Fight Against Right and Ultra-Leftism

[elijahcraig]

It should not be forgotten that Rights and "ultra-Lefts" are actually twins, that consequently both take an opportunist stand, the difference between them being that whereas the Rights do not always conceal their opportunism, the Lefts invariably camouflage their opportunism with "revolutionary" phrases. We cannot allow our policy to be determined by what scandal mongers and philistines may say about us. We must go our way firmly and confidently, paying no heed to the tales idle minds may invent about us. The Russians have an apt saying: "the dogs bark, the caravan passes." We should bear this saying in mind; it may stand us in good stead on more than one occasion.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...ecci-speech.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/ecci-speech.htm)


A short read, which kind of sums up my thoughts on ultra-leftism and rightism.

[redstar2000]

It should not be forgotten that Rights and "ultra-Lefts" are actually twins, that consequently both take an opportunist stand...

Nope, that makes no sense...at least not in any customary usage of the word opportunism.

"Rightists" are opportunistic by definition...they seek "openings to the right" as a matter of principle.

By contrast, "Ultra-Leftists" reject such approaches as a matter of principle...they think that communists should appeal directly to the working class in their own name with their own ideas and should never participate in the panoply of various and sundry institutions that purport to "represent" the workers but which are actually more or less under control of the ruling class.

Nor are they "twins" in any other metaphorical sense; historically, the vast majority of Leninist parties have been "right opportunist"...a situation that continues to this day. A genuine "ultra-Leftist" usually does not remain within the Leninist party very long...it is too stifling and fruitless to do political work under "right opportunist" Leaders.

As a matter of historical interest, the German KPD never did make a "right turn" nor did the French PCF ever make a "left turn". The KPD was, for the most part, effectively destroyed by the Nazis by 1938 or so; the PCF moved so far to the right that by the 1950s, they were supporting France's colonial wars in IndoChina and Algeria and in 1968 they helped the ruling class end the great General Strike.

An early example of Stalin's ineptitude at handling internal disputes in foreign communist parties.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

What I know is that the centrist position changes due to the presence of the right and left and the degree of fortitude with which they are able to present themselves, so in essence, the center does not exist :lol:

[Faceless]

I would credit Stalin with the rise of Hitler in the way he fractured the left of Germany by treating the Social Democrats and reformists as "social fascists" and thus isolating communists. His treatment of the ultra-left was similarly sectarian. Stalin's International was an entirely destructive force in Europe and weakened the labour movement.

[elijahcraig]

By contrast, "Ultra-Leftists" reject such approaches as a matter of principle...they think that communists should appeal directly to the working class in their own name with their own ideas and should never participate in the panoply of various and sundry institutions that purport to "represent" the workers but which are actually more or less under control of the ruling class.

This is what Stalin, just so everyone else can take notice, means by Ultra-lefist opportunists using “revolutionary rhetoric” to cover up their opportunism.


I would credit Stalin with the rise of Hitler in the way he fractured the left of Germany by treating the Social Democrats and reformists as "social fascists" and thus isolating communists. His treatment of the ultra-left was similarly sectarian. Stalin's International was an entirely destructive force in Europe and weakened the labour movement.

Then you need to take another look at history, in the party, and out of the party.

[redstar2000]

This is what Stalin, just so everyone else can take notice, means by Ultra-leftist opportunists using “revolutionary rhetoric” to cover up their opportunism.

Elijah, repeating a nonsensical statement does not magically accrue sense!

What can the word "opportunism" mean except "rightist"? Who are the "Ultra-Leftists" being "opportunistic" towards?


I would credit Stalin with the rise of Hitler in the way he fractured the left of Germany by treating the Social Democrats and reformists as "social fascists" and thus isolating communists.

A very foolish thing to say...on many levels. The truth of the matter is that the KPD "ultra-leftists" were the only group that vigorously resisted the Nazis both before and after Hitler's rise to power. The German SPD was very "soft" in its opposition to Hitler, relying entirely on parliamentary maneuvers, lawsuits, etc.

When von Hindenburg appointed Hitler to lead a new government (January 30, 1933), the KPD proposed to the SPD that the two parties jointly call an indefinite general strike. The SPD turned down the offer...trusting the Nazis to "play by the rules" of bourgeois "democracy".

The ill-chosen epithet "social fascist" (it means "socialist in words; fascist in deeds") was indeed attributed to Stalin and certainly a further measure of his ineptitude. But that should not obscure the fact that the SPD by 1919 had become a "left-bourgeois" party completely opposed to any real power for the working class. It was "socialist in words" and "deeply servile to bourgeois legality in deeds".

The proposition that the communists brought Hitler to power is a bourgeois myth.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

What can the word "opportunism" mean except "rightist"? Who are the "Ultra-Leftists" being "opportunistic" towards?

Opportunism always takes place at the expense of the workers. I don’t understand your question, it is quite nonsensical.

[redstar2000]

Opportunism always takes place at the expense of the workers. I don’t understand your question, it is quite nonsensical.

I don't think you understand the political concept of "opportunism" in the left at all.

It means co-operating with non-communist groups in pursuit of non-communist or even anti-communist goals.

The "right opportunist" (there's no other kind) always argues that the communist party is "too weak" to stand on its own and must therefore join with non-communists to have any measurable affect on public policy; further, the "right opportunist" claims that this will give communists more "exposure" to the non-communist masses and allow the communists to "win more people" to the party.

In order to practice "right opportunism", there must be some non-communist group towards which you can be opportunistic.

The term "left opportunism" would be, therefore, an oxymoron. The only group to the left of the party would be semi-anarchist or anarchist...and any goal that they would cooperate in pursuing would be, perforce, left-communist at a minimum.

The only way you could have genuine "left opportunism" is if you had a group that raised all kinds of revolutionary slogans in public and at the same time told the workers that they should support non-communist or even anti-communist groups while preparing for revolution.

That would be so crazy that I don't think it's ever happened...at least not to my knowledge.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

It means co-operating with non-communist groups in pursuit of non-communist or even anti-communist goals.

This is the definition I go by, and it is the one I found in the marxists.org encyclopedia…yours is an opportunistic definition in order to stifle Comrade Stalin’s essay:


Opportunism

Changing one's political position in order to exploit certain circumstances for personal gain.

[redstar2000]

Opportunism

Changing one's political position in order to exploit certain circumstances for personal gain.

An abstract "dictionary" definition, of course...once in a while, marxists.org comes with the oddest things.

Very well, then how does embracing an "ultra-leftist" position enhance one's "personal gain"? If "ultra-leftism" makes you more popular with the workers, that's a "good thing", isn't it? And if it makes you less popular, where's your "personal gain"?

Another example of why abstract dictionary definitions are less than helpful in the real political world.


...yours is an opportunistic definition in order to stifle Comrade Stalin’s essay

:lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

An abstract "dictionary" definition, of course...once in a while, marxists.org comes with the oddest things.

Yeah…the oddest right definitions. Damn them.


Very well, then how does embracing an "ultra-leftist" position enhance one's "personal gain"? If "ultra-leftism" makes you more popular with the workers, that's a "good thing", isn't it? And if it makes you less popular, where's your "personal gain"?

Ultra-leftism uses revolutionary flavored language in order to enhance their position with the masses…while congealing their flaws behind the rhetoric. It gives personal gain to them in the sense that it boosts their power and destroys the party’s/working class’s power.


Another example of why abstract dictionary definitions are less than helpful in the real political world.


QUOTE
...yours is an opportunistic definition in order to stifle Comrade Stalin’s essay

That’s called a play on words, billy buttcrack, not a serious accusation.

[redstar2000]

Elijah, you're a bright kid who reads philosophy...are you telling us now that you can't tell the difference between the abstract definition of a term that could be found in any dictionary and its real political meaning in revolutionary politics? And that you actually think the dictionary definition is "superior"?

:lol:


Ultra-leftism uses revolutionary flavored language in order to enhance their position with the masses…while concealing their flaws behind the rhetoric. It gives personal gain to them in the sense that it boosts their power and destroys the party’s/working class’s power.

What flaws? If someone is an "ultra-leftist", does that mean they "must" have "flaws" that they are "concealing"?

As to "boosting" their "power", how so? Ultra-leftists usually advocate more power be shared with ordinary workers, not less -- both within the party and in future society.

Nothing you've said in this thread has made any coherent sense at all.

-----------------------------------

By the way, while quite a few folks have commented on Elijah's propensity for the insult direct -- "billy buttcrack" for example -- has anyone besides me noticed that he only does this when his views have been clearly refuted in a discussion?

He begins a thread with discussion and usually ends one with insults.

Odd.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

He begins a thread with discussion and usually ends one with insults

Fishing? hook them with the bait, reel them in then gut 'em...


Ultra-leftism uses revolutionary flavored language in order to enhance their position with the masses

Indeed, but this actually ostracises(sp?) them from the average joe as he doesn't know the 'commie jargon'


It gives personal gain to them in the sense that it boosts their power and destroys the party’s/working class’s power

An ultra leftist presumably is someone considered both economically and politically to the extreme left... In other words in favour of an entirely controlled economy and direct democracy through a sovietesque model. I fail to see how these are relevant...