such PAC? Also personally I would argue that any amount of participation with in electoralism is a threat to class character of any working class and socialist organization.


Of course it's more, but the basis is political. Otherwise we'd see way more emphasis on technological &quot;revolution&quot; and moralism. If anything else, the constant statements of genuine class struggle being political and not economic were primordial until the time of the original Socialist International. This is where I disagree. The communist revolution is a social abolitionist revolution. The political is one aspect and a temporary one at that. It is not enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie and for the DotP to form, just like it is not enough to have workers self-management and factory councils. A revolution that is at its base a political one cannot abolish class society and the proletarian condition. The communist revolution invades all aspects of life, the economic and political just being aspects of the revolution. The moment you raise one part over the other you lose sight of a communist revolution.




Such reasoning, which I disagree with, is the basis for mistakenly growing political struggles out of lesser ones, which Lenin argued against in between the lines of WITBD. I'll have to reread WITBD as it's been a long time since I read it (I just recently ordered Lenin Rediscovered, so I'll be reading a translation that you like), but in the mean time I'll have to take you word for what Lenin wrote. But it should be known I don't think a revolution will spring up from pure economic struggle or a series of wins as Broody likes to argue. To be honest I don't think anyone has a good conception about how revolutionary periods arise.




On the contrary, the stage is set (it's quite materialistic). Strings just need to be pulled. The question is: how? And no, it's not "mechanical," but process-based. The left needs to think more in terms of processes. It is amaterialistic because you are applying a set of tactics developed for a different period of capitalist development and society with different material conditions to today. This comes with out studying the movement as it exists today and relies on this notion of developing a mass party that can politicize the working class. This is also what makes it mechanic. In fact I remember reading a post of yours from a while ago (long before I joined) where you state you reject the notion of the base-superstructure relationship and believe that with enough politicization of the working class through the organs and institutions of the mass party that you can create a revolutionary situation. With this the material conditions ultimately don't matter, what matters is only the existence of the mass party and its utopian like mission of institution building and politicization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should have been a bit more clear. I meant rigid "politics over all", all meaning all other aspects of the workers movement, especially the most important aspect which I will mention further down in the post.

Some posters who have expressed informed disagreement with me have indeed raised the word "politicist."


I don't know what you mean here.

I don't remember the exact ICC article on political character, but there was one on the left-com stance. I recall a Lenin article that contrasted with Stalin's "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism." I also recall real or supposed Lenin words Khrushchev pulled out of a hat in a debate on political character vs. economic administration.

I think I've digressed, or perhaps not, since they all deal with turning up or down the politics.


Cool I'll take a look, but this still suffers from the issue of you advocating a specific form of organization outside of the experiences of current struggle and outside of a revolutionary situation.

Actually, the paramilitary orgs / paramilitias seem to me to be a form more suitable during revolutionary periods. I argued there that they're more durable workers' organizational forms than councils, despite their flaws.


Also we have already experienced how your model (the kautskyist model) behaves. What makes you think that it won't behave the same way again and betray the future revolutionary movement of the working class? I've also never seen any kautskyist, either through lurking through past posts here or on the CPGB website, discuss why the SPD and the rest of the second international turned out the way it did and how that relates to their organizational practices.

The failure has been discussed in numerous articles. Otherwise, CPGB comrade Mike Macnair wouldn't have been able to compile them into a single book, Revolutionary Strategy: Marxism and the Challenge of Left Unity. I strongly encourage you to either grab this or join the usergroup for a free read.


This is where I disagree. The communist revolution is a social abolitionist revolution. The political is one aspect and a temporary one at that.

So you have read my posts and work, after all ("social abolitionist")? :)


I'll have to reread WITBD as it's been a long time since I read it (I just recently ordered Lenin Rediscovered, so I'll be reading a translation that you like)

I hope you ordered the paperback edition. It's cheaper.


but in the mean time I'll have to take you word for what Lenin wrote.

The relevant chapter is "A Feud Within Russian Erfurtianism." I caution you, however, that when I raise the label "broad economist," I'm referencing past WW articles, not something found in Lih's work.


In fact I remember reading a post of yours from a while ago (long before I joined) where you state you reject the notion of the base-superstructure relationship

Yes, and I suggested an alternative: the layers and geological motions of the earth.


and believe that with enough politicization of the working class through the organs and institutions of the mass party that you can create a revolutionary situation.

I didn't say that, exactly. Both Kautsky and I also pointed out internal state confidence regarding its organs, like military breakdown.


With this the material conditions ultimately don't matter, what matters is only the existence of the mass party and its utopian like mission of institution building and politicization.

Since you keep saying the word "utopian," let me make an etymological rebuttal. It literally means "going nowhere." My argument is that left-com criticisms with no positive alternatives are utopian in the literal sense of the word.

[Ottoraptor]

I didn't say that, exactly. Both Kautsky and I also pointed out internal state confidence regarding its organs, like military breakdown. I'll have to find the exact quote




Since you keep saying the word &quot;utopian,&quot; let me make an etymological rebuttal. It literally means &quot;going nowhere.&quot; My argument is that left-com criticisms with no positive alternatives are utopian in the literal sense of the word.
I mean utopian in the sense of utopian socialism. I will have to expand a bit more as to what I am mean here with aid from quotes from you, but I am tired and have other things I need to do before the day ends.