Bolshevism and the right-wing

[Narodnik]

I know left-communism criticizes Leninism and all schools decending from it as not being socialistic, but state-capitalistic, but e.g Luxemburg was somewhat simpathetic towards them nevertheless.

What libertarian socialist schools, if any, denounce Leninists as leftist, and consider them right-wing and anti-socialist/ anti-communist?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I know left-communism criticizes Leninism and all schools decending from it as not being socialistic, but state-capitalistic, but e.g Luxemburg was somewhat simpathetic towards them nevertheless.

There are a couple things wrong here. While left communists do criticize many "Leninist" groups such as the Stalinists and Trotskyists, left communists do support the first 2 congresses of the Comintern, support Lenin's The State and Revolution, etc. etc. Left communists are also known to defend their position as keeping with original Bolshevism. Luxemburg was not a left communist, as the tendency really didn't develop until she was dead. She is, nevertheless, a great influence.


What libertarian socialist schools, if any, denounce Leninists as leftist, and consider them right-wing and anti-socialist/ anti-communist?

Really any anarchist group I would imagine, Impossibilists, council communists, and anyone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist".

[Narodnik]

While left communists do criticize many "Leninist" groups such as the Stalinists and Trotskyists, left communists do support the first 2 congresses of the Comintern, support Lenin's The State and Revolution, etc. etc. Left communists are also known to defend their position as keeping with original Bolshevism. Luxemburg was not a left communist, as the tendency really didn't develop until she was dead.
I thought that Luxemburg was for nationalization and then turning the menagement of the nationalized economy to the worker councils, is that right? Also, I read that Bolsheviks never implement ideas from the April Thesis, and The State and Revolution (and are because of that called opportunistic, using those works only to gain popular support), is that true?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I thought that Luxemburg was for nationalization and then turning the menagement of the nationalized economy to the worker councils, is that right?

Yes, Luxemburg did support workers' councils like most socialists.


Also, I read that Bolsheviks never implement ideas from the April Thesis, and The State and Revolution (and are because of that called opportunistic, using those works only to gain popular support), is that true?

I would disagree, and state that the degeneration of the revolution in Russia had much more to do with it's isolation than any ideology or individual.

[Narodnik]

They needed outside help in order not to sell out on their own ideas?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

They needed outside help in order not to sell out on their own ideas?

They need "outside help" (if that's what you want to call spreading the revolution) if they want any hope of establishing socialism.


— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Capitalism is a global system. To defeat it, it has to be defeated globally. If the proletariat succeed in one country, but the revolution only is contained in that single country, the only thing the proletariat can do is re-organize and sustain national capital. They will still have to compete on the global market. If the revolution fails to spread, it is only a matter of time until the revolution degenerates.

[Sasha]

Depends where you stand, I would call Leninists (but also trots for that matter) in general as "the rightwing of the left", not rightwing as I would describe fash,or liberal-capitalists.
But on the other hand I can have more common ground with greens or socdems than with stalinoids or Maoists.
And lastly I'm more and more interested in post-leftism who certainly would not consider themselves part of the same "group" as Leninists, maybe having only some common ground with left-coms, anarchists and comunization groups...

[Narodnik]

They need "outside help" (if that's what you want to call spreading the revolution) if they want any hope of establishing socialism. Why?


Capitalism is a global system. To defeat it, it has to be defeated globally.Sure. But to defeat it locally, it is obvious that one just has to defeat it locally.


but the revolution only is contained in that single country, the only thing the proletariat can do is re-organize and sustain national capital.Or, they could continue functioning as worker controled economy until the rest of the world follows (or destroys them). They don't need to forgo socialism and go destroying people establishing worker control over production "because it's impossible to establish it locally".


They will still have to compete on the global market.Actually, it is only if they continue to compete on the global market is that they would economically fail, being that the international capital would devalve their currency and thereby destroy them (which is, BTW, possible only after the WW2 when every currency is standared on the dollar, and the dollar is a fiat currency), which would mean that a local revolution would have to institute a local currency, or outright abolish currency. Doing that, the only way the surrounding capitalist would could destroy the local socialist society would be by force, which is likely, but that just makes a long-term success of a local revolution unlikely, not impossible.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why?

That's what i'll be getting to.


Sure. But to defeat it locally, it is obvious that one just has to defeat it locally.

Capitalism cannot be defeated locally though. The proletariat can be successful in one area, but a successful proletariat doesn't equal socialism. Socialism is a classless, stateless, moneyless, etc. society. This cannot exist in one territory, state, etc. but can only exist globally.


Or, they could continue functioning as worker controled economy until the rest of follows (or destroys them).

A "workers' controlled economy" is not socialism. Socialism is the abolition of "workers" as a class. Workers' control over production can exist right alongside surplus value production, wage labor, commodity production, and other essential characteristics of capitalism. Self-managed exploitation is no success at all. http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation EDIT: I would also like to point out that workers' control is an example of re-organizing and sustaining national capital.


They don't need to go destroying people establishing worker control over production "because it's impossible to establish it locally".

Workers' lost control over production because of internal counter-revolutionary sabotage within Russia, the invasion of 14 different countries including Great Britain and the United States, famine, etc. etc. Under these conditions, there isn't going to be a "flowering of workers' control" and to believe or expect there to be is ridiculous. Yet, if the revolution were to spread and be successful, these conditions would have been different.



Acturally it is only if they do continue to compete on the global market they economically fail

:huh: How would they not compete on the global market? Russia in 1918 couldn't produce everything it needed on it's own, it needed things that were produced in other countries. Even now, if the proletariat were successful in a country they would still need supplies, etc. from other countries, forcing them on the global market.


which would mean that a local revolution would have to institute a local currency, or outright abolish currency.

If it instituted a local currency, why would you call this socialist? If it abolishes currency, then how would it trade on the global market? Capitalism is primarily concerned about exchange-value. Capitalists are in the business of accumulating exchange-value. The whole point is that the only way to even start the construction of socialism is for the majority of the world to be controlled by the successful proletariat.


Doing that, the only way the surrounding capitalist would could destroy the local socialist society would be by force, which is likely, but that just makes a long-tert success of a local revolution unlikely, not impossible.

A violent counter-revolutionary response to a successful proletarian revolution isn't just likely, it could be said to be inevitable (I am no absolutist, and that may not be true in all situations, but revolutionaries should definatley count on such a response).

[subcp]

Well there was the 'Right Opposition' around the Lovestoneites and Bukharin which developed against both Trotsky's 'Left Opposition' and the Left Communists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Right_Opposition

[Narodnik]

Capitalism cannot be defeated locally though.That's like saying that if in a slave society a farm doesn't have slaves, it's nevertheless a slave-owner farm because farms around it have slaves. It's nonsensical, if a farm doesn't own slaves, it's not a slave-owner farm. Likewise if a region doesn't have capitalists, you can't call it capitalistic because religions around it have capitalists, it's equally nonsensical.


Socialism is a classless, stateless, moneyless, etc. society.I see that as communism. I define socialism as worker control over production.


This cannot exist in one territory, state, etc. but can only exist globally.I fail to see some law of nature stopping communism from existing locally. Don't get me wrong, I assume that a local revolution is most probably either to spread or collapse, and very unlikely to subsist, but I don't find it impossible. I consider Zapatista Chiapas a revolutionary society.


Socialism is the abolition of "workers" as a class.Workers are people who work. Abolishing them as a class means no one working. Abolishing employees as a class is what I would call (near) socialism [near because rents have to be abolished too, not just employer-employee relations].


Self-managed exploitation is no success at all.Exploitation cannot be self-managed, it's a contradiction in terms, being that exploitation necessitates the existence of the exploitator-employer and the exploitated-employee.


How would they not compete on the global market?Because if they do, the capitalists are going to intentionally devalve their currency and thus destroy them.


If it instituted a local currency, why would you call this socialist?Because it would have worker control over production.


If it abolishes currency, then how would it trade on the global market?It shouldn't.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

That's like saying that if in a slave society a farm doesn't have slaves, it's nevertheless a slave-owner farm because farms around it have slaves. It's nonsensical, if a farm doesn't own slaves, it's not a slave-owner farm. Likewise if a region doesn't have capitalists, you can't call it capitalistic because religions around it have capitalists, it's equally nonsensical.

Slave society and capitalist society are two completely different historical epochs, and cannot be compared. Any consistent historical materialist and Marxist knows this.


I see that as communism. I define socialism as worker control over production.

Would you consider a workers' co-operative to be socialist? What about the workers' co-operatives in Sweden, does this make Sweden a socialist society? If your entire framework of whether something is "socialist" or not is based purely on whether workers' happen to run a factory within capitalist society.


I fail to see some law of nature stopping communism from existing locally. Don't get me wrong, I assume that a local revolution is most probably either to spread or collapse, and very unlikely to subsist, but I don't find it impossible. I consider Zapatista Chiapas a revolutionary society.

A revolutionary society doesn't necessarily equate socialism for starters. I would consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a revolutionary society, but I certainly wouldn't call it socialist or communist. Communism can exist "locally" as long as it also exists in at least a majority of the world for reasons I have already stated yet you have failed to adequately respond too.


Workers are people who work. Abolishing them as a class means no one working.

Laborers are people who labor. Labor is a necessary act of survival and will exist in every society. The proletariat are a certain social class that exists because a large group of people stand in the same relations of production as each other, as those that are without property and must sell themselves on the market for a wage, etc. Abolishing them as a class means furthering the step towards socialism and communism. Also, I personally think we should abolish work but that is a whole different subject in itself.


Exploitation cannot be self-managed, it's a contradiction in terms, being that exploitation necessitates the existence of the exploitator-employer and the exploitated-employee.


At the level of the enterprise, self-management develops at first in the sectors where the low rate of profit cannot be compensated for by raising productivity via an increase in the technical composition of capital since the crisis is, precisely, a lack of capital necessary for such investments. However, an increase in productivity can be obtained by further subjugating the work force to the production process : by eliminating various forms of proletarian resistance to the real domination of capital (absenteeism, sabotage) it is possible to increase the intensity and speed of the work process. Various attempts at "the enrichment of work" and especially the organization of autonomous work groups (Donelly, General Food, Volvo . . . ) fall into this trend since they result from capitalism's difficulties with valorization since the end of the 1960's; they remain, however, very limited experiments inasmuch as capitalism has yet to reproduce them on a global scale.

The deepening of the crisis, by raising the issue of self-management, will generalize and widen such experiments which must be given an adequate framework. [63] From this perspective, new profits will be obtained from the increased productivity and the decrease in unproductive costs, since self-management, as the name implies, consists of conferring part of the tasks of managing capital to the work force itself.

Thus within the enterprise self-management's inherent function is not to lower the value of the work force but to be the adequate framework, the form in which the work force is militarized and is adapted to this sort of rationalization of production.

http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation


Because if they do, the capitalists are going to intentionally devalve their currency and thus destroy them.

Because it would have worker control over production.

It shouldn't.

You selectively answered what I said and really didn't take on my claims with the above.

[Narodnik]

Slave society and capitalist society are two completely different historical epochs, and cannot be compared.Slaves have their owner, employees have their employers. First workers are sold, the second ones are rented, they are both treated as property. Pretty comparable.


Would you consider a workers' co-operative to be socialist?Yes.


What about the workers' co-operatives in Sweden, does this make Sweden a socialist society?No. It would have to have total worker control over production to make it a socialist economy, and also worker control over the political organization, to make it a socialist society.


If your entire framework of whether something is "socialist" or not is based purely on whether workers' happen to run a factory within capitalist society.If workers happen to own and manage the production.


A revolutionary society doesn't necessarily equate socialism for starters.I equate them. I don't how anything less them socialism could be revolutionary and not reactionary.


I would consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a revolutionary society,I don't. I consider it a party dictatorship.


Communism can exist "locally" as long as it also exists in at least a majority of the world for reasons I have already stated yet you have failed to adequately respond too.You haven't stated reasons. You have just stated your belief and didn't argument it.


The proletariat are a certain social class that exists because a large group of people stand in the same relations of production as each other, as those that are without property and must sell themselves on the market for a wage, etc. Abolishing them as a class means furthering the step towards socialism and communism.I agree.

@quote from the link
If what is being described is self-management, then there are no capitalists in the picture, and I support that. If there are capitalists owning (and thus having the final say in) the firm, that's not self-management (being that it is always the capitalist with the final decision about all managing of business), but co-determination, which I don't support at all, because exploitation is still extant.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Slaves have their owner, employees have their employers. First workers are sold, the second ones are rented, they are both treated as property. Pretty comparable.

No, they are not comparable. Slave society is a completely different historical epoch. One of the main components of capitalist society is wage labor, which doesn't exist within generalized slave society (not to say it was non-existant). They are comparable on a "superficial" level, per se, but not on the level you are trying to compare them. Slave society was never a "global" system. Capitalism, on the other hand, is.


No. It would have to have total worker control over production to make it a socialist economy, and also worker control over the political organization, to make it a socialist society.

Why though? By your logic, socialism is simply "workers' control over production". This exists in certain areas in Sweden. Why would this have to exist throughout the "society"? Under your understanding, socialism doesn't just have the ability to exist in a single country, but rather in a single factory.


I don't. I consider it a party dictatorship.

...only if you view the proletarian dictatorship as a "party dictatorship" rather than the proletariat organized as the ruling class as all Marxists do....


You haven't stated reasons. You have just stated your belief and didn't argument it.

This isn't true. I will quote myself again.


Capitalism is a global system. To defeat it, it has to be defeated globally. If the proletariat succeed in one country, but the revolution only is contained in that single country, the only thing the proletariat can do is re-organize and sustain national capital. They will still have to compete on the global market. If the revolution fails to spread, it is only a matter of time until the revolution degenerates.


Workers' lost control over production because of internal counter-revolutionary sabotage within Russia, the invasion of 14 different countries including Great Britain and the United States, famine, etc. etc. Under these conditions, there isn't going to be a "flowering of workers' control" and to believe or expect there to be is ridiculous. Yet, if the revolution were to spread and be successful, these conditions would have been different.


How would they not compete on the global market? Russia in 1918 couldn't produce everything it needed on it's own, it needed things that were produced in other countries. Even now, if the proletariat were successful in a country they would still need supplies, etc. from other countries, forcing them on the global market.


If it instituted a local currency, why would you call this socialist? If it abolishes currency, then how would it trade on the global market? Capitalism is primarily concerned about exchange-value. Capitalists are in the business of accumulating exchange-value. The whole point is that the only way to even start the construction of socialism is for the majority of the world to be controlled by the successful proletariat.

You have either completely ignored the good majority of these arguments or have not sufficiently showed your point of view on these.


I agree.

Really, because in your last post you said:


Workers are people who work. Abolishing them as a class means no one working.

Which means that you wouldn't agree with me.


@quote from the link
If what is being described is self-management, then there are no capitalists in the picture, and I support that. If there are capitalists owning (and thus having the final say in) the firm, that's not self-management (being that it is always the capitalist with the final decision about all managing of business), but co-determination, which I don't support at all, because exploitation is still extant.

You still don't understand. Capital can rule vertically (through bosses, etc.) or horizontally (through market forces, etc.). The market forces that cause bosses to make cuts to jobs, etc. would still be present. The domination of capital is not done away with, it is simply self-managed by the working class in your "socialist paradise".

[Narodnik]

No, they are not comparable. Slave society is a completely different historical epoch.
I'm pretty sure they historically overlaped, a bunch of places abolished slavery only in the 19th or even the 20th century.


One of the main components of capitalist society is wage labor, which doesn't exist within generalized slave society (not to say it was non-existant).I never said that slavery is same as capitalism.


They are comparable on a "superficial" level, per se, but not on the level you are trying to compare them. Both in slavery and in capitalism the people who do the work have a parasite boss over them. I find that very essential, not at all superficial.


Slave society was never a "global" system. Capitalism, on the other hand, is. I don't find the extent relevant- slavery is bad even if it's only one slaveowner owning one slave, and I also hold capitalism bad even if there's only one employer having one employee.



Why though? By your logic, socialism is simply "workers' control over production". This exists in certain areas in Sweden. Why would this have to exist throughout the "society"? Under your understanding, socialism doesn't just have the ability to exist in a single country, but rather in a single factory. Yes, and that factory would be socialistic. But you said Sweden.


...only if you view the proletarian dictatorship as a "party dictatorship" rather than the proletariat organized as the ruling class as all Marxists do....I find the notion nonsensical. If the proletariat (employees) exist, that means that capitalists (employers) exist, and I don't see how can the proletariat rule over the capitalists when the capitalists rule over the proletariat economically, and even if this kind of system is feasable, it is still nonsensical, if the proletariat has captured the political power, then the first logical step it should undergo is expropriating the capitalists, thus abolishing itself as proletariat, being that there would be no more capitalists.


apitalism is a global system. To defeat it, it has to be defeated globally. If the proletariat succeed in one country, but the revolution only is contained in that single country, the only thing the proletariat can do is re-organize and sustain national capital. They will still have to compete on the global market.Why?


Workers' lost control over production because of internal counter-revolutionary sabotage within Russia, the invasion of 14 different countries including Great Britain and the United States, famine, etc. etc. Under these conditions, there isn't going to be a "flowering of workers' control" and to believe or expect there to be is ridiculous.I will neglect the cynical "flowering", and will point that there is no need to "expect" worker control over production it a such a situation, and then to weight whether that "expectation" is justified or not, because it that concrete situation a whole society with 7m people existed with WCOP, and what would be ridiculous is denying reality of that existence of a society that had worker control over production.


Yet, if the revolution were to spread and be successful, these conditions would have been different. Or maybe it would be enough that people who call themselves socialist don't kill the people establishing WCOP, but we don't know now, because both Nabat-RIAU and CNT-FAI were destroyed by or because of the bolshevik actions. Beying destroyed is not proof of unsustainability, and people supporting the destroyers surely are not justified in using that destruction as an argument for the alleged unsustainability of those destroyed system.


How would they not compete on the global market?By using local currency or abolishing currency.


Russia in 1918 couldn't produce everything it needed on it's ownYes it could. People need food, dwealings, clothing and weaponry. Maybe it couldn't producte everything that the rich countries had, but those are not needs, any more that iPhones are needs because "everyone" has them.


If it instituted a local currency, why would you call this socialist?Because of the dissapearance of the capitalist class.


The whole point is that the only way to even start the construction of socialism is for the majority of the world to be controlled by the successful proletariat.Reality has proven you wrong. Socialism (WCOP) was not only started, but established in two societies with several milion members, so evidently, it's not possible to start constructing it, it's posible to construct it and run it for several years (until people calling themselves socialists come and destroy you because it's not yet possible to establish socialism).


Which means that you wouldn't agree with me. I'm not for abolishing workers, but the proletariat. Workers are people who do work, proletariat are the workers who have a capitalist boss.


Capital can rule vertically (through bosses, etc.) or horizontally (through market forces, etc.). I don't see how.


The market forces that cause bosses to make cuts to jobs, etc. would still be present.Can you enumerate the market forces and explain which one(s) exactly make bosses cut jobs, and it what way they make the bosses do that?


The domination of capital is not done away with, it is simply self-managed by the working class in your "socialist paradise".What is domination of capital? Domination of capitalist class, or domination by literally capital? If the latter, how can inanamte object dominate over something? If the former, existence of a capitalist and self-management are mutually exclusive, they cannot exist together, so I do not see how can capitalists dominate over self-managing workers, because if the workers are self-managing, that means that capitalists don't exist.