Life in Left Communism

[Raterepublik]

I have been increasingly interested in what dailly life was like in the Paris Commune, the Shanghai Commune, the Muchner Raterepublik, and generally any other place considered left communist.

I mean were there stores and were the workers of that store organised in one workers council or were all the clerks of a commune organised into a workers council? Also was there currency or wage? If so how much?

Also what was the ecconomy like? I've heard of "free association" but what does that even mean really? Is it the same as communal or decentralized planning?

Finally how do you compare the Warsaw Pact countries and Yugoslavia to left communist societies? If they had no vanguard party bureaucracy would they be they same?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

[newdayrising]

Left-communism is not a kind of society, it's a political tradition that stands for communism, pure as simple. The experiences that left-communists hold as revolutionary in the past and current initiatives they support are not "left-communist", they're just considered to be proletarian. As opposed to other things so-called "communist" support.

The difference is that for left-communists, most so-called communists aren't really communist, because they have betrayed the working class by joining the bourgeois political apparatus, supporting wars and so on.

Left-communists consider the Warsaw-Pact countries and Yugoslavia as capitalist societies, plain and simple. Not because they had vanguards and bureaucracy, but because, quoting from the Platform Of The ICC:


By concentrating capital in the hands of the state, state capitalism has created the illusion that private ownership of the means of production has disappeared and that the bourgeoisie has been eliminated. The Stalinist theory of ‘socialism’ in one country, the whole lie of the ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ countries, or of countries ‘on the road’ to socialism, all have their origins in this mystification.
The changes brought about by the tendency to state capitalism are not to be found on the level of the basic relations of production, but only on the level of the juridical forms of property.
They do not eliminate the private ownership of the means of production, but only the juridical aspect of individual ownership. The means of production remain ‘private’ property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers are deprived of any control over the means of production. The means of production are only ‘collectivised’ for the bureaucracy which owns and manages them in a collective manner.
The state bureaucracy which takes on the specific function of extracting surplus labour from the proletariat and of accumulating national capital constitutes a class. But it is not a new class. The role it plays shows that it is nothing but the same old bourgeoisie in its statified form. Concerning its privileges as a class, what is specific to the state bureaucracy is primarily the fact that it obtains its privileges not through revenues arising out of the individual ownership of capital, but through ‘running costs’, bonuses, and fixed forms of payment given to it according to the function its members fulfil - a form of remuneration which simply has the appearance of ‘wages’ and which is often tens or hundreds of times higher than the wages given to the working class.


I take it from your avatar that you're coming from an anarchist perspective. Many anarchists mistakenly believe left communism is some kind of "anti-authoritarian-Marxist" tradition, but that's not really true. All left-communists, for instance, subscribe to the view that the Russian Revolution was a proletarian one and that the Bolsheviks were a proletarian, authentically communist party. And they were a highly centralized group.

[Blake's Baby]

All Left Communists, except for the ones that call themselves Left Communists, but we don't think of as Left Communists... like some of the Dutch/German tradition who call themselves Left Communists but we call Council Communists or Councilists.

[Remus Bleys]

Hey Bordiga classified russia as dual revolution.

Anyway yeah left-communists are also pro-party

[newdayrising]

Exactly.
But they aren't really a thing anymore, as far as I know. At least not as far as being organized in any visible way.


All Left Communists, except for the ones that call themselves Left Communists, but we don't think of as Left Communists... like some of the Dutch/German tradition who call themselves Left Communists but we call Council Communists or Councilists.

[newdayrising]

Hey Bordiga classified russia as dual revolution.


Yes, but what he meant was that the after the proletariat took power the bourgeois tasks were completed. Not that the Bolsheviks were a dual bourgeois/proletarian party because they were "bureaucratic" or "authoritarian", which is what some anarchists imply.

[Blake's Baby]

There are endless arguments all over the place about who is or isn't a Left Comm. I agree yours is the 'standard' Left Comm definition (and the one I tend to use... but then, I'm a Left Comm)... but there are others who claim (part of) the heritage of the Communist Left who are anti-party and believe the Bolsheviks staged a bourgeois revolution. And, as Remus says, Bordiga wasn't totally consistent on the issue.

[Raterepublik]

I take it from your avatar that you're coming from an anarchist perspective. Actually Im more of a Councilist, but in all actuality Anarcho-Syndycalism and Anarcho-Communism are both very close to the Council Communist ideas.

All left-communists, for instance, subscribe to the view that the Russian Revolution was proletarian
It can be unwise to speak for all people of an ideology. Due to the fact that the defintion of Left Communist is "the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which criticizes the political ideas of the Bolsheviks" according to the general conensus on Wikipedia, I feel that not all Left Communists share your thoughts on the Russian Rev.

Also my original question was asking how dailly life was like and how the economy functioned in the places I had named, such as the Paris or Shanghai Commune, the Raterepublik, or Russia in 1907.

[newdayrising]

Also my original question was asking how dailly life was like and how the economy functioned in the places I had named, such as the Paris or Shanghai Commune, the Raterepublik, or Russia in 1907.

Yes, I got that. I just don't think there's such a thing as a "left-communist society" as opposed to non-left-but-still-communist societies. I apologise if it sounds pedantic or besides the point, but in my opinion your question shows a common misunderstanding of the concept and it's always nice to clarify these things. Left communism is a small current and most people don't know what it is, let alone understand it well, which is not their fault.
Regarding the places you named, I'm no expert, but I just pointed that they're not "left communist" per se.

[newdayrising]

There are endless arguments all over the place about who is or isn't a Left Comm. I agree yours is the 'standard' Left Comm definition (and the one I tend to use... but then, I'm a Left Comm)... but there are others who claim (part of) the heritage of the Communist Left who are anti-party and believe the Bolsheviks staged a bourgeois revolution. And, as Remus says, Bordiga wasn't totally consistent on the issue.

Well, there's a all kinds of people who claim to be communist as well. Despite their opinion, I argue my own. The same goes for left-communism or anything else. But this is not very important.

Regarding Bordiga, I honestly haven't read him put into doubt the proletarian character of the Russian Revolution. I'd be very interested though, where did he write that? If you're talking about the "dual character" thing, I may be wrong but I don't think it makes the revolution somehow less-than-proletarian. As I said above, my interpretation is that he meant it was a proletarian revolution, period, but one that had to complete the bourgeois tasks because of Russia's backwardness. Which is hard to disagree with, in my opinion.
That is quite different than the councilist view that it was not a proletarian revolution. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Red Shaker]

The examples you cite were all of relatively short duration. Efforts were made to distribute goods based on need rather than work. It is hard to accomplish this unless masses of workers are won to this before you try to do it. A more extensive example is the period of "war communism" following the Russian Revolution. It worked during the civil war, but as the war ended, the Bolshevik leadership felt compelled to return to a wage system and material incentives. The Russian Revolution was made around the slogan bread, land and peace not fight for communism. Again, you can not build communism unless many workers are won to doing it.

[Lensky]

There are no sustained examples of Left-Communism because as an ideology similar to true anarchism, it cannot last for long before being annihilated by better disciplined, more dedicated, and more structured forces.

[Remus Bleys]

There are no sustained examples of Left-Communism because as an ideology similar to true anarchism, it cannot last for long before being annihilated by better disciplined, more dedicated, and more structured forces.
lol you should read bordiga
you think your ideology is "authoritarian". fool.

[Zukunftsmusik]

There are no sustained examples of Left-Communism because as an ideology similar to true anarchism, it cannot last for long before being annihilated by better disciplined, more dedicated, and more structured forces.

That's some pretty poor analysis right there. First of all, the left comms in the strictest sense are indeed "authoritarian". Secondly, there are no "sustained examples" of left communism because ideology or theory doesn't form revolutions. If you seriously think marxist-leninism produced the Soviet union, you're delusional.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are no sustained examples of Left-Communism because as an ideology similar to true anarchism, it cannot last for long before being annihilated by better disciplined, more dedicated, and more structured forces.

As opposed to the impressive 18 years of "socialism" in China (1958-1976) until one guy came along and changed an entire mode of production because he had some different ideas. A totally durable system indeed.

Incidentally, millions were killed to prevent to rise of exactly this one guy and it failed, killed in vain.

[Rss]

As opposed to the impressive 18 years of "socialism" in China (1958-1976) until one guy came along and changed an entire mode of production because he had some different ideas. A totally durable system indeed.

Incidentally, millions were killed to prevent to rise of exactly this one guy and it failed, killed in vain.

Nice strawman.

Even if early attempts of marxism-leninism(-maoism) to build socialism were later beaten back by capitalist roaders, it is still one of the most successful tendencies of socialism. Theory might be flawed here and there, but it is a scientific theory which is corrected as new, correct lines of thought are established.

Cheers.

[Tim Cornelis]

Nice strawman.

It's certainly an exaggeration but the crux is identical: the ability of socialism to survive relied on the ideas of a national oligarchy, the upper layers of the Chinese Communist Party.


Even if early attempts of marxism-leninism(-maoism) to build socialism were later beaten back by capitalist roaders,

Which assumes that the attempts to build socialism corresponds to a Marxist analysis of what socialism actually is, as well as the implied absence of organs of workers' power, and thus the absence of socialism.


it is still one of the most successful tendencies of socialism.

A tendency within the far-left, but a bourgeois-socialist one at that. I certainly wouldn't measure the accuracy of a movement by its popularity. Bourgeois-socialism is more attractive to workers because they share the bourgeois paradigm with which they have been conditioned to think in bourgeois society.


Theory might be flawed here and there,

It's not flawed here and there, it's flawed from its basic premises.


but it is a scientific theory which is corrected as new, correct lines of thought are established.

It's idealist and bourgeois.

[reb]

There are no sustained examples of Left-Communism because as an ideology similar to true anarchism, it cannot last for long before being annihilated by better disciplined, more dedicated, and more structured forces.

Left communists don't claim that ideology makes revolution, unlike Stalinists and Maoists.