Questions about types of libertarian socialism

[Skyhilist]

So I've heard a lot about "left communism" and similar movements and I've read quite a few descriptions on them, but none of them really seemed to answer my questions about it and some other less familiar types of libertarian socialism.

Anyways, here's what I've been wondering about left-communism:

How exactly does the state function under left-communism? Are there democratically elected leaders who make decisions, or does everyone within a presumably global "left communist" movement vote democratically on different things?

Does left communism at all encourage direct democracy?

How do Luxemburgists and Bordigists differ from traditional left communists in their ideologies?

Why do left communists see themselves as being "farther left" than other communist tendencies?

In your opinion, what are the most redeeming and most flawed features of left communism?

What makes ultra-leftists different from left communists?

Does left communism practice democratic centralism? If so, how does it differ from Leninist or Trotskyist democratic centralism?

I know left communists support global revolution. But obviously, revolution is not going to happen all at once everywhere in the world, which means it'll happen regionally. So (at least temporarily) some regions would be revolutionary while others are pre-revolutionary (note: I'm not saying some would be socialist/communist and others wouldn't). In the regions that had their revolutions first, what political system would be practiced prior to their being a global revolution. Would the state be very authoritarian and centralized during this time period?

Why are left communists anti-union?

Do left communists support the end goal of the state withering away like Leninists claim to?

Also, it seems that left communists tend to be very critical of other tendencies and see them as counterrevolutionary. How do they plan on ever achieving global revolution if they are unwilling to work with or compromise with almost all other leftist tendencies?

Something I've also been wondering about is council communism. My only questions here are:

Is direct democracy encouraged under council communism, and if so, to what extent?

Do the so called workers councils of council communism vote on all of societies decisions directly or do others have a say in it (e.g. people who can't work)?

What's the biggest difference between council communism and anarcho-communism? Why do council communists see council communists view their position on whatever this issue is to be more appropriate/rational than the anarcho-communist viewpoint on it?

Finally, I've been curious lately about a few more obscure tendencies/movements.

Questions

What exactly are post-left anarchy, Gandhism, Guild socialism, Christian anarchism (that one seems like an oxymoron), the Johnson-Forest tendency, autonomism and Socialisme ou Barbarie?

What exactly makes the "new left" so different from the "old left"?

Is revolutionary syndicalism any different from regular anarcho-syndicalism, and if so, how?

Any answers to any of these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks as always comrades.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So I've heard a lot about "left communism" and similar movements and I've read quite a few descriptions on them, but none of them really seemed to answer my questions about it and some other less familiar types of libertarian socialism.

Anyways, here's what I've been wondering about left-communism:

First of all, Left Communism is opposed to the "authoritarian-libertarian" dichotomy. Left Communism is not a form of "libertarian" socialism. (I can provide reasons why this dichotomy is rejected, but that discussion has been had on revleft plenty of times).


How exactly does the state function under left-communism?

What do you mean by this? Are you asking how the dictatorship of the proletarian under left-communism would "function"? Most left communists are not in the process of "blueprint making" as a social relationship does not come fully fledged from the brain of one individual. Most left communists would agree that the soviet is the main organ of proletarian power after the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. Most also view that the party would either dissolve or act as an organ independent of the state (besides the Bordigists, but even they do not support a fusion of the state and party as extensive as Stalinists, etc.).



Are there democratically elected leaders who make decisions, or does everyone within a presumably global "left communist" movement vote democratically on different things?

Left Communists are generally opposed to democracy. If democracy is understood to be "power to the people" communists are not fighting for the power of all people and, consequently, all classes, but fighting for the power of the proletariat. Terms like "proletarian democracy" are seen as a contradiction. Democracy, as in "the power of the majority", is also criticized. Of course, the majority is not always right and it would be ridiculous to argue so. Democratic decision making shouldn't be seen as a principle, but rather a means to an end that may not be useful in all circumstances. Democracy isn't something to be perfected, but something to be transcended.

For more reading: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm


Does left communism at all encourage direct democracy?

It encourages the proletarian directly administering their class dictatorship, but Left Communists oppose democracy.


How do Luxemburgists and Bordigists differ from traditional left communists in their ideologies?

While Luxemburg was a big influence on the left communist movement, she herself was not a left communist. The main difference with the Bordigists than other left communists is that they support the party taking state power (this is, of course, neglecting the degenerative positions of the later Bordiga on things such as national liberation movements).


Why do left communists see themselves as being "farther left" than other communist tendencies?

Because we're in general badasses.

I don't think we see ourselves as being "farther left" rather than having an accurate understanding of Marxism and revolutionary communism.


In your opinion, what are the most redeeming and most flawed features of left communism?

I am a left communists mainly for its rejection of siding with one element of the bourgeoisie just because it happens to have a red flag and for it's insistence on internationalism.

Left communists tend to neglect things like feminism, etc. I see that as a problem that can be fixed within the tendency, and not a "flaw" of the tendency per se.


What makes ultra-leftists different from left communists?

Left communism is generally considered apart of the "ultra-left" which includes other tendencies.


Does left communism practice democratic centralism?

No. Again, left communists are opposed to democracy. I, as a left communist identifying more with the Italian side of left communism, support organic centralism.


If so, how does it differ from Leninist or Trotskyist democratic centralism?

I would say that the best decision comes only from debate. If a decision needs to be made quickly, then the democratic way of decision making should of course be utilized. If not, the subject should be allowed to be debated on extensively, to come up with the best solution.


In the regions that had their revolutions first, what political system would be practiced prior to their being a global revolution. Would the state be very authoritarian and centralized during this time period?

1. A proletarian dictatorship would be instituted before the success of the proletarian revolution globally, as would have to happen to any revolutionary movement successful in only one region.

2. Left communists reject the "authoritarian-libertarian" dichotomy. How centralized the proletarian dictatorship is/isn't ultimately depends on the material conditions present at the time and many other factors (Is the area in a wartime situation and needs to be centralized? Is there a famine currently happening? Is it more efficient to have a certain branch of industry more centralized and others not?).


Why are left communists anti-union?

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions.htm


Do left communists support the end goal of the state withering away like Leninists claim to?

Of course


Also, it seems that left communists tend to be very critical of other tendencies and see them as counterrevolutionary. How do they plan on ever achieving global revolution if they are unwilling to work with or compromise with almost all other leftist tendencies?

This is false. We see tendencies like Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. as counter-revolutionary, but we are willing to work completely with other tendencies we see as truly revolutionary (such as internationalist class struggle anarchists, hell i'd even be willing to work with the SPGB) despite disagreements.

[Skyhilist]

Most also view that the party would either dissolve or act as an organ independent of the state (besides the Bordigists, but even they do not support a fusion of the state and party as extensive as Stalinists, etc.).

So if the party and state are independent of each other, how do they differ in the responsibilities they'd take on?


Left Communists are generally opposed to democracy. If democracy is understood to be "power to the people" communists are not fighting for the power of all people and, consequently, all classes, but fighting for the power of the proletariat. Terms like "proletarian democracy" are seen as a contradiction. Democracy, as in "the power of the majority", is also criticized. Of course, the majority is not always right and it would be ridiculous to argue so. Democratic decision making shouldn't be seen as a principle, but rather a means to an end that may not be useful in all circumstances. Democracy isn't something to be perfected, but something to be transcended.

So if not by democracy, how are leaders chosen? Moreover, instead of democracy, do left communists prefer authoritarianism as a means of exerting influence, or instead consensus? If it's the latter, then how would decisions be made when people within the party could not reach consensus?

For more reading: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm




It encourages the proletarian directly administering their class dictatorship, but Left Communists oppose democracy.

Well to administer class dictatorship, there's gotta be some decision making done in doing this right? So what method would be used to make those decisions, and moreover what group would make those decisions in general? Would everyone in society have a say, just revolutionaries, just elected revolutionaries, or what?



While Luxemburg was a big influence on the left communist movement, she herself was not a left communist.

Wait so if she wasn't a left communist, how were her opinions different from that of left communists?


The main difference with the Bordigists than other left communists is that they support the party taking state power (this is, of course, neglecting the degenerative positions of the later Bordiga on things such as national liberation movements).

So then who do other left-communists support taking state power? If not a party would it just be revolutionaries in general, or would the state just be made irrelevant?


I am a left communists mainly for its rejection of siding with one element of the bourgeoisie just because it happens to have a red flag and for it's insistence on internationalism.

Can you please describe what exactly would make an element of an ideology bourgeois (given that we're talking about a anti-capitalist ideology like say for example, Trotskyism)?


Left communism is generally considered apart of the "ultra-left" which includes other tendencies.

Which other tendencies could also be considered ultra-left? Would left communists be willing to work with all or most of these groups?




No. Again, left communists are opposed to democracy. I, as a left communist identifying more with the Italian side of left communism, support organic centralism.

So as in like, you'd support a system that would in and of itself serve as authority rather than revolutionary party leaders? Sorry if I'm wrong here, but I'm having a bit of difficulty grasping the somewhat abstract descriptions of organic centralism that I've been reading.




I would say that the best decision comes only from debate. If a decision needs to be made quickly, then the democratic way of decision making should of course be utilized. If not, the subject should be allowed to be debated on extensively, to come up with the best solution.

So then people decide what the best solution was as a whole after a thorough debate by using consensus?



1. A proletarian dictatorship would be instituted before the success of the proletarian revolution globally, as would have to happen to any revolutionary movement successful in only one region.

Can you please define what you mean by "proletarian dictatorship" in this context and explain how it would differ from socialism?


2. Left communists reject the "authoritarian-libertarian" dichotomy. How centralized the proletarian dictatorship is/isn't ultimately depends on the material conditions present at the time and many other factors (Is the area in a wartime situation and needs to be centralized? Is there a famine currently happening? Is it more efficient to have a certain branch of industry more centralized and others not?).

Could you provide an example of this please. Like for example under Russia's material conditions in 1917, what would it have been like?


This is false. We see tendencies like Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. as counter-revolutionary, but we are willing to work completely with other tendencies we see as truly revolutionary (such as internationalist class struggle anarchists, hell i'd even be willing to work with the SPGB) despite disagreements.

Don't left communists not see most ideologies that consider themselves "leftists" to be revolutionary though? I mean like if you only find a minority of tendencies to be actually revolutionary, how do you built enough unity and support to ever actually have a global revolution?

Sorry if my responses are evident of any misinterpretations or anything like that, and thank you for answering my questions, you've been a tremendous help so far.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So if the party and state are independent of each other, how do they differ in the responsibilities they'd take on?

The state would be an organ of class rule and the party would be a organ that would act independently of the state. I am not sure what your question is here to be honest. You need to be more specific.


So if not by democracy, how are leaders chosen?

Left Communism isn't really in the business of choosing leaders. I mean, yeah, there will be leadership, but left communist parties generally are parties of anonymity. Writings, etc. are ascribed to the party as a whole rather than specific individuals and decisions and actions are taken by the party as a whole.


Moreover, instead of democracy, do left communists prefer authoritarianism as a means of exerting influence, or instead consensus?

Again, Left Communism rejects the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573258&postcount=8

I wouldn't say that left communists are in favor of "consensus" decision making either. Rather, debating a subject as long as possible will result in the best decision or course of action rather than outlining the problem, putting it to a majority vote, and then moving on. Democracy is an effective form of decision making when a decision has to be made fast, but other than that it is something to be transcended.


For more reading: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

.....what? lol


Well to administer class dictatorship, there's gotta be some decision making done in doing this right? So what method would be used to make those decisions

Workers would make decisions through their soviets and other organs of proletarian class rule. The method used for decision making would depend on the circumstances. Democracy might be useful, or other methods (such as described earlier).


and moreover what group would make those decisions in general?

The proletariat


Wait so if she wasn't a left communist, how were her opinions different from that of left communists?

Left Communism really developed after she died.


So then who do other left-communists support taking state power?

The proletariat. (I would say that the proletariat are still taking power if their party takes power, but again in the left communist community this is a minority position. Most others would say the party leads the proletariat to state power, but the proletarian through their soviets take state power).

They support crushing the bourgeois state, instituting the proletarian dictatorship and then the eventual abolition of the state.


If not a party would it just be revolutionaries in general, or would the state just be made irrelevant?

The proletariat, and the goal is to make the state "irrelevant". (I personally don't have a problem with the party taking state power, but most of my other left communist comrades disagree sharply with me on this).


Can you please describe what exactly would make an element of an ideology bourgeois (given that we're talking about a anti-capitalist ideology like say for example, Trotskyism)?

If they support imperialist wars, aren't internationalist, support coalitions with elements of the bourgeoisie, etc. etc.


Which other tendencies could also be considered ultra-left? Would left communists be willing to work with all or most of these groups?

Lots of different groups would be considered "ultra-left" from Autonomism to the recent Communization currents and everything else. Yes, left communists would be happy to work with these groups.


So as in like, you'd support a system that would in and of itself serve as authority rather than revolutionary party leaders? Sorry if I'm wrong here, but I'm having a bit of difficulty grasping the somewhat abstract descriptions of organic centralism that I've been reading.

Organic centralism was antithetical to the "democratic centralism" of the Bolsheviks which placed one part of the party as the theorizers and another part of the party that carried out action. Organic centralism saw the entire party participating in both activities. Organic centralism, again, didn't fetishize democratic decision making outside of material conditions.


Can you please define what you mean by "proletarian dictatorship" in this context and explain how it would differ from socialism?

Socialism is a classless, wageless, moneyless, stateless society. The proletarian dictatorship is the political transitional stage between capitalist and socialist society.

Here are other posts I made on the subject (really don't feel like typing all of this again).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2560590&postcount=10


Could you provide an example of this please. Like for example under Russia's material conditions in 1917, what would it have been like?

Okay, Russia is a great example, but I will take it past just 1917. After the Bolsheviks came to power, they faced counter-revolutionary sabotage culminating in civil war, invasion by 14 countries, famine, etc. etc. Obviously, under such conditions a "flowering of liberty" can't take place, and so "authoritarian" (per se) actions were taken. With the isolation of the revolution, the material conditions of the isolation of the revolution, rather than it's spreading, helped the degeneration of the revolution (and the degeneration's final success in Stalinism).


Don't left communists not see most ideologies that consider themselves "leftists" to be revolutionary though? I mean like if you only find a minority of tendencies to be actually revolutionary, how do you built enough unity and support to ever actually have a global revolution?

We consider Stalinists and (most) Trotskyists to not be revolutionary, but other tendencies, while we have disagreements, we wouldn't consider them to be not revolutionary.


Sorry if my responses are evident of any misinterpretations or anything like that, and thank you for answering my questions, you've been a tremendous help so far.

No problem brewsky. ;)1

[Skyhilist]

The state would be an organ of class rule and the party would be a organ that would act independently of the state. I am not sure what your question is here to be honest. You need to be more specific.

This pretty much answers what I was asking, although I'm still a bit confused as what exactly the party does (as opposed to the state). I mean do they just spread revolution globally or is their a lot more to it than that? Also, if you had regions where most workers weren't communists, what would stop them from electing non-communists into soviets who would end up betraying the working class? Moreover, what kind of a role would the lumpenproletariat and non-workers play in society?


.....what? lol

Oops that was a mistake in my last post, sorry lol


Socialism is a classless, wageless, moneyless, stateless society.

Wait, that sounds like would most would describe as communism (y'know after we've moved past socialism). If this is considered socialist by left communists, could you please tell me how it's different from what left communists would call communism? Or are the two just interchangeable in this case?

This as been really helpful though, I think I (for the most part) understand left communism now. While I wouldn't personally align with it myself right now, I hardly find it abhorrent and would certainly participate in a left communist revolution should one ever occur.

[Blake's Baby]

This pretty much answers what I was asking, although I'm still a bit confused as what exactly the party does (as opposed to the state). I mean do they just spread revolution globally or is their a lot more to it than that? Also, if you had regions where most workers weren't communists, what would stop them from electing non-communists into soviets who would end up betraying the working class? Moreover, what kind of a role would the lumpenproletariat and non-workers play in society?...

'Does it just spread revolution globally or is there more than that?'

No, I'd say there was less than that. It's not the Party's job to 'spread' revolution, it's the working class's job. Bordigists would I think disagree, but most Left Comms aren't Bordigists (despite the impression you may get from RevLeft).

There is nothing to stop workers electing non-communists in the soviets. The Party is a tool of the working class, not its master. 'We' (says Blake on the assumption that he's going to join the Party when it forms) need to argue and to persuade, not dictate. We can't force the working class to be other than what it is.

As to the lumpenproletariat and 'non-workers'... I'm not sure what you think they'd be doing in post revolutionary society. By 'lumpen' do you mean the unemployed? They'd be re-integrated into the working class as active producers, and would therefore be just any other members of the working class. Do you mean criminals? A good many of them would be re-integrated into the working class too I think. Some would possibly be fighting the revolution, however. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as many people as possible would have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society - we (as workers, not necessarily as communists) would want to generalise the condition of the working class, wouldn't we? It's only through doing so that we can overcome it.


...

Wait, that sounds like would most would describe as communism (y'know after we've moved past socialism). If this is considered socialist by left communists, could you please tell me how it's different from what left communists would call communism? Or are the two just interchangeable in this case?...

No, we don't know 'after we've moved past socialism'. We're not Leninists, we're Marxists, we use Marxist terminology not Leninist terminology. What do you mean by 'socialism'? Do you mean the lower phase of communism, or do you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a state capitalist party dictatorship, or what? To Left Comms, there is no distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism'. Communist/socialist society has a lower phase and a higher phase. Some Left Comms - especially those influenced by Communisation theory - would even dispute the existence of a lower phase, arguing that productive capacity has increased to the point where it is possible to move straight to the higher phase. But I think for most of us, we'd see the periodisation as being Dictatorship of the Proletariat - lower stage of communism - higher stage of communism. Either stage of communist society can instead be called socialist society.


...This as been really helpful though, I think I (for the most part) understand left communism now. While I wouldn't personally align with it myself right now, I hardly find it abhorrent and would certainly participate in a left communist revolution should one ever occur.

I still think there are things you're missing. There is no 'Left Communist revolution'. There is only proletarian revolution. The working class makes the revolution, not the Party. To an extent, it's the other way around - the revolution makes the Party.

[Skyhilist]

So wait, if the revolution creates the party and not the other way around and the party is of left communists, then wouldn't that mean that it was most likely left communists carrying out the revolution to begin with?

Also, if the party is independent of the state and isn't there to spread revolution, what exactly does it do? I know you said it works for the working class but that seems kind of vague. What kinds of responsibilities would the party actually take on?

[Blake's Baby]

So wait, if the revolution creates the party and not the other way around and the party is of left communists, then wouldn't that mean that it was most likely left communists carrying out the revolution to begin with?...

Don't exactly know what you mean here. Left Communists will most definitely be involved in the revolution. Will the entirety of it be directed by Left Comms? Absolutely not. Revolution is a process, a process that the working class engages in. During and as part of that process, some workers will come to see that international co-ordination is necessary and will come together to form international organisations around the most intransigent revolutionary principles. They won't become a 'general staff' or anything, but they will I think be the most dedicated revolutionary militants.


...Also, if the party is independent of the state and isn't there to spread revolution, what exactly does it do? I know you said it works for the working class but that seems kind of vague. What kinds of responsibilities would the party actually take on?

Depends what you mean by 'spread' here. The task of the Party is certainly to propagandise for the spread of the revolution, to attempt to persuade the working class as a whole to extend the revolution in bredth and depth. But it doesn't - it can't - force it. The militias are in the hands of the factory committees/workers' councils, not the Party.

I sense your question is something like "what is the purpose of a revolutionary organisation then, if it's the working class that makes the revolution?"

As revolutionaries, we're for the revolution, we aren't the revolution itself. In non-revolutionary times revolutionary organisations keep alive the lessons of previous struggles and hopefully, when intensifying class struggle reaches the point of posing the question of revolution, the revolutionary organisations are there to return those lessons to the working class.

Organisations try, in a very small and limited way, always to show that the interests of the working class are in uniting their struggles across all the barriers the bourgeoisise throws at them; the law, national borders, sectional interests etc. The generalisation of struggle is the only way that the working class can overcome capitalism, and we constantly (to the point we sound cliched) re-iterate this point.

In a revolution our role would be always to try to take a broader view than the immediate interests of one group of workers. Organisations of militants seperated in space and time can have a perspective on the situation that people in a place lack. Doesn't mean that either is right or wrong. But sometimes a wider perspective is helpful - it helps to mitigate against sectionalism, localism and short-termism.

'Leadership' is about clearly arguing for the best policy, not about directing people at gunpoint. If the revolutionary party is going to provide leadership to the working class it has to be on this basis.

[subcp]

That's a lot of questions; a lot of them are covered in the platforms or 'about us' sections of existing organizations publications and websites, such as:

http://www.en.internationalism.org/basic-positions

http://www.leftcom.org/en/about-us

http://international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/WhatDist.htm

It's a wide enough net that a lot of the groups and ideas are not mutually compatible. Most think the communisation groups/publications are 'modernizers' (same thing the Situationist International was called in the '60s), the Bordigists don't really recognize anything other than themselves as left communist, etc. The term 'ultra-left' has always been a slur used by Stalinists and Trotskyists against intransigent communists- usually aimed at left communists.

[Red Enemy]

I would argue that the party does not necessarily start in the revolution. The party could already exist, but the revolution could make that party grow into a truly revolutionary vanguard. However, for "the party" to truly develop, it does so in times of revolution I believe.