Left Communism and Marxist-Leninism?

[BornDeist]

Is it possible to beleive in left communism in first world countries where capitalism is already fully developed, but support a marxist-leninist type government in 3rd world countries to quickly develop capitalism without imperialistic bourgeois and bring them up to the rest of the world standards and then liberate the state allowing all countries to be able to develop full on communism?

[Devrim]

No.

Devrim

[Remus Bleys]

To do so would take an overly stagist view of history, it would imply that capitalism always results in socialism (revolution is not an inevitability), and it would mean supporting the bourgeoisie of a locality. The truth of the matter is that this is taking Eastern Bourgeoisie over the Western Bourgeoisie when in fact we need to take the International Proletariat over the International Bourgeoisie. These nations can only be "fully developed" by a proletarian dictatorship, the development of the local bourgeoisie will be fully stunted. It could also be potentially easier to unite the material human community in a society that did not go through the problems that capitalism causes to it. To support these nations is to support the failure of the proletariat, it is to support the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, and it is to ignore the fact that everytime a nation becomes "free", it sells its "people" out to the imperialists all over again, in addition to becoming imperialist itself.
It is not 1848. Capitalism does not need to develop the world to make communism a possibility anymore.

[Blake's Baby]

There is an argument that has been put forward that to suggest that that idea that only the European and American proletariat is 'advanced' enough for communism while the rest of the world has to go through a Stalinist phase to 'develop' is based on a racist world-view, relying as it oes on the notion that workers in the capitalist peripheries are somehow unable to grasp what 'real' communism is.

Is it in the interests of the working class in particular but humanity as a whole more generally, to overthrow capitalism everywhere? Yes, it is.

Is it in the interests of workers anywhere, or humanity in any portion of the globe, to create 'states' that it then has to dismantle? No, it isn't.

There's no way of squaring that circle.

[Leftsolidarity]

No.

Devrim

Great one word post in learning. I'm sure you answered the whole of their question with a reasonable explanation.

Infraction

[Devrim]

Great one word post in learning. I'm sure you answered the whole of their question with a reasonable explanation.

Infraction

Yes, I think it was a great post. It was a yes no question and I answered the question completely. I told the poster that it wasn't possible. This poster isn't completely new. Completely new posters don't come our with questions like that. If they know that left communists don't think it possible maybe it would encourage them to think about why it is so. It is not always good to get everything fed to you on a spoon.

So, yes a great answer.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

The OP doesn't realize that Stalinism rose as an agent of counter revolution. If the revolution wasn't isolated in Russia due to the combined effectiveness of the world bourgeois reaction and the inability of communists to learn lessons from the Russian revolution, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation today. But Stalinism and Maoism thrive off the defeats of the world revolution. Socialism in one country wouldn't of been fostered if the Chinese and German revolutions were successful.

Unfortunately they weren't, mainly due to how the USSR bureaucracy forced terrible politics on nearly every communist party. Such as the third period line which enabled the rise of fascism, and the front of the chinese communist party with the KMT. All of this was made worse when the imperialist war efforts were supported by every communist party during WW2.

Also there's never been a "left communist" revolution. The closest ultra leftism got to gaining political power was when they nearly forced an invasion of Germany at the beginning of the Russian revolution, which would of been a disaster. Bukharin, the chief proponent of that idea, was later the chief supporter of the NEP.

[Remus Bleys]

Also there's never been a "left communist" revolution
Theres never been a leninist or trotskyist or anarchist or social-democrat or stalinist revolution either, geiseric. Ideologies do not make revolution, the class does. Please take your idealism and voluntarism out of the Learning forum.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is an argument that has been put forward that to suggest that that idea that only the European and American proletariat is 'advanced' enough for communism while the rest of the world has to go through a Stalinist phase to 'develop' is based on a racist world-view

Not really. I think this is just an easy route to dismiss this idea, but one could argue that the objective conditions for communism are not yet present in much of the developing world, with the proletariat being a minority. There's nothing racist about such an argument. And therefore the argument that a Stalinist phase of development is needed to accelerate this development. Incidentally, it wouldn't be a very good argument as there have been Marxist-Leninist regimes in Africa and were not quite successful in doing so. Similarly, India in the 1950s until circa 1990 emulated Soviet-style planning and nationalisation to develop its economy, but this was not successful.

[Art Vandelay]

Not really. I think this is just an easy route to dismiss this idea, but one could argue that the objective conditions for communism are not yet present in much of the developing world, with the proletariat being a minority. There's nothing racist about such an argument.

I agree that there is nothing racist about this argument. However I think its pretty symptomatic of the failure to realize that the decisive element in a future proletarian revolution, is not whether capitalism has developed fully within the confines of a particular state, but whether or not the productive forces have developed sufficiently on a global scale. Not saying that you support that argument, just something that came to mind.

[Geiseric]

Theres never been a leninist or trotskyist or anarchist or social-democrat or stalinist revolution either, geiseric. Ideologies do not make revolution, the class does. Please take your idealism and voluntarism out of the Learning forum.

Lenin and Trotsky, who were not left communists, led the Russian revolution so whatever they have to say should be taken more seriously than somebody who, well, hasn't. Their theories were shaped by the struggles they were part of, including the struggle against ultraleftism.

[The Jay]

Lenin and Trotsky, who were not left communists, led the Russian revolution so whatever they have to say should be taken more seriously than somebody who, well, hasn't. Their theories were shaped by the struggles they were part of, including the struggle against ultraleftism.

I don't know much about the pre-revolution days in Russia but maybe you could tell me where Lenin and Trotsky were physically that they were able to organize and incite the workers in Russia to respond to the oppressive Tsarist campaigns of terror against their own people. The way you are expressing things it seems as though they must have been quite out-going and among the people to get them to realize that they were: 1) needing to over throw the Tsar and establish a new state and 2) that they were the ones that needed to do it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lenin and Trotsky, who were not left communists, led the Russian revolution so whatever they have to say should be taken more seriously than somebody who, well, hasn't. Their theories were shaped by the struggles they were part of, including the struggle against ultraleftism.

...you should probably really think this line of reasoning through.

Stalin was in a leadership position as well...according to your arguments...he should be taken more seriously...and he had a few choice words for Trotskyists if I remember correctly.

[Remus Bleys]

Lenin and Trotsky, who were not left communists, led the Russian revolution so whatever they have to say should be taken more seriously than somebody who, well, hasn't. By this logic nothing you say should be taken seriously because you are just a student organizer (and have never been apart of any revolution). You don't even emulate them correctly, as many users have from time and time again shown how wrong you were.
also lol @ lenin and trotksy were the only people involved in the russian revoltuion. so were stalin and bukharin so... not to mention the mass nontheoretician proletarians. You really are a substitutionist.

Their theories were shaped by the struggles they were part of, including the struggle against ultraleftism.Man you just love that fucking buzzword.

[Le Socialiste]

By this logic nothing you say should be taken seriously because you are just a failed student organizer.

Hey, lay off the personal attacks. I disagree with Geiseric on this matter as much as you do, but shit like this isn't okay.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes, I think it was a great post. It was a yes no question and I answered the question completely. I told the poster that it wasn't possible. This poster isn't completely new. Completely new posters don't come our with questions like that. If they know that left communists don't think it possible maybe it would encourage them to think about why it is so. It is not always good to get everything fed to you on a spoon.

So, yes a great answer.

Devrim

Actually, it was a pretty awful answer. I don't care about your reasoning, either abide by the new rules for Learning or don't bother posting.

Edit - That is to say, one-liners - or one-word answers for that matter - have no real place here.

[Geiseric]

I don't know much about the pre-revolution days in Russia but maybe you could tell me where Lenin and Trotsky were physically that they were able to organize and incite the workers in Russia to respond to the oppressive Tsarist campaigns of terror against their own people. The way you are expressing things it seems as though they must have been quite out-going and among the people to get them to realize that they were: 1) needing to over throw the Tsar and establish a new state and 2) that they were the ones that needed to do it.

They had the praxis, the combination of theory and practical application, better understood than any other theorist at the time. If people listened to stalin and co. When the provisional government was around, it would of never been overthrown because they were atm the ones who were directing the struggle against it, and held the position that the Soviet should hold conditional support for it. Same goes for the left communIsts who wanted to raise a "revolutionary offensive" against imperial Germany. They nearly won the vote in the Soviet, the difference was two votes. If Lenin and Trotsky didn't direct brest litovsk the revolution would of been crushed after a few months. This doesn't mean that left communists were bad people, they were simply wrong. They were as wrong as the left SRs. If the Bolshevik party wasn't organized in no small part by Lenin, who knows what would of happened?

[Geiseric]

Hey, lay off the personal attacks. I disagree with Geiseric on this matter as much as you do, but shit like this isn't okay.

I'm not even offended by this because I haven't failed yet.

[The Jay]

They had the praxis, the combination of theory and practical application, better understood than any other theorist at the time. If people listened to stalin and co. When the provisional government was around, it would of never been overthrown because they were atm the ones who were directing the struggle against it, and held the position that the Soviet should hold conditional support for it. Same goes for the left communIsts who wanted to raise a "revolutionary offensive" against imperial Germany. They nearly won the vote in the Soviet, the difference was two votes. If Lenin and Trotsky didn't direct brest litovsk the revolution would of been crushed after a few months. This doesn't mean that left communists were bad people, they were simply wrong. They were as wrong as the left SRs. If the Bolshevik party wasn't organized in no small part by Lenin, who knows what would of happened?

What physical actions did they take to make the revolution happen though? When did they get to Russia to lead the people to storm the gates of the aristocracy?

[Le Socialiste]

I'm not even offended by this because I haven't failed yet.

Fair enough, now let's get back on-topic please. And please, people - no more one-liners.

[Alexios]

it's funny how the mod team here just targets people they disagree with

[Le Socialiste]

it's funny how the mod team here just targets people they disagree with

I would love to see you support this - with evidence. In the meantime, stay on topic.

[Art Vandelay]

What physical actions did they take to make the revolution happen though? When did they get to Russia to lead the people to storm the gates of the aristocracy?

As much as I'm not a fan of Geiseric's posting style, he does have a point here, even if its muddled under most of what he's saying. If you take a look at the actions of Lenin and Trotsky (not just them, but they are the prime examples) leading up to October, its quite clear the decisive role they played. Be it Trotsky, over the years, elaborating his theory of permanent revolution (which was mostly flippantly dismissed, until adopted by the Bolsheviks in '17), or Lenin and Trotsky advocating seizure of state power, when most Bolsheviks were preaching support for the provisional government, or Lenin's april theses, etc...you can see how important of a role they played. Lenin wasn't in Russia for much of the time leading up to the revolution, but was still organizing the Bolsheviks from afar. Trotsky spent the vast majority of his time doing propaganda work, which is why he was known for being a magnificent orator. He walked around Petrograd with a pistol in his belt, going from secret meeting to secret meeting. I mean it really is well known how much time he spent talking to workers and it is precisely this reason that he was voted as the head of the Petrograd soviet in both '05 and '17. Had it not been for the movement within the Bolsheviks party, spearheaded by Lenin and Trotsky, they would of never seized state power.


also lol @ lenin and trotksy were the only people involved in the russian revoltuion. so were stalin and bukharin so... not to mention the mass nontheoretician proletarians. You really are a substitutionist.

Both Stalin and Bukharin were not originally in favor of seizing state power. So the point you are trying to make is moot. Had the course of action they were advocating, been followed, October would not have happened. Perhaps I could be wrong about Bukharin, its been a while since I did my reading on the history of the RR, but I'm fairly certain that was case. Also, Bukharin's stance on Brest-Litovisk, was insanity. I mean Trotsky was wrong himself on this matter, but the line advocated by the left-coms would of been the end of the revolution.


it's funny how the mod team here just targets people they disagree with

Yeah that's not really the case.

[PhoenixAsh]

That is not right. Stalin argued for the overthrow of the provisional government from April and was increasingly militant in his approach with his actions leading to the Kronstadt uprising.

So...

[Art Vandelay]

That is not right. Stalin argued for the overthrow of the provisional government from April and was increasingly militant in his approach with his actions leading to the Kronstadt uprising.

So...

Your comment doesn't contradict anything that I stated. Stalin and co, were advocating support for the provisional government, until Lenin's return to Russia (April) when the movement within the Bolsheviks party, spearheaded by Lenin and Trotsky and advocating the seizure of state power, began to gain sway among the Bolsheviks. As I said, had the Bolsheviks not adopted the line predominantly advocated by Lenin and Trotsky, they would of never seized state power. Thank you for further elucidating my point.

So...

[Geiseric]

That is not right. Stalin argued for the overthrow of the provisional government from April and was increasingly militant in his approach with his actions leading to the Kronstadt uprising.

So...

There were much worse things than Kronstadt that showed the degeneration in process, namely the invasion of Georgia and Poland. The Kronstadt Revolt was sparked by grain seizures in the countryside, and was immediately followed by the NEP which momentarily alleviated the tension between the Bolsheviks and the country landlords.

[Brutus]

David Riazanov was the first person to advocate that the RSDLP seize state power and establish a DotP, as early as 1903, when he wrote Materials on the Program of the Workers' Party. So, as far as I know, Riazanov espoused permanent revolution before Pavrus and Trotsky. Lenin eventually came round to this theory in 1917 with the April Thesis, to which Stalin responded with 10 days of silence before radically altering the tune of Pravda.

[PhoenixAsh]

Your comment doesn't contradict anything that I stated. Stalin and co, were advocating support for the provisional government, until Lenin's return to Russia (April) when the movement within the Bolsheviks party, spearheaded by Lenin and Trotsky and advocating the seizure of state power, began to gain sway among the Bolsheviks. As I said, had the Bolsheviks not adopted the line predominantly advocated by Lenin and Trotsky, they would of never seized state power. Thank you for further elucidating my point.

So...

Besides the fact that it is a bit stupid to debate who was and was not at which specific month advocating exactly what...you know full well Lenin shied away from actual pushing for state control on several occasions because he was not ready. The Kronstad rebellion I mentioned not only was one of these instances but also resulted in Stalin saving your precious Lenin's live. Pretty sure Lenin wluld be dead if he hadn't done that.



There were much worse things than Kronstadt that showed the degeneration in process, namely the invasion of Georgia and Poland. The Kronstadt Revolt was sparked by grain seizures in the countryside, and was immediately followed by the NEP which momentarily alleviated the tension between the Bolsheviks and the country landlords.

Not talking about that period of Kronstadt but about the July rebellion.

[Art Vandelay]

David Riazanov was the first person to advocate that the RSDLP seize state power and establish a DotP, as early as 1903, when he wrote Materials on the Program of the Workers' Party. So, as far as I know, Riazanov espoused permanent revolution before Pavrus and Trotsky. Lenin eventually came round to this theory in 1917 with the April Thesis, to which Stalin responded with 10 days of silence before radically altering the tune of Pravda.

Interesting, I'll have to look this up, since its a name I haven't come across before. However, simply because he was advocating for the RSDLP to seize state power and establish a dotp, does not necessarily mean he was espousing the theory of permanent revolution, regardless of whether or not he had the same conclusion.


Besides the fact that it is a bit stupid to debate who was and was not at which specific month advocating exactly what...

Then I'm not sure why you decided to respond to what I posted, since that is the topic I was discussing.


you know full well Lenin shied away from actual pushing for state control on several occasions because he was not ready.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that Lenin delayed the seizing of state power leading up to October? If so, then yes you are right, however those actions were some of Lenin's finest during his revolutionary career. Its one of the best examples of revolutionary patience in the history of revolutionary activity. Regardless, Lenin wasn't delaying the seizure of state power due to stagist views, which was my point entirely when commenting on the actions of Stalin, Kamanev, Bukharin,etc.

The Kronstad rebellion I mentioned not only was one of these instances but also resulted in Stalin saving your precious Lenin's live. Pretty sure Lenin wluld be dead if he hadn't done that.

Cool and this is relevant how? I'm more than willing to give Stalin credit, where credit is due. And I'm not sure why you decided to use the term 'your precious Lenin.' My post was simply about the differing lines advocated within the Bolshevik party, leading up to October. What I stated was factually correct.

[Brutus]

Interesting, I'll have to look this up, since its a name I haven't come across before. However, simply because he was advocating for the RSDLP to seize state power and establish a dotp, does not necessarily mean he was espousing the theory of permanent revolution, regardless of whether or not he had the same conclusion.
Hmm... Maybe I phrased it wrong. He definitely stated that the working class should overthrow Tsarism then begin to progress to socialism, rather than Plekhanov's theory of allowing capitalism to develop.

[PhoenixAsh]

Then I'm not sure why you decided to respond to what I posted, since that is the topic I was discussing.

Because the notion that only Lenin and Trotsky's opinion matter because they led a "successful" revolution and the left-coms didn't is not a valid opinion. A position you defended by your reply. Stalin gave as much leadership to the revolution as Lenin and Trotsky. Which would give Stalin as least equal importance. That matters because when the argument is initially used to discredit left-coms...then the same argument could be used against Trotskyists.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that Lenin delayed the seizing of state power leading up to October? If so, then yes you are right, however those actions were some of Lenin's finest during his revolutionary career.

Yes I did mean that. The Oktober Revolution could have been held in July.



Its one of the best examples of revolutionary patience in the history of revolutionary activity. Regardless, Lenin wasn't delaying the seizure of state power due to stagist views, which was my point entirely when commenting on the actions of Stalin, Kamanev, Bukharin,etc.

Fair enough.

Just to be even more fair to you...in my opinion the point is particularly mood because I think the Oktober Revolution was a failure from the start because of the involvement of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin...or better yet Bolsheviks in general.



Cool and this is relevant how? I'm more than willing to give Stalin credit, where credit is due. And I'm not sure why you decided to use the term 'your precious Lenin.' My post was simply about the differing lines advocated within the Bolshevik party, leading up to October. What I stated was factually correct.

Well...you are a Trotskyist according to your organisation.

[Geiseric]

Because the notion that only Lenin and Trotsky's opinion matter because they led a "successful" revolution and the left-coms didn't is not a valid opinion. A position you defended by your reply. Stalin gave as much leadership to the revolution as Lenin and Trotsky. Which would give Stalin as least equal importance. That matters because when the argument is initially used to discredit left-coms...then the same argument could be used against Trotskyists.



Yes I did mean that. The Oktober Revolution could have been held in July.



Fair enough.

Just to be even more fair to you...in my opinion the point is particularly mood because I think the Oktober Revolution was a failure from the start because of the involvement of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin...or better yet Bolsheviks in general.



Well...you are a Trotskyist according to your organisation.

I regret replying in the first place if that's what your nuanced position is.

[Art Vandelay]

Because the notion that only Lenin and Trotsky's opinion matter because they led a "successful" revolution and the left-coms didn't is not a valid opinion. A position you defended by your reply.

Are you sure you don't have me confused with Geiseric? He was the poster who stated that we should give more attention/respect to the opinions of those two individuals due to their role in October. I never once claimed that left-coms never lead a successful revolution so we should ignore them; (a) that would be dogmatic, (b) I thanked Remus's post, which stated that it is not individuals or tendencies which make revolutions but the class, and (c) I happen to enjoy/take influence from certain left-coms, Bordiga would be a good example. So I really have no idea what you are talking about, or why you've levied this criticism at me.


Stalin gave as much leadership to the revolution as Lenin and Trotsky. Which would give Stalin as least equal importance.

This is just historically false. Its well known that Stalin's shining achievement (pre-October) was his work on the national question, which Lenin practically dictated to him. He was a mediocre and relatively unknown Bolshevik until after October.


That matters because when the argument is initially used to discredit left-coms...then the same argument could be used against Trotskyists.

Except, yet again, I didn't make or support that argument. The entire point of my post, was to point out that what Geiseric was saying had an element of truth to it (that Lenin and Trotsky were the driving force of the movement, within the Bolsheviks, advocating seizure of state power) despite being overshadowed by the majority of his post. I mean hell, I even explicitly stated that while they were the most well known individuals advocating seizure of state power, they were not the only ones.


Yes I did mean that. The Oktober Revolution could have been held in July.

Well we obviously have different opinions on that matter, which is fine. However I don't see how this is a very serious criticism of Lenin, when he simply waited for what he deemed to be the opportune moment. You can argue he should of pushed for seizure of state power earlier, but the important thing is that he did advocate for seizure of state power.


Just to be even more fair to you...in my opinion the point is particularly mood because I think the Oktober Revolution was a failure from the start because of the involvement of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin...or better yet Bolsheviks in general.

Once again, we obviously disagree here, but I don't see how this is very relevant and I don't suspect we'll succeed in changing each others minds on the matter.


Well...you are a Trotskyist according to your organisation.

So? Just because I am a member of the CWI, doesn't mean uphold him as infallible or am incapable of pointing out his mistakes. I don't see what you hoped to add to the discourse, with your 'precious Lenin' comment, other than being snarky.

[Jambo]

Is it possible to beleive in left communism in first world countries where capitalism is already fully developed, but support a marxist-leninist type government in 3rd world countries to quickly develop capitalism without imperialistic bourgeois and bring them up to the rest of the world standards and then liberate the state allowing all countries to be able to develop full on communism?

I'm interested in Left-communist ideas although I haven't yet done any reading on the subject. I saw mentioned in the Left-com group on here that left-coms are opposed to anti-imperialism and I just want to try and get a clearer understanding and clarification of the left communist position on this.

I understand the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' does not always apply and we should not support some brutal, repressive regime in a country simply because it is opposing western imperialism.

However does this mean that left-coms should not actively expose and oppose imperialism? I think its important to make people aware of the rapacious, predatory nature of capitalist imperialism, to show the true nature and blatant hypocrisy of these governments. Opposing Imperialism does not mean supporting its enemies.

Do left-coms not see the emergence of 'socialist' type governments in south america for example to be a positive thing? While these governments are far from perfect they are preferable to other options such as military juntas.

While the ideal may be a global proletarian revolution, the existence of countries such as Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela is not a theory but a fact. Are Left-coms then just completely opposed to these governments?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm interested in Left-communist ideas although I haven't yet done any reading on the subject. I saw mentioned in the Left-com group on here that left-coms are opposed to anti-imperialism and I just want to try and get a clearer understanding and clarification of the left communist position on this.

I understand the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' does not always apply and we should not support some brutal, repressive regime in a country simply because it is opposing western imperialism.

However does this mean that left-coms should not actively expose and oppose imperialism? I think its important to make people aware of the rapacious, predatory nature of capitalist imperialism, to show the true nature and blatant hypocrisy of these governments. Opposing Imperialism does not mean supporting its enemies...

Of course we oppose imperialism, but we oppose all imperialism, not just US imperialism. 'anti-imperialism' alibis one imperialism while demonising another. We're 'consistent anti-imperialists' in that we won't support a slightly less successful capitalist state against a slightly more successful.


...Do left-coms not see the emergence of 'socialist' type governments in south america for example to be a positive thing? While these governments are far from perfect they are preferable to other options such as military juntas...

As these governments often are 'military juntas' the question doesn't mean anything. They're not 'preferable', no. They're still bourgeois governments of capitalist states. They have nothing to offer the working class.


...While the ideal may be a global proletarian revolution, the existence of countries such as Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela is not a theory but a fact. Are Left-coms then just completely opposed to these governments?

Of course we are. We're communists. We're for the overthrow of all existing social conditions and the working class liberating itself (and humanity), and creating a new socialist society.

[Jambo]

Great, thanks for the reply Blake’s.

I will definitely have to do more reading on left-com ideas. I am totally against nationalism and agree with the idea that the emphasis has to be on not supporting ‘one particular spot’ somewhere against another but about supporting the working class everywhere. I most bear in mind where literature and other sources are coming from and that anti-imperialist does not automatically = communist.

So do Left-com organisations actively support the development of global working class solidarity within existing conditions?
My only fear is that there might be a tendency to use ‘waiting’ for the right conditions for revolution to develop global as a sort of cop out. I’m not accusing or criticising anyone or any organisation, I don’t have the knowledge to do so. I’m simply sharing my thoughts.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't see what you hoped to add to the discourse, with your 'precious Lenin' comment, other than being snarky.

Well..I have t admit I was indeed being snarky. So my apologies for that as I did assume your argument was the same as Geiseric's.

[Leftsolidarity]

There.

Cry about it. Why are you dragging other thread drama into here? Message them if you want to prove some point to them.

Trashed post

[o well this is ok I guess]

My only fear is that there might be a tendency to use ‘waiting’ for the right conditions for revolution to develop global as a sort of cop out. I’m not accusing or criticising anyone or any organisation, I don’t have the knowledge to do so. I’m simply sharing my thoughts. Well, no one would blame you for thinking such.
though I'm not terribly well read on the matter, for my part I can't think of much other than nihcom that advocates total do-nothingism. if it seems like leftcoms don't do much as leftcoms, it's probably because rl leftcoms are so few and far between to actually organize amongst themselves. There's a great gmil comic on the matter

http://greatmomentsinleftism.blogspot.ca/2013/05/comrade.html

[Blake's Baby]

Great, thanks for the reply Blake’s.

I will definitely have to do more reading on left-com ideas. I am totally against nationalism and agree with the idea that the emphasis has to be on not supporting ‘one particular spot’ somewhere against another but about supporting the working class everywhere. I most bear in mind where literature and other sources are coming from and that anti-imperialist does not automatically = communist...

That's it precisely, the point is support for the working class everywhere. The Left Communists generally regard capitalism as having developed sufficiently by the early 20th century that there doesn't need to be any more 'development' anywhere or 'capitalist stage' before socialist society can be established. To that end, there are no 'progressive bourgeoisies' anywhere to support. Whether the workers are in the USA or South Africa or China or wherever else it doesn't matter.


...So do Left-com organisations actively support the development of global working class solidarity within existing conditions?...


Yes, Left Communist organisations (and individuals) support the development of global class solidarity to the extent we're able.



...My only fear is that there might be a tendency to use ‘waiting’ for the right conditions for revolution to develop global as a sort of cop out.
I’m not accusing or criticising anyone or any organisation, I don’t have the knowledge to do so. I’m simply sharing my thoughts.


I don't think 'waiting for the right conditions' is a cop-out, it's just not doing pointless and unproductive and even harmful stuff out of frustrated impatience. Sometimes 'doing something' is worse than not doing it.

Because we don't think that Left Communist organisations voluntaristically 'make revolutions' that doesn't mean we don't try to be an 'active factor' in the process of the working class generalising its class consciouness. But as the Great Moments in Leftism cartoon points out, there aren't great numbers doing it. Bear in mind that the ICC is probably the biggest Left Communist organisation in the world, and compared to groups representing Trotskyism and Stalinism it's absolutely tiny.

By the way, I don't know if you did something to the formatting of your previous post but it's really giving my computer a headache.

[Jambo]

Yer, frustrated impatience sounds familiar.

Sorry about the dodgy text in my post. I wrote it in word then copied and pasted it but it had a quote in which had a link attached and it wouldn't let me post it. So I took it out and tried to edit it and the text went all big and bold.

[Queen Mab]

My only fear is that there might be a tendency to use ‘waiting’ for the right conditions for revolution to develop global as a sort of cop out.

I don't think Left Coms would opt out of a revolution if it wasn't taking place globally. A successful revolution in one country will normally spread, since under capitalism global conditions are generalised. If the working class can take power in Germany, the conditions for them to take power in France are also present. Revolutions often come in waves this way.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd go further and say it could hardly be otherwise; capitalism being global, its crises being global, and the proletariat being global, then the proletariat's responses to capitalism's crises must be if not 'global' all at once then at least international. It hardly seems likely that capitalism in one country is on the point of being overthrown while capitalism in the country next door is fine and dandy.

[Q]

If we look at revolutionary crises of the past two centuries then we consistently see its international character. It develops in "waves", washing the old order country after country. This is what happened in 1848-51, 1917-23 and 1968, to name a few of the more notable events.