Left Communists?

[boiler]

Could anyone please help me out with this. What exactly is a left communist? What do they believe? I dont know anything about left communism so all comments are welcome. :)

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communism now refers to the political descendents of the Dutch-German, and Italian, Communist Lefts who were expelled from the Communist International in the 1920s (about whom Lenin wrote 'Left-wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder').

It also refers I guess to those groups (mostly breaking from Trotskyism after WWII) that came to the positions of the original Left Communist groups. But I'm not sure if any of these really exist any more.

It's related to Council Communism, which is a pretty specifically German-Dutch outgrowth of Left Communism; for simplicity's sake, it's easier to refer to Council Communists being anti-party and believing the October Revolution was bourgeois, and Left Communists supporting the notion of the vanguard party and seeing the October Revolution as proletarian; but (especially historically) the terms are somewhat confused. The German Left Communists called themselves 'Left' or 'Council' Communists somewhat indiscriminately; and today some Council Communists call themselves Left Communists, and especially among people who disagree with us, Left Communists are called 'Council Communists' because we (generally) see the workers' councils as the way the proletariat will exercise its dictatorship.

[Brotto Rühle]

Not all left communists who are anti vanguard, are anti party either.

[Blake's Baby]

Depends then what you mean by 'vanguard'.

If you think the role of the vanguard is to take power or direct the revolution, then OK, not all partyists are vanguardists.

If you think the role of the vanguard is to provide the clearest political expressions of the interests of the proletariat, to be 'pro-party', but 'anti-vanguard', makes no sense. It would make more sense to be 'pro-vanguard but anti-party'.

[boiler]

Thanks for the info. So Alexandra Kollontai and the Workers Opposition are left communists?

[Blake's Baby]

No, not really, though there are some similarities.

The Left Communists I guess were really represented in Russia by the original 'Left Communist' group around Bukharin and Ossinsky (I think they were based in Moscow) who published the journal 'Kommunist' in 1918. Then, from about 1922, the 'Workers' Group' around Miasnikov.

But these groups (or other Left Communist groups in Bulgaria, Britain and elsewhere) didn't really have political descendents. The Left Communists as existing now are the descendents of the Dutch-German, and Italian, Lefts.

[Remus Bleys]

No, not really, though there are some similarities.

The Left Communists I guess were really represented in Russia by the original 'Left Communist' group around Bukharin and Ossinsky (I think they were based in Moscow) who published the journal 'Kommunist' in 1918. Then, from about 1922, the 'Workers' Group' around Miasnikov.

But these groups (or other Left Communist groups in Bulgaria, Britain and elsewhere) didn't really have political descendents. The Left Communists as existing now are the descendents of the Dutch-German, and Italian, Lefts.Well, then, any recommended reading and people?

[Thirsty Crow]

To be more precise, there were no direct continuations of the Dutch-German left.
What happened was that a French fraction of the Bordigists went on to become the nucleus of what is ICC now, and the "second line" that is represented by PCInt (Battaglia Communista). Incidentally, the roots of the present day sectarianism can be found there, with the French fraction denouncing the formation of PCInt as opportunist.

[Blake's Baby]

There was no direct organisational descent but the Bilanists (especially the Belgians) were publishing texts by the Dutch-German Left in the 1930s. As Sylvia Pankhurst (the British Left-Communists generally being seen as more aligned to the Dutch-German Left) had been publishing Bordiga in the 1920s.

So, organisationally, no, but the Chinese walls between organisations didn't extend to political influence.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Ok, so what are the left-communist texts that should be read? From both the italian and dutch/german council tendency and from left-communists after the 20s, i guess. I imagine Pannekoek and Bordiga but I would be interested in knowing which texts exactly and maybe a bit less known left-communists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ok, so what are the left-communist texts that should be read? From both the italian and dutch/german council tendency and from left-communists after the 20s, i guess. I imagine Pannekoek and Bordiga but I would be interested in knowing which texts exactly and maybe a bit less known left-communists.
I'd advise you to get a hold on ICC books on the Dutch-German and the Italian left. The former can be found online: http://libcom.org/history/german-dutch-communist-left-philippe-bourrinet

This should serve as a history providing context which would enable people to read original texts easier, and better comprehending them.

[Blake's Baby]

What is it you want to know about? Just because Left Comms are Left Comms it doesn't mean we don't also read Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bukharin...

I was in a discussion on Saturday where one person was saying that they thought Herman Gorter was a very clear writer, and someone else said they thought he was terrible. But maybe after Pannekoek and Bordiga (or maybe just for a change of pace) you could try Gorter. Or Karl Korsch.

Later Pannekoek is really 'Council Communist'; and Otto Ruhle (that should have an umlaut on it) pretty much was the first to move from pro-party, pro-October positions to being anti-Party and regarding October as a bourgeois revolution. They, along with Paul Mattick Snr, are some of the main theoreticians of 'Council Communism'.

Onorato Damen is a very interesting guy and one of the leaders of the Italian Left. The CWO (British section of the International Communist Tendency) is publishing some of his stuff at the moment. It would be worth checking their archive and publications if you really want to know about this stuff. Bordiga of course you already know about; he was the leader of another faction of the Italian Left.

The International Communist Current is descended (kinda) from members of the Italian Left in exile in France in the 1920s-'30s, called the 'Bilan' group from the name of their paper (so, a third faction of the Italian Left after Damen's, and Bordiga's). The ICC has published some of the Bilan group's stuff, which you can find on their website.

Sylvia Pankhurst is probably the only famous British Left Communist. From 1918-1924 (or thereabouts) she was the main animator of the 'Workers' Dreadnought' group, which also went by the name of 'The Communist Party (British Section of the Third International)', the 'Workers' Socialist Federation' and the 'Communist Workers' Party' (which was affiliated to the 4th International of 1922, the 'Communist Workers' International'). Some of their material is also available on the web.

And then there are the Russians - Bukharin was briefly a Left Communist; Ossisnky was the first to warn that Russia was becoming a state capitalist dictatorship; and Miasnikov, who led the Workers' Group, was the first in the party to denounce the suppression of the Kronstadt Commune.

The ICC has books on the Italian; the Dutch-German; the Russian; and the British Lefts. Other research material is of course available.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What is it you want to know about? Just because Left Comms are Left Comms it doesn't mean we don't also read Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bukharin...


What's that supposed to mean? I am merely asking what the left-coms have written. Obviously left-coms have written Lenin (Bordiga for sure) but I want to know where they differ, like Gorter, iirc, wrote a critique of Lenin's left-communism so clearly he has read Lenin but that means not much. Bukharin at one point called himself a left-com, if I remember correctly.

[Thirsty Crow]

What's that supposed to mean? I am merely asking what the left-coms have written. Obviously left-coms have written Lenin (Bordiga for sure) but I want to know where they differ, like Gorter, iirc, wrote a critique of Lenin's left-communism so clearly he has read Lenin but that means not much. Bukharin at one point called himself a left-com, if I remember correctly.
This is really specific since at the time of the Brest-Litovs treaty the Russian communist left was constituted, as far as I'm aware, solely on the grounds of advocating a revolutionary war.

I really advise you to read the Bourrinet piece. You'll find numerous references to written works and activities there, plus valuable context.

Honestly, I'm too tired and buy right now to suggest written works. However, here's one: Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics (1920) http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/tactics/ch01.htm

Gorter, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

Why We need the Fourth Communist Workers' International (a really interesting piece, and very problematic in hindsight). http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1921/fourth-international.htm

Lessons of the March Action. http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1921/march-action.htm

EDIT: and do note that the translation here is a bit problematic (Lessons of March Action), as the "workers' unions" Gorter speaks about are no unions but the specific bodies called Unionen in Germany at the time.

[Blake's Baby]

What's that supposed to mean? I am merely asking what the left-coms have written...

Nothing sinister behind the question comrade. Just tryng to find out what you want to know about. Left Comm positions don't depend only on the writings of Left Comms, they also depend on a number of other people, including most importantly Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and Luxemburg. Sometimes Left Communists reference Bebel or Kautsky, Lukacs or any number of other writers.

If you were looking for the Left Comm position on the national question, I'd say go to Luxemburg; on 'world revolution', Trotsky; on imperialism, Lenin and Bukharin.

Trying to get a copy of the '21 conditions for affiliation to the Communist International' would be illuminating I think. They were written (as far as I remember) by Bordiga, and represent probably the high-point of Left Communism's influence in the 3rd International.


... Obviously left-coms have written Lenin (Bordiga for sure) but I want to know where they differ, like Gorter, iirc, wrote a critique of Lenin's left-communism so clearly he has read Lenin but that means not much. Bukharin at one point called himself a left-com, if I remember correctly.

Yes, he was a Left Communist for a couple of years, as I've mentioned twice already in this thread.


...
The Left Communists I guess were really represented in Russia by the original 'Left Communist' group around Bukharin and Ossinsky (I think they were based in Moscow) who published the journal 'Kommunist' in 1918...


...
Bukharin was briefly a Left Communist...

[Queen Mab]

I've been reading a lot of stuff on Left Communism recently, and it's pretty interesting stuff. While I pretty much agree with the standard Left-Com line on a lot of issues, I'm still bugged by the position on 'social issues': gender, race, sexuality. Is it not the case that e.g. the legalisation of abortion, same-sex marriage, the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation in the last 30-40 years are all reforms that have benefited the working class? And does this not directly refute the theory that capitalism is in decay and reforms can no longer be advanced within the capitalist system? I'd like to hear Blake's Baby's thoughts on this. :)

[Blake's Baby]

I think the question of 'reforms' is really to do with economic reforms. Bits of paper do not cost a lot; the state can afford to introduce gay marriage and is not any worse off. What capitalism can't afford to do is invest in the social wage, as can be seen by the massive austerity drives across most of Europe. Any such 'reforms' are temporary or partial - yes, this can be improved, but in return, that must be destroyed.

'Decadence' (which in the form you're describing seems to be how the ICC sees decadence) is a very simple idea. When capitalism was replacing feudalism, expanding production, creating a proletariat, creating a world market, it was a 'progressive' - even revolutionary - system. It is no longer progressive. It has developed to the point socialism is materially possible and is now over-developed. It has become a reactionary and failing system; its crises are becoming worse and sine the beginning of the 20th century has been ready for its death at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

This was the view of the Third International in 1920. The era of wars and revolutions had begun, Trotsky declared; the World War had convinced Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg - the whole of the Marxist Left of the IInd International - that capitalism was an obsolete and moribund system. This is still the view of the majority of Left Communists: capitalism is a decaying and crisis-ridden system and the task of the working class is not to work for reforms inside it but to smash it completely.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've been reading a lot of stuff on Left Communism recently, and it's pretty interesting stuff. While I pretty much agree with the standard Left-Com line on a lot of issues, I'm still bugged by the position on 'social issues': gender, race, sexuality. Is it not the case that e.g. the legalisation of abortion, same-sex marriage, the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation in the last 30-40 years are all reforms that have benefited the working class? And does this not directly refute the theory that capitalism is in decay and reforms can no longer be advanced within the capitalist system? I'd like to hear Blake's Baby's thoughts on this. :)
Oh fuck capitalist decadence theory.

Honestly, it's a load of bull, and that bull is more tolerable in the case of the analyses of the ICT. The folks from ICC have gone bonkers with that one.

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT: no, really that doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave it: apologies.

[Brotto Rühle]

Ante Ciliga before he went batshit.

[Queen Mab]

I think the question of 'reforms' is really to do with economic reforms. Bits of paper do not cost a lot; the state can afford to introduce gay marriage and is not any worse off. What capitalism can't afford to do is invest in the social wage, as can be seen by the massive austerity drives across most of Europe. Any such 'reforms' are temporary or partial - yes, this can be improved, but in return, that must be destroyed

Does that mean Left Coms advocate those sort of social reforms since they are not inherently temporary due to economic pressures? And could they co-operate with the 'left of capital' to win those reforms? What I suppose I'm getting that is if there is a part of capitalism that isn't decadent, does that not make a minimum or transitional programme and engagement with bourgeois forces a possibility?


'Decadence' (which in the form you're describing seems to be how the ICC sees decadence) is a very simple idea. When capitalism was replacing feudalism, expanding production, creating a proletariat, creating a world market, it was a 'progressive' - even revolutionary - system. It is no longer progressive. It has developed to the point socialism is materially possible and is now over-developed. It has become a reactionary and failing system; its crises are becoming worse and sine the beginning of the 20th century has been ready for its death at the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Yeah, I think in the wake of the neoliberal ascendency and now austerity it does make a certain amount of sense. I'm not sure if it made much sense in 1920, considering the unprecedented growth of capitalism and Keynesian welfare state that was successful for decades. To have said in the Sixties that capitalism is in decay and revolution is the only option to advance reforms seems pretty anachronistic to me.


This was the view of the Third International in 1920. The era of wars and revolutions had begun, Trotsky declared; the World War had convinced Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg - the whole of the Marxist Left of the IInd International - that capitalism was an obsolete and moribund system. This is still the view of the majority of Left Communists: capitalism is a decaying and crisis-ridden system and the task of the working class is not to work for reforms inside it but to smash it completely.

If the Third International took that line, then why do Leninists and their successors (Trots, M-Ls) not subscribe to the implications that the ICC attribute (decadence theory)?

Also, what are the differences between the ICC/ICT and the SPGB? It seems to me like one could call Left Communism Impossibilist in a technical (not historical) sense.

[Blake's Baby]

Does that mean Left Coms advocate those sort of social reforms since they are not inherently temporary due to economic pressures? And could they co-operate with the 'left of capital' to win those reforms? What I suppose I'm getting that is if there is a part of capitalism that isn't decadent, does that not make a minimum or transitional programme and engagement with bourgeois forces a possibility? ...

No, Left Comms tend to be pretty absolutist about 'reforms'. Defence of conditions is one thing, but advocacy of reforms is something else. It's really not our business to try to persuade the working class to demand a slightly different policy for managing capitalism.



...
Yeah, I think in the wake of the neoliberal ascendency and now austerity it does make a certain amount of sense. I'm not sure if it made much sense in 1920, considering the unprecedented growth of capitalism and Keynesian welfare state that was successful for decades. To have said in the Sixties that capitalism is in decay and revolution is the only option to advance reforms seems pretty anachronistic to me...

Maybe why Left Communism almost ceased to exist during the post-war years (along with Anarchism). 1968, and what the ICC call the working class's 'return to the path of struggle', and the economic catastrophes of the late '60s-early '70s (devaluation of Sterling, end of Bretton Woods etc), gave them a hell of a shot in the arm.



...
If the Third International took that line, then why do Leninists and their successors (Trots, M-Ls) not subscribe to the implications that the ICC attribute (decadence theory)? ...

Because it comes down to an interpretation of phrases like 'the era of wars and revolutions'. For some, the 'era' lasted until 1926 or whenever Stalin joined the League of Nations or whatever. For others, it's still going on.

But not all Left Communist groups accept anything like the ICC's version of decadence. There's no reason Stalinist or Trotskyist groups should. Besides, basing ones group position on the Leninist (actually, Stalinist, he wrote the position paper on it in 1913) notion of 'the right of nations to self-determination' for example, might allow one to think that there were some national bourgeoisies that were more 'progressive' than others. Which would be contrary to a theory that posits capitalism has no tasks left. So which is it to be? Capitalism is rectionary, or capitalism is progressive? It's a dilemma for Leninists (of either stripe). Mostly they pick the notion that support for sections of the bourgeoisie is justified, implicitly or exxplicitly arguing that there is some progressive content in the bougeois politics of some group or other.



...Also, what are the differences between the ICC/ICT and the SPGB? It seems to me like one could call Left Communism Impossibilist in a technical (not historical) sense.

There are some similarities. Personally, I think the SPGB are fine - 85% of the time. They're free-access communists, have a state-capitalist analysis of the Soviet Union and are internationalists. The SPGB was founded in 1904 on the basis that capitalism was sufficiently developed to provide the material basis for socialist society, and the task of the working class was now to struggle for socialism. I've even heard SPGBers call capitalism 'obsolete' (though not decadent, oh no). That is very close to the positions of a lot of the Communist Left.

However, the SPGB also have a very strange view of consciousness which is very unlike that of the Communist Left.

[Alf]

Oh fuck capitalist decadence theory.

Honestly, it's a load of bull, and that bull is more tolerable in the case of the analyses of the ICT. The folks from ICC have gone bonkers with that one.


Links, in what way have we "gone bonkers with that one"?