Intro to ultra left

[hoopla]

Is there any pamphlets/articles/even books that introduce the ultra-left, a kind of beginners guide? Cheers

[chebol]

"'Left-wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder", by V. I. Lenin

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:48 AM
"'Left-wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder", by V. I. Lenin
Oh come on! He wants to learn about Ultra-Leftism, not a critque of it! I would try reading Pannekeok's (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm) "Workers' Councils".

Someone needs to make a book called "Right-Wing" Communism: An Intestinal Disorder

[chebol]

He wants to learn about it. I'm not about to recommend the trend, so I give him the name of a book that introduces it in a critical fashion.

You want to support it? Fine. Suggest something else to read. But I'm not about to recommend someone looking for an intro to the topic read a book that supports what I regard to be a dangerously irrational trend within the socialist movement.

Also, as far as ultra-leftism goes, Lenin's critical work IS the 'introduction'. It's from the perspective of someone who made a revolution, and had to deal with (and identify) the problems and dangers that ultra-leftism posed for the revolutionary movement in Russia.

Nevertheless, I'm sure hoopla can make up his own mind, whatever that is.

I'm sure the "Right-Wing" text has already been written. From memory, it's got something to do with Menshevism, the betrayal of Social-Democracy, and the nationalist left, bordering on left-liberalism.
Interestingly enough, the two are not unrelated.

Another one I'll recommend is Peter Camejo "Liberalism, ultraleftism and mass action", which gives a good analysis and comparison of those trends in brief.

[KC]

Depends on what you mean by ultra-left. If you mean communism (as I suspect that you do), then I would suggest these:

The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/)
The Principles of Communism - Friedrich Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)
Marx's Kapital for Beginners - David Smith & Phil Evans (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45625)

There are also various short articles on what communism is littered throughout the board. I believe this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45848) thread has a variety of links to articles on what communism is. If you have any questions, feel free to post on the board in the appropriate section and chances are you'll find the answers you seek.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Read some Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm).

Ultra-Leftism, as defined by Leninists etc. refers to Council Communism - sometimes known as Luxemburgism. Of course Luxemburg isn't the only theorist in this field but her work's as good a place start as any.

[hoopla]

I get all my seedy intoductions from Wiki. To them luxemburgism is not council communism, neither is the ultra-left. The latter has developed from it though. Someone else recommended An infantile disorder, I thought it was more on the left than the ultra-left.
I think Aufheben is considered ultra left, and some of the developments of Socialism ou Barbarism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Kropotkin (conquest of bread), and the other classic anarchists. The council communists such as Pannekoek, etc.

[rebelworker]

Have I got the web site for you,
prole.info (http://www.prole.info)
Its got lots of good essays and links to other good sites.

Though im not a total subscriber to this tendancy it must not be written off, they have some of the most "pure" revolutionary critiques of history I have read.

I disagree on principles of organisation(not enough of it). But only minimally.
Often a little too "on the sidelines", this is especially true of most modern adhearants to the tendancy in North America.
They often overlap alot with Anarcho Communists and insurectionists, as far as where they are to be found.

[MysticArcher]

RedStar2000's written some good pieces:
What is communism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Marxism without the crap (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The tools of Marxism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Clarksist]

Also, as far as ultra-leftism goes, Lenin's critical work IS the 'introduction'. It's from the perspective of someone who made a revolution, and had to deal with (and identify) the problems and dangers that ultra-leftism posed for the revolutionary movement in Russia.

No, its from the perspective of someone who made a revolution and had to deal with the dangers that ultra leftism posed for Lenin's own power.

[A HARD RAIN'S A GONNA FALL]

Hello I'm new to this site so bear with me I won't profess to know as much about ultra-leftism or any other kind of leftism as some of the sites regulars but to the person enquiring about a good informative book about ultra-leftism I would like to ask you why you feel that is the way to go. Do you mean that you endorse the use of violence because that is something that I totally disagree with because how can you or anyone possibly think you can out gun the major governments of the world all you would be doing is falling into the trap of theirs which allows them to shoot you down, it renders you useless in the end you've got to not give the oppressive regimes the excuse to cut you down by playing them at their own game i.e the ballot box and the media.


Remember Left Is Best

[MysticArcher]

Firt of all, please more punctuation and spacing. It's just easier on the eyes.

Secondly, why are you asking someone who's obviously new to leftism, and probably hasn't given thought to the matter yet (no offense or anything intended)?

Thirdly, it's called reformism. It's also mostly dismissed as a tactic and the last 6 or so years have shown why (at least in the US). Let's take a look:

2 presidential elections, both taken via underhanded methods. "Privitization" of social services, effectively repealing the reforms of the '30s and '40s, declining effectiveness of unions and ritualization of protests, etc.

Reformism had it's chance, at least in the "old" capitalist countries


by playing them at their own game i.e the ballot box and the media.

Seems you haven't been paying attention to the news: their game is rigged. :o

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:44 AM
RedStar2000's written some good pieces:
What is communism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Marxism without the crap (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The tools of Marxism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
More like:

-What is communism? I don't know either.

-Crap without the Marxism.

-Marxism for the tools.

[viva le revolution]

Ultra-leftism, like revisionism is a deviation from true Marxism. Anarchists do not fit into this category as they have a program rather unique in scope as compared to that Marxism, in relation to actual practicality. The ultra-left deviation took place in the international communist movement particularly by incorrect ideas within the Chinese Communist party that fell into the scope of ultra-leftism.
First of all, what happened in the Soviet Union was of tremendous importance in the development of the world communist movement. At the 20th congress of the CPSU(B), Khruschev attacked Stalin in his 'secret speech'. This was the first step to sideline the Marxist-Leninist faction headed by comrade Molotov, and on the road to the open restoration of capitalism. ultimately crystallizing under Gorbachev and his policy of 'perestroika'(which in essence was the restoration of private property). To cover this treacherous policy it was labelled 'de-stalinization'. One of the main 'findings' of the khruschevite cabal was the 'state and party of the whole people' where it was argued that the existence of antagonistic classes had ceased to exist within the soviet union, and that peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition etween these classes was possible! Therefore the entiire concept of class struggle was abandoned! The soviet Union then wanted to implement 'market-socialism' along the Yugoslav model as began by the renegade Tito. (refer to the marshal Tito thread in the history section).
As a result of this betrayal of Marxism-leninism, there appeared to anti-revisionist trends in the communist movement. (apart from the Marxist-leninists within the soviet union). Firstly there was comrade Mao and the Chinese Marxists and comrade Hoxha and the comrades in Albania. With regard to the Chinese Marxists, at first there was inter-party internal discussions at times comrade Mao, agreed with Khruschev, but later admitted his mistaken positions. this first phase extended from 1956-1963.
The second phase, from 1963-1968/69, led to an open split between the revisionist soviet Khruschevite line and the Chinese marxist-leninists. This took the form of open polemics and culminated in the culural revolution within China in an effort to purge revisionist elements from within the chinese party itself.
The third phase, extending from 1969-1979/80, the ultra-leftist elements within the Chinese communist movement came to the foreground. This led to many mistaken notions taking hold and many mistakes being committed by the Chinese Communist party. The notion of Soviet 'social-imperialism/fascism', which was knee-jerk reaction towards soviet revisionism and furthur led to many mistken positions of the chinese comrades. For example, at the height of tensions between the soviets and chinese, chinese army trainees trained with dummies decked in soviet uniforms. Which of course demonstrated the antagonistic trend amongst the ultra-left group in the CCP. During the Afghan war, the soviet union was engaged against U.S-funded and armed reactionary islamists. However along the Pak-Afghan border a 'maoist' group under the name RAWA had camps. Adhering to the mistaken ultra-leftist notion of social-imperialism, they actively aided the pakistani and afghan mercenaries against the Soviets! In this case it can be seen that the ultra-leftism of the chinese blocked the notions of larger geo-politics.
The essence of this trend is the adherence to the ignoring of general developments of national politics and adherence to petty-bourgeois revolutionism, borrowing this element from Anarchism.
This ultra-leftist trend culminated in the emergence of a line of 'marxism-leninism-maoism', which was developed by the Communist party of Peru in 1984. The formative ethos of this movement being the cultural revolution:
" Lenin said, 'only he is a marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the light of invaluable lessons and advances achieved though the great proletarian cultural revolution led by Mao Tsetung, this critereon put forwrd by lenin has been furthur sharpened. Now it can be said that only he is a marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the recognition of the objective existence of classes, antagonistic class contradictions and the continuance of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariatthroughout the whole peroid of socialism until communism. and so as mao pwerfully stated, 'lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism'. "
As is evident in the quote, there is nothing new or novel within it. No furthur elaboration of marxism-leninism advocated by Stalin and Mao, only re-hashed lines and definitions of the terms. Merely an announcement of isolationism from other parties. No doubt comrade Mao did implement the cultural revolution, but did so under the light of Marxism-leninism and adhered to it's ideology, 'Maoism' as a phenomena emerged long after Mao had departed in Peru.
The positions of ultra-leftists in regard to other socialist nations and communists is equally bizarre, the ultra-leftists are anti-soviet, anti-Che, anti-Hoxha, anti-Cuba, anti-Ho Chi Minh, and anti-Kim Il Sung.These are the forwarding of mistaken positions and the result of the mistaken concept of 'social-imperialism'.
Regarding elections, the ultra-leftists are uniquely reluctant, whereas Lenin advocated the communists to closely follow the parliamentary developments and take advantages of opportunities to corrode this archaic institution, the ultra-leftists ignore this principle wholeheartedly, instead relying of petty bourgeois revolutionsim. ie. abstention on principle. (again borrowed from anarchism).
Regarding the national question, the main emphasis is on the fight against imperialism, correct within itself, but totally ignoring the nationalities and it's ramifications. the Ultra-leftists have no developed position on the national question, with the exception of a brief statement on the right of nations of self-determination.
Howver, the concept of 'social-imperialism', has led to furthur mistaken positions and alliances, examples would be the emergence of 'maoists' supporting western europe against the soviet union at the time of the sino-soviet split, the three world's theory(an attempt to play soothsayer), and alliances with reactionaries; Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chile(Pinochet), Mobutu(murderer of patrice Lumumba).
With all these examples the mistakes inherent in following ultra-leftist positions is self-evident. Ultra-leftism only serves in clouding theory. The main characteristics of ultra-leftism being; anti-intellectualism, workerism, sex politics etc. all of these lead to mistaken positions and deviations from the actual theory of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.

[Lamanov]

If hoopla wants to learn anything, it would be best to ignore the last post, for it says nothing about the Ultra-Left.

If "deviation" means anti-ideological confirmation of revolutionary theory through revolutionary praxis, then yes, Ultra-Left is "deviant".

^_^

[viva le revolution]

Of course i was merely stating and describing how the ultra-left trend emerged in the chinese communist movement and the mistakes it led to. Of course when recognizing ultra-left trends of thought and positions it is necessary to understand in the course of development of the international communist movement. The ultra-left positions of the chinese and the peru party's ultra-leftist stance, referred to as 'maoism' is the most influential school of thought emerging directly out os ultra-left thought. unless of course you would like me to ignore all that and instead continue to promote some obscure absurdity such as 'leftist-luxembourgist-autonomist-anarchist-communist' bullshit.
Welcome to the real world kiddo. :)

[Lamanov]

No, you did not state or describe anything in connection to the Ultra-Left, for you obviously don't know what it is.

If your "real world" is such a pseudo-historical collection of insignificant facts which have no real validity for historical thought, I'd rather stay on "this side".

[hoopla]

they have some of the most "pure" revolutionary critiques of history I have read.What do you mean by "pure". Prole info's pamphlets is basicly the only stuff that I have read.

[rebelworker]

In the sence that they are written mostly from the point of view of the shop floor, thier poliic is developed from the ground up.

Most revolutionary theorists write in a very top down way,talking about major manipulations and political factions, some council communist stuff ignores this top down view of revoltuion and views it as an ongoing process from the ground up.

The analysis is not very good in some ways but its critique of power by the grassroots is ofeten very good.

Not sure if I explained myself very well...

[Donnie]

I don't like the way people say 'ultra leftism'. But if your meaning 'left' ideas of the anarchist or council communist persuasion then I will suggest a books by either Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Maletesta and one of my favourite books, 'Manifesto of the Libertarian Communists'.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 8 2006, 06:25 PM
Of course i was merely stating and describing how the ultra-left trend emerged in the chinese communist movement and the mistakes it led to. Of course when recognizing ultra-left trends of thought and positions it is necessary to understand in the course of development of the international communist movement. The ultra-left positions of the chinese and the peru party's ultra-leftist stance, referred to as 'maoism' is the most influential school of thought emerging directly out os ultra-left thought. unless of course you would like me to ignore all that and instead continue to promote some obscure absurdity such as 'leftist-luxembourgist-autonomist-anarchist-communist' bullshit.
Welcome to the real world kiddo. :)
Hmm, I don't know, some Maoist ideas are quite good, but many western Maoist parties these days have their heads up their ass. And are usually ultra-leftist and sectarian as hell.


and one of my favourite books, 'Manifesto of the Libertarian Communists'.
"Libertarian" says it all. "Libertarian" means nothing more or less than a laissez-faire "free market". Unless you want to use the bullshit "social libertarian/authoritarian scale" from Politicalcompass or crap like that. But that would even be more wrong, because the "political compass" means dividing one's ideas into "politics" and "economics", when in fact both are related. "Libertarian Socialism" is just an ultra-left version of "social-democracy", because both try to separate politics and economics to create some sort of "humane capitalism" or "anti-authoritarian socialism"(two sides of the same coin).

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:42 AM
Is there any pamphlets/articles/even books that introduce the ultra-left, a kind of beginners guide? Cheers
Leninism and the ultra-left, by Gilles Dauvé
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/elenin.html

[hoopla]

The analysis is not very good in some ways but its critique of power by the grassroots is ofeten very good.In what ways?

[nickdlc]

I would say read Paul Mattick.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/index.htm

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:19 PM

Hmm, I don't know, some Maoist ideas are quite good, but many western Maoist parties these days have their heads up their ass. And are usually ultra-leftist and sectarian as hell.


If you are talking about the policies of comrade chairman Mao tseTung them i will most definately agree with you. Mao did build up on Marxism-Leninism, but if you are referring to the peruvian line 'Maoists' then i will disagree. The Peruvian line basically carries on the ultra-leftist line of the CCP. That is mistaken line and has led to some disastrous errors and mistaken alliances with imperialists to counter 'social-imperialism' a product of mistaken logic. a mistake comrade Hoxha also fell for. Howver their anti-revisionist stance is one i agree wilth, however their conclusiojns and method of action is one i find puzzling though.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:19 AM
"Libertarian" says it all. "Libertarian" means nothing more or less than a laissez-faire "free market". Unless you want to use the bullshit "social libertarian/authoritarian scale" from Politicalcompass or crap like that. But that would even be more wrong, because the "political compass" means dividing one's ideas into "politics" and "economics", when in fact both are related. "Libertarian Socialism" is just an ultra-left version of "social-democracy", because both try to separate politics and economics to create some sort of "humane capitalism" or "anti-authoritarian socialism"(two sides of the same coin).
God, this post cracks me up. Seriously: it's a riot. "Libertarian" was a term coined by anarchists in the late 19th century -- far before "libertarian capitalism", or even Leninism!, was an idea. Don't be an idiot: why not read something? Unless you want to call Nestor Makhno, Isaac Puente, and Paul Mattick capitalists -- though maybe that'd expose your ignorance.

My advice? Read something! Check out some of these:

Libertarian Communism (http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism?from=30)

The great works are "Council Communism", "The Struggle Against the State", and "Towards a Libertarian Communism." I'd be very interested in your response, and if you refuse to educate yourself, you're just as ignorant and bigoted as the conservatives you claim to oppose.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:57 AM
"'Left-wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder", by V. I. Lenin
Oh, you mean the pamphlet which passed the Nazi censorship in 1933 and remained in distribution in Hitler's Germany?


Right-wing "communism": a structuralist despotism, by History.

[Zak]

Wait are we talking about the same thing here, the Left wing Communism "Pamphlet" I have is 67 pages long. Not being a smart ass I know nothing about this. I'm just trying to look into it. a link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...g_Communism.pdf (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/pdf/Lenin_Left_wing_Communism.pdf)