Left-Communist Views on UFT & Catalonia & DotP?

[The Intransigent Faction]

I was just wondering what a Left-Communist perspective would be (of course there are probably differing perspectives within Left-Communism) on the Ukrainian Free Territory and anarchist Catalonia? Are they genuine "good" examples of revolutionary leftist society?

In other words, given the, um, different views on a "worker's state" held by Left-Communists relative to Lenin's formulation, how might a Left-Communist distinguish a socialist revolution that merits support from an overtly stateless/partyless anarchist revolution? Have there been any socialist societies by Left-Communist standards, given both the obvious problems with Lenin's model from that perspective?

If it matters at all, I think I would consider myself a Left-Communist, but I'm not sure where the fine line is between the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and socialism/communism, if one rejects the need for a "transitional state". Is it simply that, with the abolition of capital, the proletariat "dictate" economic matters as workers until the need for the label "workers" becomes superfluous and unnecessary in a differently-constructed postcapitalist economy (i.e. the "antithesis between mental and physical labour" is done away with?).

Thanks.

[Alf]

These are important questions but I would argue, in the tradition of the Italian communist left, that what happened in Spain in the 1930s was in essence an imperialist war and that the anarchist collectives were rapidly integrated into the Republican war effort or dispersed. There was a real workers' uprising in July 1936 against the Franco coup but it was derailed into support for the anti-fascist Republic and the anarchists bear a major responsibility for this. This is a link to a very comprehensive text written by the Italian Left Fraction at the time: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/006_bilan36_july19.html

The collectives established by the Mahkno movement were different in that they were part of an authentic proletarian revolution but one which was profoundly distorted by the militarisation imposed by the civil war. The lessons to be drawn from this are largely negative and concern the relationship between the working class, the party, and the state. The ICC has published a great deal on this question. this one focuses on the lessons of Kronstadt: http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR003_kron.htm

[bropasaran]

how might a Left-Communist distinguish a socialist revolution that merits support from an overtly stateless/partyless anarchist revolution?
There is actually no dichotomy there, as there can't really be a socialist revolution if it's not overtly stateless/partyless. (Unless we were to redefine state to mean something no state never was, and define party to encompass only non-hierarchial decetralized parties)

I would suggest going through these two volumes that clear up some frequent misconceptions:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append3.html

Regarding the Russian and Ukrainian experience, you might find some avowed non-authoritarian socialists justifying Lenin and bolshevism, talking about how the revolution was cool but was degenerated and distorted by material conditions and similar marxist notions, and you might want to read what libertarian socialists have to say about that:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

[synthesis]

There is actually no dichotomy there, as there can't really be a socialist revolution if it's not overtly stateless/partyless. (Unless we were to redefine state to mean something no state never was, and define party to encompass only non-hierarchial decetralized parties)

Ah, there is actually a dichotomy between left-communist and anarchist conceptions of revolution based on the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat, following the revolution, is not synonymous with socialism. Bordigists in particular are very pro-party and often are very enamored with Lenin.

OP, I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on the subject, but I think you've got it more or less figured out. As for the Ukraine and Catalonia, they're not "good states." There's a bourgeoisie in charge, just like everywhere else. There's no such thing as a "good nation-state" for left-communists. Imperialism is a global system, and so socialism must also be a global system. That's why the notion of a "model socialist society" is problematic. It can't exist in isolation.

[bropasaran]

Ah, there is actually a dichotomy between left-communist and anarchist conceptions of revolution based on the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat, following the revolution, is not synonymous with socialism. Bordigists in particular are very pro-party and often are very enamored with Lenin.
I wrote: "There is actually no dichotomy there, as there can't really be a socialist revolution if it's not overtly stateless/partyless." The point is- if the overt libertarianism is absent, then that's not a socialist revolution one is talking about.

[synthesis]

I wrote: "There is actually no dichotomy there, as there can't really be a socialist revolution if it's not overtly stateless/partyless." The point is- if the overt libertarianism is absent, then that's not a socialist revolution one is talking about.

What does "overt libertarianism" mean in class terms, though? Revolutionary socialism posits the class rule of the proletariat; if you don't support proletarian rule, you might as well stop posting here. (You'd also want to reread Bakunin and Kropotkin.)

(Also, keep in mind that the original question was asking what left-communists believe, not whether it is "correct" by your standards.)

[bropasaran]

Libertarianism means being against existince of organizational forms that are hierarchial and centralized.

In class terms that rejecting the nonsensical marxist economic reductionist notion of class and accepting (libertarian) socialist idea about stratification of society into masters and servants, along with rationally looking at different subclasses and subtypes of those two basic classes of society. That also means recognizing the anti-socialist character of marxist "bourgoise", "petite-bourgeoise", "proletaiat" story that masks the political and menagerial (/technocrat) exploitation and oppression of the working people.

What the left-communists believe is somewhat confused, being that they accept a lot of marxist theory, but they also insist on centrality of a few comments that Marx made that had libertarian character.

[synthesis]

Libertarianism means being against existince of organizational forms that are hierarchial and centralized.

In class terms that rejecting the nonsensical marxist economic reductionist notion of class and accepting (libertarian) socialist idea about stratification of society into masters and servants, along with rationally looking at different subclasses and subtypes of those two basic classes of society. That also means recognizing the anti-socialist character of marxist "bourgoise", "petite-bourgeoise", "proletaiat" story that masks the political and menagerial (/technocrat) exploitation and oppression of the working people.

What the left-communists believe is somewhat confused, being that they accept a lot of marxist theory, but they also insist on centrality of a few comments that Marx made that had libertarian character.

Just so this discussion can progress, I'd say that you are speaking too "authoritatively" given how little you know about these subjects, as indicated by your last sentence here. If you qualified these sentiments by saying, for example, that "I think that means recognizing the anti-socialist character of Marxist [theory]" it would be a lot easier to discuss this with you. As it is, it just seems like you're insisting on things that are either outright wrong, or need a lot more supporting evidence to be taken seriously. (cf. your dismissal of the entire concept of "modes of production")

[Thirsty Crow]

L
In class terms that rejecting the nonsensical marxist economic reductionist notion of class and accepting (libertarian) socialist idea about stratification of society into masters and servants
Yeah ain't going to fly, at least not in rational company I'd hope, along with the rest of your fairy tale.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I remember the revleft user "Paulappaul" had a post on this site in which he listed a really long list of quotes from left communists (and council communists like Mattick) on the Spanish Civil War, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find it...harummph...

I do remember Mattick's position, though, which was that the anarchists should fight a conventional war against Franco purely for their own survival, ie even if they had to forgo the social revolution or hop into bed with slimy characters or submit to the hierarchical dictates of a military structure, it was better than just getting shot by Franco's army.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gilles Dauve wrote quite a bit about the Spanish Civil War too. He wove it into kind of a clever narrative along with a bunch of other events which preceeded it, esp. in Italy (although whether or not you agree with his conclusions depends on your politics I guess)

[bropasaran]

Just so this discussion can progress, I'd say that you are speaking too "authoritatively" given how little you know about these subjects, as indicated by your last sentence here. If you qualified these sentiments by saying, for example, that "I think that means recognizing the anti-socialist character of Marxist [theory]" it would be a lot easier to discuss this with you. As it is, it just seems like you're insisting on things that are either outright wrong, or need a lot more supporting evidence to be taken seriously. (cf. your dismissal of the entire concept of "modes of production")
What you say is given is simply false. What I'm saying is not only outright wrong, it's not wrong on close inspection either. Not that you or Links even tried to do anything resembling such close inspection, being that you religiously adhere to marxist dogma which is evident from the fact that you take as given that any oppossition to it is wrong and ignorant.

@Os Cangaceiros (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14692)

Do you have maybe some links to some POUM documents and works that came out of that organisation, I think that would be interesting to read, at least I would like to take a look such stuff if they exist.

[Brutus]

Didn't the Bordgists send a detachment down to the POUM barracks, telling them it was their duty to stop fighting for the bourgeois popular front?