Ultra-left

[Lamanov]

"Ultra-left" is the modern name for the revolutionary current within the workers' movement, which was built on several foundations. First time the term "ultra-lefts" was used by Lenin who in such manner named revolutionaries (particulary in Germany, Italy, Holland and Great Britain) which refused to accept politics and the whole model of Bolshevism. In circles of these revolutionaries a current was formed which was built on three basic premises: first, on the expirience of the workers' struggles which began with the February revolution in 1917, then, on their opposition to ideology and practice of Bolshevism, and, finally, on the theoretical basis of critique of Orthodox Marxism. As the class struggle developed throughout the 20th century, ultra-left developed with it, sometimes naming itself "Left communism". Of course, left communism should not be judged by its size, but by its joining with the revolutionary struggles of workers and students where ever it broke out, because ultra-left does not consider itself a movement separated and elevated over the working class... on the contrary. We believe that people who find themselves on this side of the production process are more than capable of liberating themselves in ways they see fit. Its theory ultra-left draws out of the autonomous revolutionary practice of the working class which had, on the basis of wide direct-democratic self-organizing in revolutionary workers' councils, rebelled against the capitalist "West" (as in 1919 Germany, 1936 Spain, 1968 France) as well as the so-called "socialist" (state-capitalist, tha is) USSR and its satelites (as in 1953 East Germany, 1956 Hungary, 1980 Poland). Ultra-leftists, among other things, do not form political parties and unions, according to the goal of destruction of specialized politics and establishment of direct-democracy. Also, they refuse to do syndical work, as they consider unions to be hierarchical bureaucratic machines for negotiations over the price of labor power. Also, ultra-left bares some similarities with anarchism, but does not identify with it, becuase of some extensive differences.

[translated from prol68.tripod.com, in Serbian]

[Rawthentic]

Comrade, I consider myself a left-communist as well, believing that the proletariat must liberate itself. I have a question: does ultra-leftism deny the existence of the class-conscious section of the working class, thus the vanguard (not in an elitist Leninist way), but that section of workers and oppressed people who understand material conditions and revolution?

[RGacky3]

The Ultra-Left seams to me to be used the same way Far-Left is used. Basically political pigionholing by right wing intellectuals and media to scare people. Looking at political, social and economic issues as left to right is very narrow minded. (i.e. who's more right wing a fascist or a libertarian Capitalist, answer: Its a stupid question.)

[Janus]

This should've been added to the RL Dictionary.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ultra-left is not the same as 'Far-left'.

Ultra-left is often used by Leninists as a pejorative term because those on the Ultra-left usually have positions against authoritarianism and classic Marxist tactics.

[RGacky3]

So more like Anarchists?

[Luís Henrique]

"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Leftist: - Let's go to demonstration against imperialism in front of the American embassy?

"Ultra-leftist": - No, you are just going to chant and walk in circles. Call me when you are ready to storm the Embassy by force.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Leftist: - Let's go to demonstration against imperialism in front of the American embassy?

"Ultra-leftist": - No, you are just going to chant and walk in circles. Call me when you are ready to storm the Embassy by force.

This understanding of the term, of course, has nothing at all to do with the historical usage of the term itself.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 12:11 pm
This understanding of the term, of course, has nothing at all to do with the historical usage of the term itself.
Since words are mere conventions, the historical usage of any term is the only reasonable approach to its understanding.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 12:58 pm
"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Leftist: - Let's go to demonstration against imperialism in front of the American embassy?

"Ultra-leftist": - No, you are just going to chant and walk in circles. Call me when you are ready to storm the Embassy by force.

Luís Henrique
Yes, but political terms are not defined by your subejctive opinion and prejudices. Have you even considered what you're saying. I mean, why on earth would somoene who just walks around a demonstration chanting slogans be called "ultra-left" - What would be the reason or that? :wacko:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:58 am
So more like Anarchists?
Some anarchists, but not all.

[Leo]

Since words are mere conventions, the historical usage of any term is the only reasonable approach to its understanding.

Yes, and your understanding of this term, ultra-left, has nothing to do with the actual historical usage of the term, and therefore, according to what you say, your approach to the understanding of ultra-left is not reasonable.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 02:19 pm

Since words are mere conventions, the historical usage of any term is the only reasonable approach to its understanding.

Yes, and your understanding of this term, ultra-left, has nothing to do with the actual historical usage of the term, and therefore, according to what you say, your approach to the understanding of ultra-left is not reasonable.
On the contrary. While the terms "extrema esquerda" (far or extreme left) often have a positive conotation, that is rarely the case with "ultra-esquerda" (ultra-left), which, in practically all contexts, is used to mean "too much to the left to be reasonable" or "so leftist that it becomes rightist".

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

On the contrary. While the terms "extrema esquerda" (far or extreme left) often have a positive conotation, that is rarely the case with "ultra-esquerda" (ultra-left), which, in practically all contexts, is used to mean "too much to the left to be reasonable" or "so leftist that it becomes rightist".

Well, perhaps that's what it means in Portuguese (as in Turkish, ultra-left and extreme-left are expressed by the same word), but the historical meaning of ultra-left is quite different from "too much to the left to be reasonable" or "so leftist that it becomes rightist".

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+January 16, 2007 12:58 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ January 16, 2007 12:58 pm) "Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Leftist: - Let's go to demonstration against imperialism in front of the American embassy?

"Ultra-leftist": - No, you are just going to chant and walk in circles. Call me when you are ready to storm the Embassy by force.

Luís Henrique [/b]

Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 04:47 pm

On the contrary. While the terms "extrema esquerda" (far or extreme left) often have a positive conotation, that is rarely the case with "ultra-esquerda" (ultra-left), which, in practically all contexts, is used to mean "too much to the left to be reasonable" or "so leftist that it becomes rightist".

These are essentially the same as my own understanding of "ultra-left".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 04:47 pm
On the contrary. While the terms "extrema esquerda" (far or extreme left) often have a positive conotation, that is rarely the case with "ultra-esquerda" (ultra-left), which, in practically all contexts, is used to mean "too much to the left to be reasonable" or "so leftist that it becomes rightist".

Luís Henrique
That's just Marxist misinformation and prejudice, nothing more.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 09:51 pm
That's just Marxist misinformation and prejudice, nothing more.
Yes, it is the worldwide Marxist conspiracy to give the word "ultra-left" a bad reputation, nothing else.

We, the Learned Elders of Highgate Graveyard, rule.

Luís Henrique

[Djehuti]

"It would be a thousand times worse, that opportunism, with its devastating effect on the soul and the strength of the proletariat, should again slip in, than that the Left Wing should be too radical. The Left Wing, even though at times it goes too far, always remains revolutionary. The Left Wing will alter its tactics as soon as they are not right. The opportunist Right will grow ever more opportunist, will sink ever further into the morass, will corrupt the workers to an ever greater extent." –Herman Gorter

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+January 17, 2007 03:14 am--> (Luís Henrique @ January 17, 2007 03:14 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 09:51 pm
That's just Marxist misinformation and prejudice, nothing more.
Yes, it is the worldwide Marxist conspiracy to give the word "ultra-left" a bad reputation, nothing else. [/b]
You fail at sarcasm.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a conspiracy, just that most Marxists, if not all of them either knowingly or unknowingly spread misinformation and have prejudice towards anyone on the left who isn't a Marxist.

The terms "ultra-leftist" as you have very aptly demonstrated is used as a pejorative by Marxists to denigrate non-marxists on the left of them.

[Leo]

That's just Marxist misinformation and prejudice, nothing more.

Well, it's actually dogmatic Trotskyist/Stalinist prejudice and slander rather being actually Marxist.

After all ultra-left considers itself Marxist...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 01:34 pm
After all ultra-left considers itself Marxist...
They're just confused and suffering from an identity crisis :P

[Leo]

They're just confused and suffering from an identity crisis :P

No, we are just infants suffering from an incurable disorder :P

[Hit The North]

To me, the chief characteristic of those labeled 'ultra-left' is their attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda, as opposed to getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of actual class struggle.

EDIT: Like the anarchist group I came across during the British Miners Strike who argued against support for the strike because it was just propping up the idea of the protestant work ethic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 17, 2007 02:00 pm
To me, the chief characteristic of those labeled 'ultra-left' is their attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda, as opposed to getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of actual class struggle.
Yet more prejudice.

Essentially, anyone who is post-left anarchist is an ultra leftist, right?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 17, 2007 02:02 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 17, 2007 02:02 pm)
Citizen [email protected] 17, 2007 02:00 pm
To me, the chief characteristic of those labeled 'ultra-left' is their attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda, as opposed to getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of actual class struggle.
Yet more prejudice.

Essentially, anyone who is post-left anarchist is an ultra leftist, right? [/b]
Comrade, I have no idea what 'post-left anarchist' means.

[Leo]

The reality is really quite the opposite. Usually when the Trotskyist left is riding their bikes to protest American nuclear bombs in the homeland and the Stalinist left is bombing places, people who are labeled ultra-left try to be in the actual class struggle, arguing for the positions which they regard as the correct positions.

[Louis Pio]

To me, the chief characteristic of those labeled 'ultra-left' is their attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda, as opposed to getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of actual class struggle.


Quite good definition.
Another caracteristic of ultra-leftism is posing everything as an ultimatum (even when just being a small insignificant sect).
And turning the back on various workers organisations because they don't suit them, another trait of the all or nothing attitude.
But as you said "attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda", sums it up quite good.

[The Feral Underclass]

I regard myself as being an ultra-leftist.

The practical defintion of an ultra leftist is someone who rejects reformism in all it's form; advocates direct action and violence as political tools against capitalism and the state; rejects compromise and I suppose someone who rejects national liberation could be deemed as an ultra-leftist.

Someone who is "ultra-left" is someone who goes beyond the normal left. Some could say reinforcing existing tactics in an extreme way. All this nonsense about chanting and abstract political theory is not the basis of understanding ultra-leftism.

Practical application of ideas is how you define it.

[Djehuti]

Leninism and the ultra-left
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/elenin.html

Communist theory - beyond the ultra-left
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_11_tcreply.html

[Hit The North]

TAT:


The practical defintion of an ultra leftist is someone who rejects reformism in all it's form; advocates direct action and violence as political tools against capitalism and the state; rejects compromise and I suppose someone who rejects national liberation could be deemed as an ultra-leftist.

I don't think I have a problem with that definition. I doubt Lenin would either.

[rebelworker]

Although I generally think left communist critique of Leninism is pretty good, i do think in practice it leads off into hopeless utopianism.

I have a good friend or two who has slipped from anarchism of trotskyism to the ultra left, and in general they read a shit load of theory, and dont do much actuall "organising".

Good propaghanda, absent practice.

I think there is a big difference between "ultra left anarchists" and left communists, i tend to respect intelectually some left communnists, but have had a heel of a time understanding what the anarchist variety are up to other than reacting to things.

The left communists movement seems to be totally intellectual aswell. Say what you willl about anarchist communists not having "deep" enough theory, but we are the ones out there building the unions and community groups that are real examples of the class struggle. The type of struggle that will last nore than a couple of months, not the insurrectionist or super spontanious hands off shit that passes for revolutionary politics in some circles.

Ive often thought it would be great to see more left communists intellectuals get involved in real prole orientated anarchist organisations, we need more writers.

[More Fire for the People]

I think ‘ultra-left’ should be used to designate those who do not believe in conscious organization of and by the working class. Otherwise it becomes a slander used by Leninist to describe left-communists of all varieties.

[Louis Pio]

Hmm then the term loses any meaning.
A better description would be those who reject broad working class organisations because this or that feature doesn't suit them. People who would rather set up "independent" organisations consisting of the already "saved".

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:33 am
"It would be a thousand times worse, that opportunism, with its devastating effect on the soul and the strength of the proletariat, should again slip in, than that the Left Wing should be too radical. The Left Wing, even though at times it goes too far, always remains revolutionary. The Left Wing will alter its tactics as soon as they are not right. The opportunist Right will grow ever more opportunist, will sink ever further into the morass, will corrupt the workers to an ever greater extent." –Herman Gorter
Yes, that's more or less what Lenin says, and in not much different words.

But, Lenin or not Lenin, it is still false. Left opportunism is far from being revolutionary; and while right opportunism can be more easily tracked back to its material base, left opportunism does have one too. The obvious difference is that right opportunism is necessarily linked to market-oriented logic, and it boils down into people earning money for pretending that they are opposing capitalism, while left-opportunism is mainly based on pre-capitalist logic, and so may look "idealistic" and "selfless" in a superficial analysis. But when you look closer, it is about nasty petty-bourgeois power games, about some misunderstood "genius" having found the ultimate truth, and lots of talks about "individuals not being important", so to convince young people to work "for the cause" without asking if the "cause" in case isn't some smart guys taking advantage or their naïveté.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 02:41 pm
Someone who is "ultra-left" is someone who goes beyond the normal left.
So, "ultra-left" is a different thing from "far left" or "extreme left"?

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 11:58 am
"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

As in 1968. when Marxist-Leninists used their union and party officials to "participate in real struggle" by cutting deals with the government and employers, the ultra-left assholes, with their participation in university councils, factory occupations and action-committees, with "abstract" call for a social revolution, were "avoiding the real struggle".

Let's not mention Ruhr, Kronstadt, Catalonia or Italy in the 40's.

Yes, avoiding, indeed.

[Coggeh]

lenin said the ultra left and reformism are 2sides of the same coin , example SWP in ireland at first were complete extreme left and are now reformists ....

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+January 18, 2007 05:18 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 18, 2007 05:18 pm)
Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 11:58 am
"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

As in 1968. when Marxist-Leninists used their union and party officials to "participate in real struggle" by cutting deals with the government and employers, the ultra-left assholes, with their participation in university councils, factory occupations and action-committees, with "abstract" call for a social revolution, were "avoiding the real struggle".

Let's not mention Ruhr, Kronstadt, Catalonia or Italy in the 40's.

Yes, avoiding, indeed. [/b]
Well, this illustrates the difficulty in objectively applying these labels. The self-described 'Marxist-Leninists' you allude to in the French CP are 'Stalinists' from my point of view. Their bureaucratic capitulation to reformism is therefore no surprise to me.

The fact that 'ultra-left' is used as an insult (particularly by Stalinists against anything to their political left) makes its definition even more problematic - especially outside of the concrete example used by Lenin when he coined the term.

My real concern is with people like TAT who refer to themselves as ultra-left. What does this mean? Is it some kind of ideological reclamation like the gay community embracing the word 'queer'?

Why use an insult to define yourself?

[Louis Pio]

Let's not mention Ruhr, Kronstadt, Catalonia or Italy in the 40's.


Quite different episodes, extremely superficial to just bundle them together without any explanation.

[Alf]

I prefer the term left communist to ultra-left to describe our politics, because as some people have already pointed out, 'ultra-left' is essentially what others called the communist left, generally in a derogatory way. The usual charge is that we are sectarian, purist, don't get involved in real struggles, etc. In reality this boils down to telling us to get entangled in the organisations that have become part of the state's apparatus of control over the working class - unions and 'left' parties. It also means that we would have to oppose the real struggles of the working class, which always show that these organisations are the first barrier standing against them. As for example in the good old UK where the unions police the so-called 'anti-union' laws against secondary action and decisions being made in general assemblies. To be in favour of any real class action, you have to advocate struggle across union divisions and in defiance of union rules.

That said, DJ-TC, I think your defintion of the communist left is too narrow. When you say

"Ultra-leftists, among other things, do not form political parties and unions, according to the goal of destruction of specialized politics and establishment of direct-democracy"

you seem to exclude some of the most important strands of left communism - the KAPD in Germany, which was for a communist party but against the unions, and the Italian communist left tradition, which has certainly always been for the formation of a communist party (even if it took a long time to clarify the union question!). We ourselves, who have tried to make a synthesis of these two traditions, are for the formation of organisations of communists, and eventually a communist party. In other words, we are in favour of the most class conscious minorities forming a distinct political organisation - not to take part in elections, of course, and not to aim to take power 'on behalf of' the class, but to do what the Communist Manifesto says: strive to be the most combative elements in the immediate struggle, while all the time pointing out the general, historic goals of the movement.

But leaving aside the term 'party' for the moment, DJ-TC, do you think (left) communists should form distinct organisations? If so, how would you see their role?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Alf+January 18, 2007 06:03 pm--> (Alf @ January 18, 2007 06:03 pm) ...you seem to exclude some of the most important strands of left communism - the KAPD in Germany, which was for a communist party but against the unions, and the Italian communist left tradition, which has certainly always been for the formation of a communist party (even if it took a long time to clarify the union question!). [/b]

KAPD is just a moment in the general development of the ultra-left. In time, that party too brought itself to a bankrupt position and their advocating of councils was merely rhetorical.


Originally posted by [email protected]
We ourselves, who have tried to make a synthesis of these two traditions, are for the formation of organisations of communists, and eventually a communist party. [...] to do what the Communist Manifesto says: strive to be the most combative elements in the immediate struggle, while all the time pointing out the general, historic goals of the movement.

In other words, you want to be communists as the Manifesto suggest: a group within the working class which itself has no separate interests from the interests of the proletariat. But in the spirit of the Manifesto, you cannot be a "party", because, it is the proletariat itself which "constitutes itself as a party", meaning: a class which brings out political side of its struggle and acts in such manner.


Alf
But leaving aside the term 'party' for the moment, DJ-TC, do you think (left) communists should form distinct organisations? If so, how would you see their role?

Yes, but their form and role depends on the situation. Sometimes its a weird closed group whose writings inspire rebellious instinct (like the Situationists) and sometimes its an open group of people engaged in a wider front which wants to give it more radical direction. It would be best to have an organization, not too big and not too small, which has contacts with young and radical workers and rank-and-file, and which is able to bring out coherent and decisive theoretical coverage of the class struggle.

[Hit The North]

In other words, you want to be communists as the Manifesto suggest: a group within the working class which itself has no separate interests from the interests of the proletariat. But in the spirit of the Manifesto, you cannot be a "party", because, it is the proletariat itself which "constitutes itself as a party", meaning: a class which brings out political side of its struggle and acts in such manner.

Yes, the revolutionary party must not have interests separate from the revolutionary class but that doesn't mean the most conscious workers shouldn't organize themselves in the here and now - resulting in *shock horror* parties and organizations. Neither should it be taken that the revolutionary class will just rise up like a wave of humanity, sponaneously like an act of God and understand the task history has laid at its door. If that was the case, there'd be no need for Marx and Bakunin and there'd be no reason for RevLeft.

If Marx thought that (and if he did why put energy into the 1st International?) he was wrong.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 18, 2007 10:27 pm
Yes, the revolutionary party must not have interests separate from the revolutionary class...

Again: communists don't have an interest separate from the proletariat. That's what makes them communists.

No one is saying that there should be no working class organizations and that they are needless, but that term means different things to different people, so you should explain what and what type of organization. How do they function and what is their role? Who makes them and where are they made?


Neither should it be taken that the revolutionary class will just rise up like a wave of humanity, sponaneously like an act of God and understand the task history has laid at its door.

Why not? Actually, it's that simple, and it allready happened.

Except, "God" will have nothing to do with it.


If that was the case, there'd be no need for Marx and Bakunin and there'd be no reason for RevLeft.

The three don't exist becuase of some hypothetic "need".

They exist because the alternative itself is real.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 18, 2007 04:18 pm
As in 1968. when Marxist-Leninists used their union and party officials to "participate in real struggle" by cutting deals with the government and employers, the ultra-left assholes, with their participation in university councils, factory occupations and action-committees, with "abstract" call for a social revolution, were "avoiding the real struggle".
Who were the "ultra-left assholes" in 1968? The Trotskyists, the Maoists, the situationists? Which organisation would embody the "ultra-left"?


Let's not mention Ruhr, Kronstadt, Catalonia or Italy in the 40's.

Ruhr - when? 1919? 1923?

In 1919 the leadership of the revolution was spartakist, not ultra-left. People who exactly knew the role of reforms and struggle for reforms in revolutionary strategy.

In 1923, the leadership was Lukacsian, and arguably was ultra-leftist, though being also III Internationalist. They led the German workers into a complete, and predictable, disaster, through their theory of Teilaktionen.

After that, what was "ultra-left" in Germany was the class-treasonous policy of the KPD, that helped Hitler into power.

Kronstadt - they were anarchists, mostly. Are anarchists ultra-left?

Catalonia - again, who were the "ultra-leftists" here? The Trotskyists? The POUM? CNT-FAI? I would rather describe CNT-FAI as anarcho-reformists, not as "ultra-leftists". POUM wasn't "ultra-left" at all; their politics weren't dictated by abstract considerations, but by concrete analysis of Spanish reality.

Italy in the 40's? The anti-fascist resistence, except for its conservative-liberal and social-democratic factions, was hegemonicly led by Stalinists, ie, right opportunists, not by "ultra-leftists".

Summing it up, you are conflating very different political orientations, Marxists (Spartakus and POUM), anarchists of quite different flavours (Kronstadt, to the measure they weren't SRs or populists, and CNTI-FAI), deviant Leninists (the KPD in 1923), Stalinists (the KPD in the thirties, the partiggiani in the fourties). That, if you are not also talking about different varieties of Trotskyists (Spain and 1968) and Maoists (1968). That isn't a "tendency" of the workers movement, at least not in the sence you are talking about.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 18, 2007 11:24 pm
Again: communists don't have an interest separate from the proletariat. That's what makes them communists.

No; but we have a distinct comprehension of our interests, and that is what makes us communists, instead of social-democrats.


No one is saying that there should be no working class organizations and that they are needless, but that term means different things to different people, so you should explain what and what type of organization. How do they function and what is their role? Who makes them and where are they made?

Different organisations for different tasks, obviously. You cannot struggle for salaries through a party, make a revolution through unions, or participate in political in non-revolutionary circumstances through soviets.



Neither should it be taken that the revolutionary class will just rise up like a wave of humanity, sponaneously like an act of God and understand the task history has laid at its door.

Why not? Actually, it's that simple, and it allready happened.
Except, "God" will have nothing to do with it.

No, it never happened like that. The working class isn't an indifferentiate mass of people; it has different layers and sectors, which react to the political situation in different ways. It is only when most of those layers and sectors of the class engage in political class struggle that we have a revolution; and it is through the political activity of the most conscious layers of the class that the others engage in it.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

the KDP in hitler's time was already stalinist.

The Spartacist league was ultra-leftist--it was the group that established the basic principles for tendencies like the councilist.

[Louis Pio]

The Spartacist league

Ahh please don't mock Luxemburg and Liebknect. Both had god idea as to how the masses moved and how to deal with it, but I agree the rank and file had ultra-left tendencies.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 am
the KDP in hitler's time was already stalinist.

The Spartacist league was ultra-leftist--it was the group that established the basic principles for tendencies like the councilist.
Not really. The KAPD, later, was in fact divided into two tendencies, the Spartakists for one, and the "councilists" (Rühlists) for the other (very clearly, the Rühlists were the "left" wing of the KAPD).

So the origin of "councilism" is a different one.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:45 am
Ahh please don't mock Luxemburg and Liebknect. Both had god idea as to how the masses moved and how to deal with it, but I agree the rank and file had ultra-left tendencies.
But, then, what should we make of people who claim that unions are inherently counterrevolutionary... and claim CNT-FAI as an example of their political orientation?

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

But, then, what should we make of people who claim that unions are inherently counterrevolutionary

We should congratulate them for saying what no one has guts to say in the left.

By the way, Luxemburg was a left communist, she rejected all kinds of nationalism, she rejected national liberation, she "claimed" that unions are inherently counterrevolutionary and should be opposed etc. and the "Spartakist" wing of KAPD, the Berlin fraction, was also left communist.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)Who were the "ultra-left assholes" in 1968? The Trotskyists, the Maoists, the situationists? Which organisation would embody the "ultra-left"?[/b]

The Situationists and the small groups which were active in councils and especially action committees.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)In 1923, the leadership was Lukacsian, and arguably was ultra-leftist, though being also III Internationalist. They led the German workers into a complete, and predictable, disaster, through their theory of Teilaktionen.[/b]

In 1919 the leadership of Luxemburg-Liebknecht was based on the furute "ultra-left" (left wing) rank and file. After its demise KPD was left in the hands of the pro-bolshevik leadership.

The left wing rank and file separated itself and formed the new KAPD. In 1923 KAPD supported the council tendency and the Ruhr uprising, while the Leninist KPD supported the SPD government as "loyal oppostition" by Komintern instruction.

After the defeat, KAPD also suffered a spit (as every young organization after a big defeat).


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Kronstadt - they were anarchists, mostly. Are anarchists ultra-left?

The point... missing it... missing it totally. In your head everything is leadership/mass divided. On the contrary, ultra-left tendency only supported and took part in the uprising, while the workers and sailors made decisions. The anarchists didn't lead it.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Italy in the 40's? The anti-fascist resistence, except for its conservative-liberal and social-democratic factions, was hegemonicly led by Stalinists, ie, right opportunists, not by "ultra-leftists".

The revolutionary attempts to create councils in Torino and Milan after 1943 were led by the workers who called themselves Bordigists. The Communists (Stalinists) joined the ex-fascist generals government.

Don't you know anything?


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Catalonia - again, who were the "ultra-leftists" here? The Trotskyists? The POUM? CNT-FAI? I would rather describe CNT-FAI as anarcho-reformists, not as "ultra-leftists". POUM wasn't "ultra-left" at all; their politics weren't dictated by abstract considerations, but by concrete analysis of Spanish reality.

Again. Missing the point. No one here said that any of those organizations were ultra-left.

As far as CNT is concerned - "people who claim that unions are inherently counterrevolutionary... and claim CNT-FAI as an example of their political orientation" -- who are these people? You will not find them here.

Ultra-left was long since against the engagement in the Generalitet and the central government. CNT-FAI leaders were precisly opportunists, while the rank and file (even in the UGT) -- the workers themselves -- took the initiative regardless of their parties expectations. Ultra-left supported the autonomous action and self-direction of the working class in Spain, and advocated the all-the-way revolution.

Gilles Dauve (ultra-left) said how "CNT may be an 'anarchist union', but it is first and foremost a 'union', and only then 'anarchist'."


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Different organisations for different tasks, obviously. You cannot struggle for salaries through a party, make a revolution through unions, or participate in political in non-revolutionary circumstances through soviets.

Get with the programe, you're loosing touch with everyday reality.

Workers don't perform those tasks anyway. Union bureaucracy and "workers' party" militants do it for them.

When workers themselves decide to take immediate action for improving immediate situation, they do it with or without the union help, but they do it anyway. When they step out with political demands that reflect their intrests, they do it regardless of any party projects.

And when they create a revolution, hierarchical specialist structures are only in way of getting things done.


Luís [email protected]
No, it never happened like that. The working class isn't an indifferentiate mass of people; it has different layers and sectors, which react to the political situation in different ways. It is only when most of those layers and sectors of the class engage in political class struggle that we have a revolution; and it is through the political activity of the most conscious layers of the class that the others engage in it.

Of course. But good luck with arguing that the Leninist parties and unions (unions in general) are "the most conscious layer" of the working class.


Luís Henrique
Summing it up, you are conflating very different political orientations...

Nope. You're not quite getting what most of us are saying here, are you?

No one claimed that any of these organizations are ultra-left.

[Alf]

DJ-TC wrote:

"In other words, you want to be communists as the Manifesto suggest: a group within the working class which itself has no separate interests from the interests of the proletariat. But in the spirit of the Manifesto, you cannot be a "party", because, it is the proletariat itself which "constitutes itself as a party", meaning: a class which brings out political side of its struggle and acts in such manner".

Didn't the Manifesto also call itself the manifesto of the communist party? Party comes from the root part - it is by definition a minority. The idea of the whole class constituting itself into a party is ambiguous. On the positive side it means the necessity for political struggle and the political sezure of power by the working class; on the other hand it expressed confusions between minority and general organisations which inevitably existed in that period, and which were concretised in the First International in particular (part political organisation, part fighting organ of the class as a whole...). Through the Second and Third Internationals, there were advances made on this level, showing that the political minority and the general organisation of the class are distinct but not opposed. The communist left took this understanding much further - particularly in its critique of the Bolshevik party substituting itself for the general organisations, the councils, and getting tied up in the state. This confusion proved fatal not only for the councils, but for the party as well, since as a state organ it was unable to play its role as the most radical catalyst of class consciousness.


For this reason we don't think the KAPD was 'transcended' by those within it who began to see the party form as inherently bourgeois, like Ruhle. Rather we would see the latter's ideas as a theorisation of defeat, and one which was to have very negative effects on later generations of the proletarian movement.

We do not think we are a party today because we take this term to mean an organisation that has an important influence within the class. For all sorts of historic reasons, revolutionary groups still have a very limited influence today. But it will be different in a pre-revolutionary situation and this will express itself in the growth of these organisations in both size and influence. But they will always be a 'part' and should never lose sight of this.

Anyway, we shouldn't fixate on terminology. I think there is plenty to agree upon and to debate when you answer my question about whether you agree with the need for distinct communist organisations as follows:


"Yes, but their form and role depends on the situation. Sometimes its a weird closed group whose writings inspire rebellious instinct (like the Situationists) and sometimes its an open group of people engaged in a wider front which wants to give it more radical direction. It would be best to have an organization, not too big and not too small, which has contacts with young and radical workers and rank-and-file, and which is able to bring out coherent and decisive theoretical coverage of the class struggle".

When you talk about 'closed' and 'open' for example, what are you referring to? Their level of programmatic agreement? Their organisational rigour? Could it be that you are mixing up two things here - political organisations which have a more stable, more programmatucally unified basis, and more temporary formations like workers' action groups or discussion circles which come together to intervene in particular situations or draw the lessons from them?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 19, 2007 11:53 am
The Situationists and the small groups which were active in councils and especially action committees.
So, these organisations were the "ultra-left" in 1968.


In 1919 the leadership of Luxemburg-Liebknecht was based on the furute "ultra-left" (left wing) rank and file. After its demise KPD was left in the hands of the pro-bolshevik leadership.

If the future "ultra-left rank and file" was the base for L&L leadership, then it quite clearly changed after they were killed, for Luxembourg and Liebknecht were not ultra-left in any recognisable sence.


The left wing rank and file separated itself and formed the new KAPD. In 1923 KAPD supported the council tendency and the Ruhr uprising, while the Leninist KPD supported the SPD government as "loyal oppostition" by Komintern instruction.

The KAPD, a political party, composed by different tendencies.

The 1923 uprising was mainly led by the KPD, under an "ultra-left" theory that partial struggles should be conducted by the same means as revolutionary insurrection. Of course, this very false theory led to a complete political disaster.


After the defeat, KAPD also suffered a spit (as every young organization after a big defeat).

A split, let's not forget, between the Spartakist remnants, and the ultra-left Rühlists.


The point... missing it... missing it totally. In your head everything is leadership/mass divided. On the contrary, ultra-left tendency only supported and took part in the uprising, while the workers and sailors made decisions. The anarchists didn't lead it.

You claim the "ultra-left tendency only supported and took part in the uprising", which leaves us with two different options: either they followed the political orientations of other tendencies, or they were not present in the Kronstadt garrison at the time.

Since you were clearly able to point who were the "ultra-leftists" in 1968, your inability to tell us who they were in the twenties seems to point to the latter option.


The revolutionary attempts to create councils in Torino and Milan after 1943 were led by the workers who called themselves Bordigists. The Communists (Stalinists) joined the ex-fascist generals government.

Ah, the Bordigists. So could you expand on why their attempts to create councils in Torino and Milan failed, and on what was Bordiga's position on unions?


Again. Missing the point. No one here said that any of those organizations were ultra-left.

Of course they were not; that's why your argument confronting the supposed "ultra-left tendency" to the reformists in Spain is false: there was no "ultra-left tendency" in Spain in 1936-9. There were Stalinists, social-democrats, Trotskyists, POUMists, and anarchists of different flavours, but no "ultra-leftists".

And the struggle in Spain was fought by people who were there, and committed the mistakes of their own.


As far as CNT is concerned - "people who claim that unions are inherently counterrevolutionary... and claim CNT-FAI as an example of their political orientation" -- who are these people? You will not find them here.

Of course. When it comes to deride other Marxist tendencies, then Catalonya is an example of "ultra-leftism". When it comes to point out what happened there and then, "ultra-leftists" cannot be blamed for the mistakes and treasons. It boils down into a Platonic position, the "ultra-left" being pure Ideal Form of something that, well, wasn't there in a material way.


Ultra-left was long since against the engagement in the Generalitet and the central government.

Who were the "ultra-left" in Catalonya? In which newspaper did they express such opinion?


CNT-FAI leaders were precisly opportunists, while the rank and file (even in the UGT) -- the workers themselves -- took the initiative regardless of their parties expectations.

Yes: the Spanish proletariat took initiative despite its leaderships, and failed. This is not anything about a supposed "ultra-left" tendency, its about a crisis within the proletariat, who felt no longer represented by its leaders, and wasn't able to build new leaderships timely enough to face the tasks the situation presented.


Ultra-left supported the autonomous action and self-direction of the working class in Spain, and advocated the all-the-way revolution.

From abroad.

To put it bluntly, either the "ultra-left tendency" passively followed the political orientation of the Stalinists, the Trotskyists, the POUM or the CNT-FAI, thus disqualifying themselves as an active alternative to them, or the "ultra-left tendency" didn't exist at the time and place.

In any case, it seems that your previous statement on how the "ultra-left" was so much engaged in real struggle in Spain, as opposed to "marxist-leninists" doesn't hold.


When workers themselves decide to take immediate action for improving immediate situation, they do it with or without the union help, but they do it anyway. When they step out with political demands that reflect their intrests, they do it regardless of any party projects.

Then what is the need for an "ultra-left" tendency?

The answer you have already given: the "ultra-left" only "supports" the workers. Which means, it takes no active part in the struggles, and when the struggle fails, takes credit for the struggle, while blaming everybody else, from Anarchists to Maoists, for the failure.


Of course. But good luck with arguing that the Leninist parties and unions (unions in general) are "the most conscious layer" of the working class.

Well, first of all, I am not a Leninist, so there would be little reason that I would argue that Leninist parties are the most conscious layer of the working class.

The most conscious layer of the working class is represented in diverse parties; in Spain, 1936-39 they would be in the POUM, with the Trotskyists, the CNT-FAI, and, yes, even with the Stalinists. But it was mainly party-less, as it is usually the case. The function of a political proletarian party is not to usurp the representativity of the class, not to claim that they are the only revolutionary/proletarian/marxist/whatever party, but to represent, precisely, a part of the working class, with a partial contribution to the struggle.

The failure to understand this is what is wrong with "Leninism" - and is something the "ultra-leftists" have very much inherited from it.

As for the unions - obviously, the union bureaucracy isn't the most conscious layer of the working class; on the contrary, it is one of its layers more idelogically compromised with capitalism, and more materially compromised with capitalists.

But workers who do not unionise are also not the most conscious layer of the proletariat; they are usually just cynics who don't believe in union struggle because, to paraphrase Gilles Dauve, ultra-leftist, they disbelieve in struggle, first, and only then disbelieve in unions.


No one claimed that any of these organizations are ultra-left.

Oh, of course you did. In comparing the "ultra-left" combativity to the other tendencies treachery, you implied that. But, obviously, as your subsequent post shows, the Stalinists, the Trotskyists, the Anarchists, the Spartakists, the Ninists, the Maoists made mistakes, and even betrayed, because they were there to make mistakes, and to betray. The ultra-left is innocent of mistakes or treason, because it would not put itself in a position in which mistakes or treason would be really possible.

Thence their theft of another, more serious, tendency - the Spartakists - tradition.

Luís Henrique

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 02:41 pm


The practical defintion of an ultra leftist is someone who rejects reformism in all it's form; advocates direct action and violence as political tools against capitalism and the state; rejects compromise and I suppose someone who rejects national liberation could be deemed as an ultra-leftist.


Basically that is an anarchist at least without the definte stress on violence.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 17, 2007 02:00 pm
To me, the chief characteristic of those labeled 'ultra-left' is their attachment to maximalist abstract propaganda, as opposed to getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of actual class struggle.
My experience of it is also that it is a derisory term.

Some people seem to be taking personal offence at the use of the term "ultra left", especially those who would see themselves as standing within the left-wing communist tradition of Luxemburg, Pannekoek, council communism et al (as I would for the most part). However, the term - and again this is in my own experience - has never been used specifically with that ideology in mind. It can apply as much to Trotskyites as to anarchists, and is usually heard when they're also criticised of acting more like bourgeois liberals than socialists.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:54 pm
the left-wing communist tradition of Luxemburg, Pannekoek, council communism et al


These are two different traditions - that of Luxembourg, which I claim, and that of Pannekoek, council communism, Bordiga, Rühle, etc, to which Leo and DJ-TC belong.


However, the term - and again this is in my own experience - has never been used specifically with that ideology in mind. It can apply as much to Trotskyites as to anarchists, and is usually heard when they're also criticised of acting more like bourgeois liberals than socialists.

Yup, that is the common usage; in my personal experience, it is usually directed against Trotskyists and Maoists (the [pseudo-]Sparts or MIM would be very good examples of what is called "ultra-left").

Luís Henrique

[Alf]

Strictly speaking, the communist left is a reaction against the growing opportunism of the Communist International and the internal degeneration of the Russian revolution; internationally it does not really coalesce as a current until around 1920. To call Luxemburg a left communist is problematic. On some questions - in particular the national question - she was certainly on the 'left'; on others (parliament for example) her position was less clear (for example, the contradictions between her criticism of the Bolsheviks for closing down the Constituent Assembly and the Spartacus programme which calls for the dissolution of parliamentary bodies). She was killed prior to the split within the KPD, but within the KPD there were a number of left tendencies after the split (for example the Korsch group which didn't leave till 1926). Luis Henrique seems to want to make a rigid distinction between Luxemburg/Liebknecht and the left wing of the KPD when the situation was much more fluid.

He also confuses the issue by identifying the 'left' with adventurism and putschism. No doubt these weaknesses did exist in the left current to some extent, but in 1923, for example, it was the official KPD which got tangled up in this kind of substitutionist action.

There also seems to be a confusion between the 1920 Kapp putsch and the 1923 uprising in some of the posts.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:13 am
To call Luxemburg a left communist is problematic. On some questions - in particular the national question - she was certainly on the 'left'; on others (parliament for example) her position was less clear (for example, the contradictions between her criticism of the Bolsheviks for closing down the Constituent Assembly and the Spartacus programme which calls for the dissolution of parliamentary bodies).
Her positions were clearly quite different from those of the council-communists (which is the tendency here claiming the name "ultra-left"). She was not opposed to participation in parliament, she was very conscious of the importance of political parties, she was not opposed to unionist struggle, and she did not derive her tactics directly from ideological principles.

The fact is, everybody wants to put Rosa into a nice picture and hang it on the wall among their heroes, and treat her as an inconditional but somewhat foolish revolutionary (perhaps this has something with her being a woman; I suspect similar, if less prominent, phenomena happen to Clara Zetkin and Alessandra Kollontai). But she isn't a myth, and she was far from being inane. She was a very real revolutionary, with very real and distinct political positions. She may have been wrong in some questions, and if we think so we should criticise her, but it is dishonest to pretend that she didn't know what she was doing.


Luis Henrique seems to want to make a rigid distinction between Luxemburg/Liebknecht and the left wing of the KPD when the situation was much more fluid.

The issue is, the positions of the left wing of the KPD are rigid enough to make rigid distinctions unavoidable.

And the situation was not fluid, it was revolutionary. That was Rosa's main concern at the time, not to undergo a foolish competition to who was more leftist than whom. That, and her life long commitment to the idea of a strong proletarian political party was the key to her movements during her last weeks of life.

Further, there seems to be a trend among our resident left communists to blur the dividing lines among the different positions in the left ("left" understood, here, in the broadest sence), and to claim some kind of affiliation to the "ultra-left" (as a synonim to council communism) of things that are completely unrelated: Kronstadt, Spanish Civil War, May of 68, the Ruhr uprising. This looks like ecleticism or opportunism, and should be criticised.


He also confuses the issue by identifying the 'left' with adventurism and putschism.

Rather, the left communists here confuse the issue by claiming an expression ("ultra-left") that has been for decades used as a term to denotate left opportunism (and not only adventurism/putschism, which are a spectacular but more rare manifestation of left opportunism).


No doubt these weaknesses did exist in the left current to some extent, but in 1923, for example, it was the official KPD which got tangled up in this kind of substitutionist action.

Sure, that is why I said, and maintain, that the KPD's actions in 1923 were ultra-leftist.


There also seems to be a confusion between the 1920 Kapp putsch and the 1923 uprising in some of the posts.

Well, not in mine (I guess you are referring to those who wrote that the KPD supported the government).

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

she was not opposed to unionist struggle

She was actually.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)So, these organisations were the "ultra-left" in 1968.[/b]

Ye-es... and? / Just don't get it twisted, though: action committees were organizations of the students in which the ultra-leftists and those leaning in that dirrection were engaged, and comprised the greatest part.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)If the future "ultra-left rank and file" was the base for L&L leadership, then it quite clearly changed after they were killed, for Luxembourg and Liebknecht were not ultra-left in any recognisable sence.[/b]

This sentence makes no sense. The rank and file stayed, and got into conflict with the new leadership over the tactics that Comintern insisted upon.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
The 1923 uprising was mainly led by the KPD, under an "ultra-left" theory that partial struggles should be conducted by the same means as revolutionary insurrection. Of course, this very false theory led to a complete political disaster.

KPD didn't "lead" the Ruhr uprising.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
You claim the "ultra-left tendency only supported and took part in the uprising", which leaves us with two different options: either they followed the political orientations of other tendencies, or they were not present in the Kronstadt garrison at the time.

There is a huge element of the story which simply you don't get. And this is indeed surprising because you call yourself a "Luxemburgist", considering that Luxemburg was the one who retrieved this element from Marx into the bankrupt "Orthodox Marxism": the subjective action of the proletariat.

The "political orientation of others" is nothing more and nothing less then the political orientation of the workers themselves. Ultra-left exists on the fact that working class proved its capability to lead autonomous direction in the struggle, and defends the prior experiences and new gains of that struggle.

The formed "ultra-left" tendency in Russia did not exist in later sense, but it existed in embryonic form: the rank and file of the Bolshevik party which massively left the party during the rebellion and supported the program of free soviets, and during the strike in Petrograd, there were also demands for reestablishment of factory committees. The Workers' Group and Workers' Truth were typical ultra-left groups which formed after the defeat of Kronstadt.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Ah, the Bordigists. So could you expand on why their attempts to create councils in Torino and Milan failed, and on what was Bordiga's position on unions?

Don't avoid the subject. With this line of responses I was replying to your senseless comment that ultra-left was avoiding the real struggle, while the "real" communists were constantly engaged in it. Whether ultra-left was "wrong" or not, what were its tactics at the given time -- that's another question.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Yes: the Spanish proletariat took initiative despite its leaderships, and failed. This is not anything about a supposed "ultra-left" tendency, its about a crisis within the proletariat, who felt no longer represented by its leaders, and wasn't able to build new leaderships timely enough to face the tasks the situation presented.

On the contrary, they failed because they themselves lacked clarity to make the next step: abolish representation and smash the "antifascist" state.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Then what is the need for an "ultra-left" tendency?

As my friend Leo would tell you: to defend the class line. It is supposed to connect militants and throw them back into the pickets, the workplaces, to spread propaganda and incite creative spirit, to promote solidarity and use its knowledge of prior experiences to avoid negative moves and inspire positive ones.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Which means, it takes no active part in the struggles...

That's simply not true. That's insane. Only reason why you think we don't engage into struggle is because you think that political representation is the only way to do it.

While "serious" people like you are sitting in their chairs writing resolutions, we - the "infantile" ones - act as the most conscious "layer" of the class by engaging the struggle through the class channels, by methods corresponding to the autonomous direction.


Originally posted by =Luís Henrique
The most conscious layer of the working class is represented in diverse parties; in Spain, 1936-39 they would be in the POUM, with the Trotskyists, the CNT-FAI, and, yes, even with the Stalinists. But it was mainly party-less, as it is usually the case. The function of a political proletarian party is not to usurp the representativity of the class, not to claim that they are the only revolutionary/proletarian/marxist/whatever party, but to represent, precisely, a part of the working class, with a partial contribution to the struggle.

I see.

They were but the weren't.

Sorry, comrade, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
But workers who do not unionise are also not the most conscious layer of the proletariat; they are usually just cynics who don't believe in union struggle because, to paraphrase Gilles Dauve, ultra-leftist, they disbelieve in struggle, first, and only then disbelieve in unions.

That's funny, but "disbelieve" in the unions is not a matter of faith... oh, never mind... Anyway, the claim that non-unionized are necessarily not the most conscious is just a brave but empty declaration which does not stem from the experiences of the prior and day to day struggles.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
In comparing the "ultra-left" combativity to the other tendencies treachery, you implied that.

Implied it by comparing? Ri-ight, m-kay. You've lost the line you had day ago.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Thence their theft of another, more serious, tendency - the Spartakists - tradition.

That's the word: tradition. Live in the twenties, comrade.


* * *


[email protected]
Didn't the Manifesto also call itself the manifesto of the communist party?

Called itself, yes. Question should be: how did the Communist League function and how long did that take? The First International was not really a party, was it? It wasn't comprised of classical political parties, was it? As you've said, combativity, and I'd add, agitation, was it's primary role.

Now, I agree that the KAPD's demise was the result of a defeat. I've said so. That is correct. But why, when new waves of struggles appeared in other places, there was never a new party that reached KAPD's size? Bad defeatist tradition? I don't think so.


Alf
When you talk about 'closed' and 'open' for example, what are you referring to? Their level of programmatic agreement? Their organisational rigour? Could it be that you are mixing up two things here - political organisations which have a more stable, more programmatucally unified basis, and more temporary formations like workers' action groups or discussion circles which come together to intervene in particular situations or draw the lessons from them?

I don't quite understand your last question. But anyway, since we're talking about organization, I think you would like to hear what I think about it.

I've spoke with Leo about this too. We agreed on most things except the use of the word "party".

First of all, [left] communist organization, should, as I've said above [i]"defend the class line. It is supposed to connect militants and throw them back into the pickets, the workplaces, to spread propaganda and incite creative spirit, to promote solidarity and use its knowledge of prior experiences to avoid negative moves and inspire positive ones."

In concrete terms, we should have: and organization which (1) has no hierarchical and command structure, (2) which does not aim for political representation and state power, obviously, (3) which is not supposed to build itself as a party, but, on the contrary, use all its energies and creativity to keep and insert militants, young workers and militant potential, into the workplaces themselves, the pickets - not to build its own structure but to work on the negation of existing structures, (4) which aims to spread itself only by militants who are willing to devote its time and energy to the struggle - and not be the passive carriers of "party cards", (5) it should incite creativity, solidarity, "negation" propaganda, critique, etc.

You see, the reason why I think the party concept is transcending itself spontaneously is because of its inherent contradiction: all parties exist on the strategy of expanding their "basis" and "membership", which results in drawing out militant potential out of the workplaces and into the ranks - and - results in breaking the work group potential unity by an artificial division on "politicized" and "non-politicized" workers, when, in fact, it should use all it has to reverse the process, to infiltrate the structures and create the "spirit" of the community inside the workplaces, through its supporters, militants, to clarify the position that our political defense of the class line belongs to each and every workers, no matter if he's a philosophical genius or just politically indifferent. Those artificial division are even more perpetuated if the workers support other "left" parties - if they exist, and there must be at least some. By working in the opposite direction, we could reverse that process by insisting that it is the worker-unity that matters, and not political programs.

Now, I was talking about a clearly "Bordigist" concept when I criticized the party concept. Let's not mention the Leninist one, and it's own outdated and anti-class concepts.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread is depressing. For a bunch of Marxists you all clearly put a heavy emphasis on empiricism.

This is the problem with "post-marxists" - Materialism and rationalism have been replaced with empiricism and emotionalism.

You're all frauds!

[gilhyle]

I find Citizen Zero's original definition very good, as a brief definition. Granted the understanding Leninists (i.e. people who agree with the marvelous Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder) have of what ulta left means is prejudicial rather than neutral - i.e. it defines the ultra leftist as someone who fails to do something that needs to be done. But its not really an objection to the definition to object that its a evaluative one, unless one is advocating a relativism in which there is no correct and no false position.

This debate has seledted the German experience for priviledged review, but surely 'ultra leftists can be found throughout the history of communism - Die Junge, De Leon, William Morris' Socialist League, the aforementioned Bordigaists, the whole Third International during the 'third period', lots of the Maoists in the 1960s, Gerry Healys' organisations sometimes, the modern Sparticists etc etc. Im not clear why German 1919-23 is the crucible of this debate.

In all cases, elements of the anarchist critique of forms of political engagement are mobilised to reject certain tactics and strategies. Most commonly, this involves a rejection of engagement with trade unions, whether by building 'revolutionary trade unions' or being against trade unions at all. Sometimes, it involves advocating a party splitting tactic to escape less advanced elements of the class and 'purify' the party political organisation of the vanguard minority and sometimes it involves a sympathy for putchism when that is practical.

Btw, I'd love Leo to give some references to where Rosa Luxemburg was against Unions - and I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism of the sentimentalising view of Rosa Luxemburg.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 03:43 pm
You're all frauds!

Giving some names and quotes would be in order. :mellow:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+January 20, 2007 05:28 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 20, 2007 05:28 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 03:43 pm
You're all frauds!

Giving some names and quotes would be in order. :mellow: [/b]
They know who they are <_<

[apathy maybe]

Firstly, like TAT I consider my self ultra-left. I think that some one who is a socialist (in the broad sense of the word), rejects pigeon holing and dogma, rejects nations (and national liberation beyond a limited support for possible reasons such as opposing imperialism) and rejects hierarchy in both the end result (e.g. "communism") and the process (so rejecting both reformism and Leninism). So ultra-leftism is a subset of anarchism, almost.

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)"Ultra-left", to me, are the people who use seemingly radical excuses to avoid participating in real struggle.

Leftist: - Let&#39;s go to demonstration against imperialism in front of the American embassy?

"Ultra-leftist": - No, you are just going to chant and walk in circles. Call me when you are ready to storm the Embassy by force.

Luís Henrique[/b]
I fail to see how protesting outside a US embassy could be considered "real struggle". OK if you are in a country where you are likely to be shot or locked up indefinitely (not any "Western" country, despite the possibility, it is not likely) it might be real struggle. But if you are in (for example) the UK or Australia, protests such as that do fuck all to advance class interests or persuade the Yankee imperialist to stop (bombing Somalia, invading Iraq etc.). Storming the embassy will also not have much impact on either of these two possible intended outcomes.

In fact there are only three reasons that I can think of to do this sort of protest (in no particular order): to have fun; to cost the cops and possibly some bourgeois money; to show other leftists (via mainstream media) that they are not alone.

TAT
I regard myself as being an ultra-leftist.

The practical defintion of an ultra leftist is someone who rejects reformism in all it&#39;s form; advocates direct action and violence as political tools against capitalism and the state; rejects compromise and I suppose someone who rejects national liberation could be deemed as an ultra-leftist.

Someone who is "ultra-left" is someone who goes beyond the normal left. Some could say reinforcing existing tactics in an extreme way. All this nonsense about chanting and abstract political theory is not the basis of understanding ultra-leftism.

Practical application of ideas is how you define it.I basically agree, though have minor issues with the issue of violence.

[Luís Henrique]

Ye-es... and? / Just don&#39;t get it twisted, though: action committees were organizations of the students in which the ultra-leftists and those leaning in that dirrection were engaged, and comprised the greatest part.

So we start backpedalling: the situationists are no longer the "ultra-left" tendency.


There is a huge element of the story which simply you don&#39;t get. And this is indeed surprising because you call yourself a "Luxemburgist", considering that Luxemburg was the one who retrieved this element from Marx into the bankrupt "Orthodox Marxism": the subjective action of the proletariat.

Oh, I plainly get the "subjective action of the proletariat". However, I do not believe in an "ideal" proletariat, that exists only in the illuminated heads of a substitutionist clique. I believe in the subjective actions of the real proletariat, which take shape in the everyday struggles of our class.

Your idea of the subjectivity of the proletariat is flawed, because it only refers to revolutionary situations, in which the class uprises against State and capital. But we have to deal with non-revolutionary situations, in which the class is not willing to take arms against its enemies. And the actions and reactions of the class in revolutionary situations are shaped by its actions and reactions during non-revoluitionary periods.

That is how your position is a "safe" one: in any situation in which there is no immediate possibility of uprising, your only practical policy is to wait for revolution. In a revolutionary situation, of course, the class will form into battle under the leadership of those tendencies which have actively fought in the previous period - anarchists, stalinists, trotskyists, maoists, blanquists, situationists, leninists, social-democrats, spartakists, whatever - leaving you in the priviledged position to "explain" the eventual defeats by the mistakes of these tendencies, or to "denounce" the deviations of the eventually victorious uprisings.


Ultra-left exists on the fact that working class proved its capability to lead autonomous direction in the struggle, and defends the prior experiences and new gains of that struggle.

Yes, it is a platonic Idea, not a real organisation.


The Workers&#39; Group and Workers&#39; Truth were typical ultra-left groups which formed after the defeat of Kronstadt.

This is sheer theorical opportunism.


Don&#39;t avoid the subject. With this line of responses I was replying to your senseless comment that ultra-left was avoiding the real struggle, while the "real" communists were constantly engaged in it. Whether ultra-left was "wrong" or not, what were its tactics at the given time -- that&#39;s another question.

Let&#39;s separate two different things:

first, what I, and most people, call "ultra-left" is a common behaviour that consists in avoiding struggle, or responsibility for its organisation or its results, through an apparently radical discourse.

second, what you call "ultra-left" is a particular tendency among the working class movement, council-communism.

I don&#39;t know why you wish to give yourselves a new name, that is already used to denotate a different thing; it is confusing and seems useless.

Now, in the midst of such confusion, you make a different one, by blurring the limits of your "ultra-left" and amalgamating into it different things; for my part, being a, to use your word, "Luxembourgist" (I would prefer Spartakist, but this is secondary), I must protest your attempt to get Rosa Luxembourg and Liebknecht into your confusion.


On the contrary, they failed because they themselves lacked clarity to make the next step: abolish representation and smash the "antifascist" state.

So, in what sence they were "ultra-left"?


As my friend Leo would tell you: to defend the class line.

Sorry, we, the workers, do not need you to defend the class line, we can do it ourselves.

See, whenever it comes to your concept of "ultra-left" to be defined in a practical way, it boils down to a separate group of people, holding separate beliefs. If it is that, we can discuss the merits and demerits of such beliefs. But if it comes to be a metaphysical revelation about the "class line", we are back to substitutionist concepts, inherited from Leninism: the "correct line", the "proletarian line", etc.

I tend to agree with TAT on that, even if I know that he would gladly apply his derogatory terms to me as well.


It is supposed to connect militants and throw them back into the pickets, the workplaces, to spread propaganda and incite creative spirit, to promote solidarity

Abstract ideas don&#39;t do that, real people are necessary to this task.


and use its knowledge of prior experiences to avoid negative moves and inspire positive ones.

This is not possible for a tendency. The whole class needs to do that, and it can only do it through the open discussion between the different tendencies - preferably without arrogant claims to the "correct line", the "class line" or whatever you call it.


That&#39;s simply not true. That&#39;s insane. Only reason why you think we don&#39;t engage into struggle is because you think that political representation is the only way to do it.

No, it is because you attempt to take credit for things done by different people.


While "serious" people like you are sitting in their chairs writing resolutions, we - the "infantile" ones - act as the most conscious "layer" of the class by engaging the struggle through the class channels, by methods corresponding to the autonomous direction.

This is an easy claim to make in the internet, isn&#39;t it?


Anyway, the claim that non-unionized are necessarily not the most conscious is just a brave but empty declaration which does not stem from the experiences of the prior and day to day struggles.

Of course, it stems from day to day struggles.


That&#39;s the word: tradition. Live in the twenties, comrade.

Yes, that is the word: tradition. Not to repeat the mistakes of the twenties, comrade.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+January 20, 2007 04:28 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 20, 2007 04:28 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 03:43 pm
You&#39;re all frauds&#33;

Giving some names and quotes would be in order. :mellow: [/b]
Your pandering to anarchists, your attempts to make a common front with them, are pathetic.

They don&#39;t want it, dude.

Their concept of authoritarianism includes anything that can be conceived as a transitional use of the State to our ends.

Stand up to your convictions, stop trying to embroil unwilling people in your confusions.

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

You&#39;ve crossed the line...


Originally posted by Luís Henrique
>>So we start backpedalling: the situationists are no longer the "ultra-left" tendency.<<
>>I believe in the subjective actions of the real proletariat, which take shape in the everyday struggles of our class.<<
>>Yes, it is a platonic Idea, not a real organisation.<<
>>This is sheer theorical opportunism.<<
>>Sorry, we, the workers, do not need you to defend the class line, we can do it ourselves.<<
>>Abstract ideas don&#39;t do that, real people are necessary to this task.<<
>>No, it is because you attempt to take credit for things done by different people.<<
>>This is an easy claim to make in the internet, isn&#39;t it?<<
>>Of course, it stems from day to day struggles.<<
>>Your pandering to anarchists, your attempts to make a common front with them, are pathetic.<<

...with these cheap tricks. I cannot respond to any of them because none of them could in any way be dirrected to me as counterarguments. Not only that, they can&#39;t be elaborated in any comprehensive way. I&#39;m sorry but you will have to think about your attitude because with this line of responses you contradicted everything you just tried to argue for. Back up yourself to the drawing board, becuase you&#39;re done here.

[Alf]

When did Luxemburg put forward an anti-union line? At the founding congress of the KPD. She didn’t agree with the party’s left wing on the rejection of participation in parliament, but on the union question she is reported to have said:

“The unions are no longer workers’ organisations: they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point”.

This is cited in our book on the Dutch and German communist left; the reference given there is to Prudhommeaux’s book Spartacus et la Commune de Berlin. I have not yet been able to check it against the minutes of the KPD congress. But it is not so surprising that Luxemburg should taken such a view. At the First Congress of the Third International Bukharin, in his introduction to the Platform of the CI, acknowledged the strength of anti-union feeling among the German communists. Arguing that in Russia the unions were playing a positive role in “revolutionary reconstruction”, Bukharin goes on to say:

“In Germany it is completely the opposite. This was brought about, evidently, by the fact that in Germany the unions were in the hands of the Yellow Socialists – Legien and company. Their activity was directed against the interests of the German proletariat. That continues even today, and the proletariat is already dissolving these old trade unions. In place of them, new organisations have arisen in Germany – the factory and plant committees, which are trying to take production into their own hands. The trade unions there no longer play any kind of positive role…..”.

And he says that “we cannot take any concrete line on this” – in other words, at the height of the revolutionary wave, when soviet power was a real possibility across Europe, the CI was still open on the union question. So once again Luis Henrique’s view makes a completely artificial separation between the ‘official’ position and the positions of the so-called ‘ultra-left’.

Thanks, DJ-TC for expanding on your conception of organisation. I think there are some important points of agreement: rejection of hierarchy and passive membership; rejection of any idea of taking power; defence of the class line and encouragement of the creativity and initiative of the proletariat….The differences seem to revolve around two main points:
- In our view, communist organisations don’t follow the same dynamic as the general orgnanisations of the class, i.e they are not spontaneous products of the struggle. Even if they are not pure products of ‘will’ and, their growth and influence depend closely on the advances and retreats of the general movement, we do think they have to be patiently and consciously constructed and that this demands a permanent struggle against the influence of the dominant ideology
- I don’t know what you understand to be the ‘Bordigist’ conception of the party but one thing that Bordiga was very clear on in his struggle against the degeneration of the CI was the latter’s switch to trying to base the party on factory cells instead of territorial sections. For Bordiga this was an attempt to fixate the activity of the party membership on the day to day struggle in the factories rather than raising the awareness of all members about the global, political tasks facing the working class. Bordiga saw the ‘workerism’ being advocated under the banner of ‘Bolshevisation’ and the factory cell system as a channel for opportunism.

This is why I raised the point about the distinction between workers’ groups (which may well exist at the level of a particular workplace, though not exclusively so) and political groups which are formed around territorial sections; while the former may be a temporary regroupment around a minimum of class positions (eg opposition to unions, agitation for assemblies, etc), the latter has a much more permanent existence; it is formed around a coherent whole of historic lessons (a &#39;programme&#39;) and members join as communists not just as workers. It seems to me that your definition of a communist group falls between these two types of organism, which obey different needs within the class. I may be misinterpreting, so I hope we can debate this further.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 21, 2007 01:12 am
You&#39;ve crossed the line...
You have crossed it long ago, DJ, with your Kronstadt-Ruhr-Catalonya post.


I&#39;m sorry but you will have to think about your attitude because with this line of responses you contradicted everything you just tried to argue for. Back up yourself to the drawing board, becuase you&#39;re done here.

You have ideas about the conduction of proletarian class struggle, fine, lets discuss them. You want your ideas to be recognised as "the" proletarian ideas, to the exclusion of other ideas, not fine, not open to discussion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:00 am
When did Luxemburg put forward an anti-union line? At the founding congress of the KPD.
At the height and heat of a revolutionary wave. Now, none of us is working in a country in a revolutionary situation. Do we maintain that what Rosa said, once, in the midst of a revolution, contrary to what she had said, many times, in non-revolutionary situations, stands for eternal, invariable truth, can be applied to our reality, and is really representative of her thought?

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

At the height and heat of a revolutionary wave. Now, none of us is working in a country in a revolutionary situation. Do we maintain that what Rosa said, once, in the midst of a revolution, contrary to what she had said, many times, in non-revolutionary situations, stands for eternal, invariable truth, can be applied to our reality, and is really representative of her thought?

Doesn&#39;t Luxemburg&#39;s shifting position on the German unions illustrate orthodox communist thinking on unions?

We are in favour of workers combining to take action, that is, setting up unions. Nevertheless we are not uncritical about the organizational form and political orientation those unions might take.

When Luxemburg dismisses the unions as anti-revolutionary, she&#39;s not writing-off those millions of workers who pay their dues. She&#39;s attacking the leaderships of those unions - in other words, the bureaucracy who&#39;s existence depends on the continuing survival of capitalism.

[Alf]

Luxemburg doesn&#39;t say the unions have &#39;bad leaders&#39;, the eternal excuse of the Trotskyists et al. She says that the unions, i.e the whole apparatus, have become part of the state. That is not the same as saying that the mass of workers in the unions are all counter-revolutionary, far from it. The mass of workers are trapped in the union prison, and they alone can break down the walls.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 21, 2007 01:35 pm
Doesn&#39;t Luxemburg&#39;s shifting position on the German unions illustrate orthodox communist thinking on unions?

We are in favour of workers combining to take action, that is, setting up unions. Nevertheless we are not uncritical about the organizational form and political orientation those unions might take.

When Luxemburg dismisses the unions as anti-revolutionary, she&#39;s not writing-off those millions of workers who pay their dues. She&#39;s attacking the leaderships of those unions - in other words, the bureaucracy who&#39;s existence depends on the continuing survival of capitalism.
Yes... in a revolutionary crisis, it is reasonable to expect that workers will replace anti-revolutionary unions with new, stronger forms of organisation. It is completely different from believing that, in a non-revolutionary situation, workers should drop the unions, without replacing them by anything, or attempting to replace them with organisations that would only be able to survive in a revolutionary crisis.

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)I don’t know what you understand to be the ‘Bordigist’ conception of the party but one thing that Bordiga was very clear on in his struggle against the degeneration of the CI was the latter’s switch to trying to base the party on factory cells instead of territorial sections. For Bordiga this was an attempt to fixate the activity of the party membership on the day to day struggle in the factories rather than raising the awareness of all members about the global, political tasks facing the working class. Bordiga saw the ‘workerism’ being advocated under the banner of ‘Bolshevisation’ and the factory cell system as a channel for opportunism.[/b]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn&#39;t sure. Anyway, by Bordigist conception I meant the emphasis on the political struggle.


Alf
This is why I raised the point about the distinction between workers’ groups (which may well exist at the level of a particular workplace, though not exclusively so) and political groups which are formed around territorial sections; while the former may be a temporary regroupment around a minimum of class positions (eg opposition to unions, agitation for assemblies, etc), the latter has a much more permanent existence; it is formed around a coherent whole of historic lessons (a &#39;programme&#39;) and members join as communists not just as workers. It seems to me that your definition of a communist group falls between these two types of organism, which obey different needs within the class. I may be misinterpreting, so I hope we can debate this further.

Actually, I am differentiating between worker-built organizations (even though I always insist: workers&#39; collective assemblies are more then just "bodies", they are a direct relationship which is created between the workers) and communist-built, political, permanent, militant organizations.

But this difference between organizations which are created through economic and political struggle, if it is perpetuated by some negative factors, tends to become an artificial division - and causes many problems for the future. I think that the history of the communist left, its division on "council" and "bordigists", clearly proves that. I understand how you make of yourselves (ICC) an organization which tends to unite back these two tendencies, but we all must understand one important thing: it&#39;s not just enough to reunite two different emphases on two "types" of struggles (economic and political), but to create an organization which, not reunites, but transcends this artificial division.

So, it&#39;s important to go one step ahead and create an organization which wants to turn the political struggle into an economic one (to create constant connection with the workplaces, through action committees and such), and, at the same time, turn economic into political (to inspire political demands during the "economic" struggle of the workers and to use its agitation to promote solidarity and connection between workers&#39; collectives).

Maybe it seems that there will always be a group of real communists which will be ready to keep an organization at its place, to dedicate itself to "patient and conscious" building, but if that organization only thinks about its permanent character, and loses its connection with day to day struggle, this won&#39;t be the case. It will either fall apart and loose its members, or it will close itself up in sectarian blueprinted standby for the next wave of revolutions (something that "the Spartacist" tried to pin on me), for which we don&#39;t know when it will come.

The "two different needs within the class" should not be treated as such, as two separate tendencies, even reunited in the two directions of the struggle which the communist organization - even so - recognizes. That may not be enough. We may see how the class society itself pushes that separation, which, for the workers themselves, is essentially artificial. We must create an organization which transcends that difference by its intention to help the building not of political organization composed of workers drawn out of their workplaces but of working class collectives which step out with political demands.

[The Feral Underclass]

Need for United Action of Trade Unions and Social Democracy - Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch08.htm)

One aprticular quote from that chapter I find myself in utter agreement with:


Originally posted by Rosa
The specialisation of professional activity as trade-union leaders, as well as the naturally restricted horizon which is bound up with disconnected economic struggles in a peaceful period, leads only too easily, amongst trade-union officials, to bureaucratism and a certain narrowness of outlook.

[Alf]

DJ-TC: I have been thinking about how to respond to your last post on organisation. Your distinction between

"worker-built organizations (even though I always insist: workers&#39; collective assemblies are more then just "bodies", they are a direct relationship which is created between the workers) and communist-built, political, permanent, militant organizations"

makes things a lot clearer. Of course the latter have to have a permanent concern to intervene in the day to day struggle; the economic and the political, as Luxemburg shows in her Mass Strike pamphlet, constantly flow into each other.

In a healthy communist organisation, I don&#39;t see a danger of workers being "drawn out of their workplaces". A communist is a communist whether at work or outside it; there has to be a consistency between the two parts of his/her activity. Are you referring to the idea of taking workers out of the workplace in order to make them &#39;full time&#39;, paid activists? Communist groups today (as opposed to leftists) are hardly in a position to sustain this from the financial point of view. The issue may arise in the future, but for now we for our part encourage all our members to have jobs if possible - not only to &#39;maintain the link&#39; with the rest of the class, but also to financially support the organisation, which relies to a great extent on members&#39; contributions.

Perhaps our areas of agreement or disagreement would be clearer if we could talk in a more concrete manner. Do you see any historical precedents for the kind of organisation you favour? Are you yourself involved in a comparable effort today?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:49 pm
In a healthy communist organisation, I don&#39;t see a danger of workers being "drawn out of their workplaces". A communist is a communist whether at work or outside it; there has to be a consistency between the two parts of his/her activity.
Sure, but the problem of being fired is always present in a communist worker&#39;s life. A communist political organisation demands that its members expose themselves in action within the workplace; if the member gets fired for this reason, should their subsitence be an individual concern of those fired, or a collective concer of the organisation?


Are you referring to the idea of taking workers out of the workplace in order to make them &#39;full time&#39;, paid activists?

I can&#39;t speak for him, of course, but I would point to the need to sustain unemployed activists, and even employed activists whose job doesn&#39;t pay enough for a reasonable living standard.

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:49 pm
Are you referring to the idea of taking workers out of the workplace in order to make them &#39;full time&#39;, paid activists?

No, not at all. I am even against the "paid activist" or "revolutionary by profession" notions.

The emphasis is on practice. I want a revolutionary organization where center of attention is not on the organization itself but the workplace. It&#39;s about the direction. I thought I was clear when I said that...

...We must create an organization which transcends that difference by its intention to help the building not of political organization composed of workers drawn out of their workplaces but of working class collectives which step out with political demands.

In other words, organization which is orientated to the workplaces, solidarity, unity, direct workgroup-action, and not revolutionary organizations as themselves, programmes, etc.


Are you yourself involved in a comparable effort today?

Not yet. Hopefully, I will be soon. I have something in plan.