communist league

[Red Scare]

I am wondering what people think about this organization, since they do not claim to have any specific kind of communist ideology on their site as far as I know

[Rawthentic]

Its a non-sectarian organization that is united around communist principles, not some doctrine from the early 20th century. Tactics, strategies, etc., are democratically decided upon.

[Raúl Duke]

What are the differences between CL and the FPM? I heard they were once allied/together.

[cenv]

LftP summed it up pretty well. We have members from all sorts of different "isms" -- everything from "libertarian communism" to "Marxism-Leninism." Our internal structure is both coordinated and democratic, so everyone's happy with that. We're more concentrated on developing class consciousness and advocating working-class self-emancipation than pushing a particular historical school of thought. And our membership is entirely working-class (we also have some petty-bourgeois supporters).

JohnnyDarko, they are separate organizations. They used to work together, but there was a disagreement between them. You should search the forum for the thread on it here at RevLeft if you're interested... I don't think we should bring that conflict back in this topic.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think we should bring that conflict back in this topic.

I have no intention really about bringing conflict to this topic....

I only wanted to be informed more about the background of CL, which sounds somewhat interesting but I doubt I can/will join.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Their members and supporters are great comrades in my experience with the few i've met or talked too but they're really small and new. They haven't released a publication since the begining of summer and their main publication is a double sided leaflet. Also they have a worker-only policy which i have some critiscisms on.

[cenv]

They haven't released a publication since the begining of summer and their main publication is a double sided leaflet.
This makes it sound like we almost never release publications, which isn't the case. We've been in what I'd call a transitional stage since July, with a lot of internal changes, but if you go to the archives of our publications on our website, you'll notice that we released publications very regularly until July.

Also, we have several publications. The one that you're calling our "main publication" is our shortest publication.

And those curious about the prole only policy should search for some of the other threads on it here. It's been discussed extensively.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I assumed its the main one since the one time I've run into a CLer at a rally in Philadelphia, this was the only publication he carried with him.

[Rawthentic]

The Worker, what Henry is referring to, is the CL's main publication.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I feel like a party should have one regular publication. Otherwise you run into such confusion. Also, you don't divide articles and focus on different publication, all energy is put into one publication, and the party is known for that publication. Just an opinion I thought I'd throw out there.

[cenv]

I agree with that, actually.

Or at least, one publication per country the organization is active in.

[RNK]

It depends on the type of publication. Organizations can have weekly articles, monthly newspapers, and yearly magazines, for instance.

[ComradeR]

What's the estimated size of the CL?

[Rawthentic]

I'm not giving numbers, but its fairly decent in terms of size after 3 years of existence, including members in some countries around the world.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 02, 2007 02:00 pm
I'm not giving numbers, but its fairly decent in terms of size after 3 years of existence, including members in some countries around the world.
Another question, do you have any Washington state branches?

[Raúl Duke]

Is there a branch in Miami? I might have some friends who could be interested.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

JD, look over the materials on both of the organization's sites if you're interested in the differences between them:

FPM (http://www.fpm-mgl.org)

CL (http://www.comleague.org)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:57 pm
LftP summed it up pretty well. We have members from all sorts of different "isms" -- everything from "libertarian communism" to "Marxism-Leninism."
^^^ Why do you have anarchists in your group? :huh:

If there is one "sectarian" divide I'm all for (not just "OK with"), it's between the anarchists and so-called "state socialists."


I feel like a party should have one regular publication. Otherwise you run into such confusion. Also, you don't divide articles and focus on different publication, all energy is put into one publication, and the party is known for that publication. Just an opinion I thought I'd throw out there.

The publication can contain only so much material, though. There is so much material that can be covered that potentially every issue can be a book's length.

I'm of the opinion of two or three publications, but with only one political publication. After all, while something like culture can be political at times, at other times it isn't.

[cenv]

We allow anyone who agrees with the basic principles of our organization. Labels are superfluous.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:09 am
We allow anyone who agrees with the basic principles of our organization. Labels are superfluous.
While I do see the point of this, doesn't it leave the league open to internal strife especially during a revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by ComradeR+September 04, 2007 03:14 am--> (ComradeR @ September 04, 2007 03:14 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 04:09 am
We allow anyone who agrees with the basic principles of our organization. Labels are superfluous.
While I do see the point of this, doesn't it leave the league open to internal strife especially during a revolution? [/b]
From what I've read, they're diverse mainly on purely historical questions. I don't think even the "Stalinists" in the CL are as accommodating in their current activities as Stalin was with regards to the Provisional Government. Otherwise, why didn't they join the "main" national Communist party in the first place (like the CPUSA)?

My real concern, as I pointed out above, is with the anarchists in that organization and their get-rid-of-the-state-now attitude.

[cenv]

While I do see the point of this, doesn't it leave the league open to internal strife especially during a revolution?
Obviously not everyone is going to have the same views. But we can agree on the fundamentals and on what needs to be done. Our task right now is to spread class consciousness, not lead a revolution. We are a political organization, not a mass organization. Unlike some other "parties," we don't pretend to be the vanguard of the proletariat.



My real concern, as I pointed out above, is with the anarchists in that organization and their get-rid-of-the-state-now attitude.
As long as they agree with the basic principles, it doesn't matter how they define the term "state."

[Rawthentic]

As long as they agree with the basic principles, it doesn't matter how they define the term "state."
Err...yes, it does cenv. Communists are in the Communist League, and referring to the state as an evil entity is a-materialist and therefore anti-communist. If they don't understand what a state is, it would be the duty of the members to correctly educate them for what it is (an organ of class rule).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:34 pm
[QUOTE]Our task right now is to spread class consciousness, not lead a revolution. We are a political organization, not a mass organization. Unlike some other "parties," we don't pretend to be the vanguard of the proletariat.
Ah, but do you think the CL is capable in the future of forming a singular international vanguard of the proletariat (harking back to my "international socialist party with national 'cells'" thread)?

Then we'll have to go back to that question of militant vs. sympathizer: will the CL become the mass organization to complement the vanguard?

[Now I see why your "organization" isn't that centralized yet. :) ]

[Red Radical]

does the CL have a Southern California branch? If so can you please PM me on how I would go about joining. Thank you.

[cenv]

Err...yes, it does cenv. Communists are in the Communist League, and referring to the state as an evil entity is a-materialist and therefore anti-communist. If they don't understand what a state is, it would be the duty of the members to correctly educate them for what it is (an organ of class rule).
Oh, please... if you don't know how anarchists define the state, just do a quick search. Definitions are definitions. Just because Karl Marx used one definition doesn't mean that it is somehow the "correct" definition. As far as I'm concerned, as long as members agree with the League's basic principles, understand what one another are talking about, and are working in the same direction, it doesn't matter whether they tend to use an "un-Marxist" definition of "state."


Ah, but do you think the CL is capable in the future of forming a singular international vanguard of the proletariat (harking back to my "international socialist party with national 'cells'" thread)?
To be honest with you, I don't really see any party that exists becoming the "singular international vanguard of the proletariat." In fact, I'm skeptical that working-class liberation will be accomplished via a single Bolshevik-style "vanguard party" -- but that's a point for a different thread.

Basically it boils down to this: we are a political organization, not a mass organization, and at this point, any discussion about becoming the "singular international vanguard of the proletariat" is nothing more than mental masturbation.


Then we'll have to go back to that question of militant vs. sympathizer: will the CL become the mass organization to complement the vanguard?
Again, I don't see any of the current organizations becoming "the mass organization to complement the vanguard." I think the organizations who talk about how they will be the holy party to lead the proletariat to victory are really just indulging in pretentious fantasizing.


does the CL have a Southern California branch? If so can you please PM me on how I would go about joining. Thank you.

Glad you're interested. I'll PM you with more info.

[Raúl Duke]

Is the difference only that the CL doesn't take in "Petit bourgeoisie", including managers, etc. while the FPM takes them in?

Was it this reason why they split?

Are they organized differently as well? The FPM states to uses a delegate system with "popular initiative" and "mass participation".

[Red Scare]

wait wait wait..... I thought the point of a communist society is to eventually abolish most of the state, and for the nation to be ruled by workers

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

JD: No the FPM doesn't allow petty-bourgeois members either. Members of the petty-bourgeois can only join as supporting members, and then they have no vote.

The groups are organized differently, have a different approach and have different positions on a number of things (i.e. Cuba, Oaxaca, etc.).

[Rawthentic]

Oh, please... if you don't know how anarchists define the state, just do a quick search. Definitions are definitions. Just because Karl Marx used one definition doesn't mean that it is somehow the "correct" definition. As far as I'm concerned, as long as members agree with the League's basic principles, understand what one another are talking about, and are working in the same direction, it doesn't matter whether they tend to use an "un-Marxist" definition of "state."
You have got to be joking, the only thing you are doing is throwing communist theory out the window. If theres a new member that doesnt define state in the correct sense, (s)he can be damn sure that we'll correct them. I can just imagine in a communist party with two different members arguing over the correct definition of the state. In the CL's principles, it talks of how the proletariat will have to rise to be the ruling class, but this understanding stems from the fact that the state is an organ to preserve class rule, albeit the fundamental role of the proletarian state is to abolish all class divisions, the state, etc.

If members don't agree over this, then the criticism of the CL that it is "a bunch of headless chickens doing their own thing", becomes true.

[cenv]

Was it this reason why they split?
To clarify, they have always been two distinct organizations.


You have got to be joking, the only thing you are doing is throwing communist theory out the window. If theres a new member that doesnt define state in the correct sense, (s)he can be damn sure that we'll correct them. I can just imagine in a communist party with two different members arguing over the correct definition of the state. In the CL's principles, it talks of how the proletariat will have to rise to be the ruling class, but this understanding stems from the fact that the state is an organ to preserve class rule, albeit the fundamental role of the proletarian state is to abolish all class divisions, the state, etc.
*Sigh*

[Rawthentic]

*Sigh*

;)

[Taboo Tongue]

The only large thing I have against The CL (and the FPM) is their classification of managers as petty-bourgeois. Managers often DO take on the Petty Bourgeois ideology and asshole-ness-ness (I just got of work an hour and a half ago and am overwhelmed with examples), including thinking your labour is theirs.
However... Not all managers are like this. Stephanie, who was replaced by my current manager, did not take on an 'I am above you' at all. She worked with you at most times, and if not then she talked with you; she would make sure you were in the restaurant and not roaming around the building, but that's about it for being over you.
My girlfriend works at McDonald's and it is fairly clear which bosses think they are above you and which are trying to make things go smooth and count money.

If it wasn't for this classification of managers being petty-bourgeois I would have probably joined the FPM.

[Janus]

However... Not all managers are like this.
Obviously there are isolated cases particularly in small businesses but for the most part a manager, as described by their job description, merely revolves around managing and ordering subordinates around. Someone's personality doesn't change the nature of this economical relationship. A nice boss is still...a boss.

I think the confusion revolving around whether managers are petit bourgeois or not is due to the fact that management is currently split into many levels with certain management positions being little more than titles while others fit the classic definition of manager.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue+September 09, 2007 08:28 am--> (Taboo Tongue @ September 09, 2007 08:28 am) However... Not all managers are like this. Stephanie, who was replaced by my current manager, did not take on an 'I am above you' at all. She worked with you at most times, and if not then she talked with you; she would make sure you were in the restaurant and not roaming around the building, but that's about it for being over you.
My girlfriend works at McDonald's and it is fairly clear which bosses think they are above you and which are trying to make things go smooth and count money.
[/b]

Janus

However... Not all managers are like this.
Obviously there are isolated cases particularly in small businesses but for the most part a manager, as described by their job description, merely revolves around managing and ordering subordinates around. I think the confusion revolving around whether managers are petit bourgeois or not is due to the fact that management is currently split into many levels with certain management positions being little more than titles while others fit the classic definition of manager.

I think TT doesn't really understand the concept of class. It is not about whether people are nice people, or not. It is about their relationship to the means of production.

Devrim

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:47 pm
I think TT doesn't really understand the concept of class.
Based on my previous post I know where you'recoming from, and it would appear so. However, it is precisely because of their relation to the means of productions that I consider them to be the very upper most part of the proletariat.

Class is as you said based on a persons "relationship to the means of production."
Managers do not own the means of production, in other words they are not capitalist.
Because of that they are stuck to sell themselves for wages, just like all workers. The fact that the capitalist gave them a different job, including a slightly different relation to labour, does not change their relation to the MOP.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It is not about whether people are nice people, or not. It is about their relationship to the means of production.

Right.


Managers do not own the means of production, in other words they are not capitalist.

No, that's not what the means, necessarily. A lot of people who don't "own the means of production" aren't proletarians, among them managers, police, CIA and FBI members, army generals, pimps, etc.


Because of that they are stuck to sell themselves for wages, just like all workers. The fact that the capitalist gave them a different job, including a slightly different relation to labour, does not change their relation to the MOP.

Likewise, working for a wage does not necessarily make you a proletarian. I recommend going back to Marx on this, especially Capital & The Communist Manifesto (Chp. 3, Section 1. B.).

Look, a manager ("overlooker") with the power to hire and fire, with temporarily administrative control over the means of production is petty-bourgeoisie. Not every member of the petty-bourgeoisie owns a small shop, there are also petty-bourgeois employees.


If it wasn't for this classification of managers being petty-bourgeois I would have probably joined the FPM.

It's a classification that is at the bedrock of communist theory, rooted in the understanding of class first laid out by Karl Marx.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue+September 10, 2007 04:15 am--> (Taboo Tongue @ September 10, 2007 04:15 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 03:47 pm
I think TT doesn't really understand the concept of class.
Based on my previous post I know where you'recoming from, and it would appear so. However, it is precisely because of their relation to the means of productions that I consider them to be the very upper most part of the proletariat.

Class is as you said based on a persons "relationship to the means of production."
Managers do not own the means of production, in other words they are not capitalist.
Because of that they are stuck to sell themselves for wages, just like all workers. The fact that the capitalist gave them a different job, including a slightly different relation to labour, does not change their relation to the MOP. [/b]
I don't want to get into a discussion about the class status of the lowest level of management/supervision at McDonalds. They may well be proletarians. They may not be. I don't know that much about them. The point is though that it is not connected to how 'nice' they are.

Devrim